Assessment for the project, which demonstrated that there is adequate capacity to adequately serve the anticipated buildout of the TCSP, AEN, and Housing Element sites.
UWMPs are required to be updated on a five-year cycle and the next update to the PDMWD UWMP is anticipated by 2025. Future UWMP updates would account for the anticipated water use associated with future development consistent with the adopted TCSP and approved Water Supply Assessment. While the proposed TCSP area would add development potential within the City, it would primarily authorize higher density residential development which is more water efficient than single-family residential development. Based on the water efficiency of multi-family development, water conservation requirements, along with existing regulations that require new construction to be water efficient, it is not anticipated that the project would affect the ability of PDMWD to plan for adequate water supplies within the City during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. As the PDMWD and SDCWA consider water supply on a regional basis for their entire service areas, the project’s incremental contribution to water system/water supply impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
Cumulative impacts related to solid waste disposal would be less than significant because an existing regulatory framework is in place, detailed in Section 4.18.8, that would apply to future development associated with the project in addition to cumulative development within the City. Future development in the TCSP area, AEN and Housing Element sites is located within existing developed areas with access to solid waste disposal services. No development is proposed as part of the project; however, it is anticipated that future projects would result in an increase in solid waste generation. Solid waste requirements associated with the future development of the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites would be evaluated upon submittal of project-specific development plans. All projects would be reviewed for conformance with state and local regulations and adherence to General Plan and TCSP policies. Thus, with implementation of the existing regulatory framework addressing solid waste disposal, the project’s incremental contribution to solid waste disposal impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. (Draft PEIR, p. 7-11 through 7-12)
S. WILDFIRE
The study area for the assessment of cumulative impacts related to wildfire is the City.
Development within the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites would not physically interfere with any emergency response or evacuation plans because they would not include any features that would prevent continued implementation of these plans.
Additionally, applicable General Plan Safety Element policies would continue to be implemented to ensure adequate citywide emergency response and preparedness. While none of the project components are within or adjacent to VHFHSZ, the project is within the WUI and could potentially result in impacts related to wildfire. However, future development within the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites would be required to adhere to all regulatory requirements in place to minimize wildfire hazards including applicable sections of the SMC, fire and building codes, and requirements from the fire marshal that would be identified during future building permit reviews. Additionally, implementation of the City’s General Plan policies support implementation of measures Findings
that will enhance wildfire safety. Future development projects would require review by the Building Official/Fire Marshal. All impacts associated with infrastructure improvements including any required measures to address fire safety would be evaluated in their respective subsequent environmental documents for discretionary projects, as necessary.
The City fire marshal may also use their authority to require additional building, planning, or landscaping requirements that provide enhanced fire protection. Development would be required to comply with applicable regulations and policies related to flooding, drainage patterns, and landslides, and thereby avoid significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. Like the project, all future development in the City would be required to comply with applicable SMC and building and fire code regulations that would reduce the potential for cumulative impacts. The project’s incremental contribution to impacts related to wildfire would not be cumulatively considerable. (Draft PEIR, p. 7-12 through 7-13) Findings
SECTION VI.
FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL
CHANGES
Sections 15126(c) and 15126.2(c) of the CEQA Guidelines, require that an EIR address any significant irreversible environmental changes that would occur should the project be implemented. Generally, a project would result in significant irreversible environmental changes if any of the following would occur:
• The project would involve a large commitment of non-renewable resources; • The primary and secondary impacts of the project would generally commit future generations to similar uses;
• The project involves uses in which irreversible damage could result from any potential environmental accidents; or
• The proposed consumption of resources is not justified.
Implementation of the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites would result in a significant, unavoidable impact related to net Increases of criteria pollutants and VMT at the project and cumulative levels. All other significant impacts identified in Chapter 4.0, Environmental Analysis, of the EIR can be reduced to below a level of significance with implementation of the mitigation framework provided in Chapter 4.0 of this EIR.
Non-renewable Resources. The majority of the TCSP area and AEN are located within existing developed or disturbed areas; however, the Housing Element sites are located on vacant land with potentially sensitive resources present. While the potential for impacts to biological habitat and cultural resources is low, there is a potential for impacts to resources at certain sites. Biological and cultural resource impacts associated with future development would be mitigated to a level less than significant, as described in Sections
4.4 and 4.5. The potential for paleontological resources impacts to occur associated with future development at the Housing Element sites would be mitigated to less than significant (Section 4.7) with implementation of a mitigation framework that would ensure paleontological monitoring is required (where appropriate). Implementation of the project would result in less than significant impacts to water bodies (drainage and water quality) as described in Section 4.10.
As described in Section 4.2, the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program classifies the majority of the Rezone Sites as “Urban and Built Up Land,” “Other Land,” and “Grazing Land.” The areas classified as “Grazing Lands” are not considered a significant farmland resource under CEQA. Portions of the project area are classified as “Farmland of Local Importance;” however, there is no recent history of agricultural use at these sites. There are no lands protected by a Williamson Act Contract within the City. Additionally, there is no forestland within the City, and the City does not possess any zoning classifications for Findings
forestland, timberland, or timberland production zones. Therefore, no impacts to agricultural and forestry resources would occur.
Although portions of the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites in the vicinity of the San Diego River are located within a Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ) 2 designated area, these areas are not zoned for mining operations and no mining operations exist within the sites. While these lands may support mineral resources, mining operations at these sites would not be feasible considering the proximity to sensitive receptors and existing established neighborhoods. Furthermore, the project area is not designated as locally important mineral resource recovery sites in the City’s General Plan. Therefore, the project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource or locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan, and impacts would be less than significant.
With regard to energy resources, actions related to future development would result in an irretrievable commitment of nonrenewable resources, including energy supplies and construction materials, such as lumber, steel, and aggregate. Non-renewable energy resources (coal, natural gas, oil) would be used in construction, heating and refrigeration of food and water, transportation, lighting, and other associated energy needs.
Residential and mixed-use development anticipated within the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites, together with other projects in the City, would require the commitment or destruction of other nonrenewable and slowly renewable resources. These resources include (but are not limited to) lumber and other forested products; sand and gravel; asphalt; petrochemical construction materials; steel, copper, lead, other metals; and water. However, the amount and rate of consumption of these resources would not result in significant environmental impacts because multi-family and mixed-use development are not uses that are associated with an unnecessary, inefficient, or wasteful use of resources.
As described previously, the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites are mainly developed with existing commercial uses or located on underutilized residential sites.
Development in these areas would reinvigorate underutilized areas by allowing new residential uses in close proximity to commercial services and community facilities, while preserving established residential neighborhoods. Most of the project areas are presently developed. Development on vacant parcels would, however, result in the long term commitment to urbanization because reversion back to vacant land would be difficult and highly unlikely. However, the development of mid- to high-density residential units or mixed uses would result in an efficient provision of housing and efficient land use pattern.
In summary, future construction and operation associated with implementation of the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites would result in the irretrievable commitment of limited, slowly renewable, and nonrenewable resources, which would limit the availability of these particular resource quantities for future generations or for other uses.
Therefore, although irreversible environmental changes would result from future development, such changes would not be considered significant.
Findings
Secondary Impacts. The TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites are accessible via major roadways (e.g., SR 52, 67, and 125, as well as numerous arterials and local streets) and are served by existing utilities, and other public services. As a result, secondary impacts are not anticipated from environmental changes resulting from the construction of new infrastructure, as discussed in Sections 4.14 and 4.18.
Environmental Accidents. The CEQA Guidelines also require a discussion of the potential for irreversible environmental damage caused by an accident associated with the project. As described in Section 4.9, implementation of the proposed project would allow for the development of residential and mixed-uses (including commercial uses) that commonly store, use, and dispose of hazardous materials. Likewise, industries and businesses using hazardous materials may expand or increase to accommodate the projected population growth under buildout of the project.
Due to the nature of past and current land uses, future development/redevelopment within the City has the potential to expose people and the environment to hazards through the routine transport, use, disposal, or accidental release of hazardous materials. Businesses that are likely to store hazardous substances and petroleum products or generate waste include the following: gasoline service stations, automobile repair facilities, dry cleaning facilities, photograph developing facilities, and medical and dental facilities. While none of these uses are explicitly planned in the TCSP area, AEN, or Housing Element sites, future projects could propose these uses.
All future projects would be subject to review to ensure conformance with the Municipal Code, General Plan policies, and regulations imposed by federal, state, and local agencies. Compliance with applicable federal, state, and local hazardous materials regulations such as the Chemical Accident Prevention Provision, Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, the California Health and Safety Code, California Code of Regulations Title 23, the Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act, California Accidental Release Prevention Program, and the California Emergency Services Act would ensure that buildout of the Housing Element sites would not result in irreversible environmental damage related to the accidental release of hazardous materials. (Draft PEIR, pp. 5-1 through 5-3)
Findings
SECTION VII.
GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS
Section 15126.2(e) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires a Draft EIR to discuss the ways the Project could foster economic or population growth or the construction of additional housing, directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(e), a Project would be considered to have a growth-inducing effect if it would:
• Directly or indirectly foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing in the surrounding environment;
• Remove obstacles to population growth (e.g., construction of an infrastructure expansion to allow for more construction in service areas); • Tax existing community service facilities, requiring the construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental effects; or • Encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively.
In addition, CEQA Guidelines state that growth inducement must not be assumed.
Population and Housing Growth. The project would result in the expansion of the boundaries of the overall TCSP area and create updated development standards, and conceptual development plans and Objective Design Standards for Housing Element sites. Buildout of the TCSP would result in an increase of approximately 3,140 dwelling units and 2,287,189 sf of non-residential development in the TCSP area. Of that growth, 1,480 dwelling units and 1,792,103 sf of non-residential development would be within the AEN. Development at Housing Element sites 16A, 16B, 20A, and 20B would result in an increase of 1,480 dwelling units and 389,651 sf of non-residential development pursuant to the maximum densities permitted in the City’s adopted 6th Cycle Housing Element and state density bonus assumptions. Non-residential development throughout the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites would generally be composed of local neighborhood-serving retail and office uses, intended to serve the residents of new and existing housing in the immediate area. The potential for new residential and nonresidential development within the TCSP area would foster economic growth consistent with the City’s General Plan (see EIR Section 4.13.5 for more discussion on population growth). Buildout of the TCSP would therefore be consistent with existing projections for development in the City and would not be considered growth inducing in regard to significant economic or employment growth.
Removal of an Impediment to Growth. The project does not propose the construction or expansion of new services or infrastructure to currently unserved or undeveloped areas; rather it would update the TCSP to facilitate development and supporting infrastructure consistent with the City’s General Plan, including its most recently adopted Housing Findings
Element. A vast majority of the permitted future residential and mixed-use development would occur as infill development and redevelopment within the urbanized TCSP area, which is already served by essential roads, utilities, and public services. Therefore, the project would not remove an impediment to growth.
Foster Economic or Employment Growth. Buildout of the TCSP area would result in an increase of approximately 2,287,189 sf of non-residential development in the TCSP area, including 1,792,103 sf of non-residential development within the AEN. Development at Housing Element sites 16A, 16B, 20A, and 20B would also result in an increase of 389,651 sf of non-residential development. New non-residential development would generally be composed of local neighborhood-serving retail and office uses, intended to serve the residents of existing and planned housing in the immediate area. Economic and employment growth because of the additional development would be consistent with the City’s growth projections within their General Plan and would not be considered growth inducing in regard to significant economic or employment growth for the City.
Conclusion. Overall, the project would facilitate growth through updating the TCSP area and development standards, consistent with the City’s General Plan, including its most recently adopted Housing Element. The project would not remove an impediment to growth; nor does it propose to develop or permit the encroachment into an isolated area adjacent to open space or foster economic and employment expansion. As discussed above, the project would accommodate projected population growth and would not be considered growth inducing because it would provide residential and non-residential capacity for projected population growth. The opportunities to provide housing would be consistent with the City’s need to establish a resilient housing base for the community and to comply with state law. (Draft PEIR, pp. 6-1 through 6-2) Findings
SECTION VIII.
ALTERNATIVES
A. BACKGROUND
The Draft PEIR analyzed two alternatives to the project as proposed and evaluated these alternatives for their ability to avoid or reduce the project’s significant environmental effects while also meeting the majority of the project’s objectives. The City finds that it has considered and rejected as infeasible the alternatives identified in the EIR and described below. This section sets forth the potential alternatives to the project analyzed in the EIR and evaluates them in light of the project objectives, as required by CEQA.
Where significant impacts are identified, section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires EIRs to consider and discuss alternatives to the proposed actions.
Subsection (a) states:
(a) An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision-making and public participation. An EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible. The lead agency is responsible for selecting a range of project alternatives for examination and must publicly disclose its reasoning for selecting those alternatives. There is no ironclad rule governing the nature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed other than the rule of reason.
Subsection 15126.6(b) states the purpose of the alternatives analysis:
(b) Because an EIR must identify ways to mitigate or avoid the significant effects that a project may have on the environment (Public Resources Code Section 21002.1), the discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly.
In subsection 15126.6(c), the State CEQA Guidelines describe the selection process for a range of reasonable alternatives:
(c) The range of potential alternatives to the proposed project shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the Project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects. The EIR should briefly describe the rationale for selecting the alternatives to be Findings
discussed. The EIR should also identify any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were rejected as infeasible during the scoping process and briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency’s determination. Additional information explaining the choice of alternatives may be included in the administrative record. Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are: (i) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, (ii) infeasibility, or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts.
The range of alternatives required is governed by a “rule of reason” that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The EIR shall include sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed Project. Alternatives are limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the Project.
Of those alternatives, the EIR need examine in detail only the ones that the lead agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Project.
B. PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The following objectives have been established for the Project (Draft PEIR, pp. 9-1 through 9-2):
• Allow for a unified comprehensive open space system to be an integral part of the basic design concept of the TCSP area. The river shall be an open space area for the benefit of the community;
• Provide and encourage both active and passive recreational opportunities to help meet the recreational needs of the community;
• Establish criteria for architectural designs and concepts that reinforce the sense of community identity and support high quality development. These criteria should foster uniqueness and cohesive design enhancing Santee’s character; • Use landscape design to enhance the quality of the environment, resiliency of the community, and contribute to high quality, safe, and sustainable development; • Provide for the development of a varied, safe, efficient, and cost-effective transportation system to adequately support the mobility needs of the TCSP area with minimal negative impact on the community;
• Provide a variety of housing types and sizes with a mixture of ownership and rental housing;
• Create a variety of commercial and office/professional opportunities to provide goods, services, and employment opportunities to the region and establish the TCSP area as an activity center of the community;
Findings
• Incorporate community-serving, civic, and public uses within the TCSP area to become focal points for residents and visitors to enjoy; • Limit new institutional uses within the TCSP area;
• Establish employment-supportive uses as part of new developments to provide job opportunities for the community and establish revenue sources within the TCSP area. These should include research and development and office/ professional types of uses; and
• Provide for housing development opportunities on Housing Element sites 16A, 16B, 20A, and 20B consistent with the City’s adopted Housing Element for 2021-2029 C. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED FROM DETAILED
ANALYSIS
Section 15126.6(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines specifies that an EIR should (1) identify alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were eliminated from detailed consideration because they were determined to be infeasible during the scoping process; and (2) briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency’s determination.
Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are: (i) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives; (ii) infeasibility; and/or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts.
Four alternatives were considered but rejected and are not analyzed further.
Specifically, a No Project (No Build) Alternative was considered which would assume existing conditions would remain and buildout of the vacant areas subject to the adopted TCSP would not occur. This alternative was rejected because the adopted TCSP would continue to guide land use and development decisions within the TCSP area, and development would continue to be allowed within the project area per existing plans and regulation. A “no build” alternative is more commonly included in an alternatives analysis if the applicant or Lead Agency has the authority or ability to not develop a project and maintain existing conditions.
Other alternatives considered but rejected included two reduced residential alternatives. The Reduced Residential Alternative (Site 20A) considered changing the land uses of Site 20A from Residential TC-R-22 MU to Park/Open Space but was rejected as it would not implement the adopted Housing Element. Similarly, a Reduced Residential Alternative (sites 16A, 16B, 20A, and 20B) was considered to reduce the density at each of the Housing Element sites; however, this alternative was rejected as it would also not implement the adopted and certified Housing Element. Lastly, an Increased Institutional Alternative (sites 20A and 20B) was considered that would change the zoning at Housing Element Sites 20A and 20B from Residential TC-R-22 MU to Institutional at the request of the County of San Diego Department of General Services; however, this alternative would also not implement the adopted and certified Housing Element. It is important for the City to have an adopted and certified Housing Element because when a jurisdiction’s Housing Findings
Element is found to be out of compliance, its General Plan is at risk of being deemed inadequate, and therefore, invalid. Cities without a valid Housing Element may also be at risk of losing state and federal funding for certain activities.
D. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR ANALYSIS
The alternatives selected for further detailed review within the EIR focus on alternatives that could the Project’s significant environmental impacts, while still meeting most of the basic Project objectives. Those alternatives include:
• Alternative 1: No Project (No Rezone Program) Alternative (Draft PEIR, pp. 9-4 through 9-10)
• Alternative 2: Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative (Draft PEIR, pp. 9-10 through 9-17)
• Alternative 3: Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative (Draft PEIR, pp. 9-17 through 9-23)
• Alternative 4: No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative (Draft PEIR, pp. 9-23 through 9-30)
1. Alternative 1: No Project (No Rezone Program) Alternative Description: Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3)(A), the No Project Alternative represents the continued implementation of the TCSP land use and development standards, including the current boundaries of the overall TCSP area and existing Arts and Entertainment Overlay District (AEOD) boundary. Under the No Project Alternative, development within the current TCSP area boundaries would proceed pursuant to the adopted TCSP and 2021-2029 Housing Element and would not include updated development standards and conceptual development plans and design standards for Housing Element sites 16A, 16B, 20A, and 20B. Also, the No Project Alternative would not include the proposed roadway network upgrades and roadway connections or associated pedestrian and bicycle improvements, including the River Bridge spanning the San Diego River. Other improvements identified in the TCSP, including outdoor events in the AEN, would not be included in the TCSP as proposed under the project. (Draft PEIR, p. 9-4) Impacts
a. Aesthetics
Under the No Project Alternative, development within the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites would be subject to the existing TCSP as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC. The No Project Alternative would not result in the expansion of the TCSP area and AEN and the updated development Findings
standards and conceptual development plans and design standards for Housing Element sites 16A, 16B, 20A, and 20B. Although the proposed TCSP development and design standards would not apply to future development in the TCSP area and AEN and conceptual designs for the Housing Element sites would not be part of the TCSP, development could proceed based on the existing TCSP. Development under the No Project Alternative would be subject to Development review consistent with SMC Chapter 13.08 to ensure consistency with General Plan policies and applicable design and development review requirements including the existing design guidelines in the adopted TCSP. The development review process would ensure that future development would not degrade scenic vistas, scenic resources, or visual quality. Compliance with SMC standards related to light and glare (Chapter 13.08.070(G)), requiring that outdoor lighting be directed away from adjacent properties and set in a way to avoid any detriment to the surrounding area and lighting standards of the Community Enhancement Element would ensure that future development would not result in impacts related to light and glare. A mitigation measure identified to address potential impacts to the Edgemoor Polo Barn near Housing Element sites 20A and 20B (MM CUL-5) would not be implemented under the No Project Alternative; however, development within Housing Element sites 20A and 20B would still be required to demonstrate compliance with the Secretary of Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Potentially significant aesthetics impacts under the No Project Alternative would be similar to the project as the potential for development of Housing Element sites 20A and 20B has the potential to damage views of an historic resource at the Edgemoor Polo Barn. b. Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Under the No Project Alternative, development within the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites would be subject to the adopted TCSP as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC. While the proposed development and design standards and conceptual designs for Housing Element sites 16A, 16B, 20A, and 20B would not be adopted as part of the TCSP, areas identified as Farmland of Local Importance in the TCSP area and AEN would still be developed and would similarly result in less than significant impacts as these areas are identified for development and do not contain active agricultural uses. Therefore, impacts associated with agriculture and forestry resources under the No Project Alternative would be less than significant and similar to the project.
c. Air Quality
Future development under the No Project Alternative would be subject to the development standards in the adopted TCSP, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC, and therefore would be consistent with the existing growth Findings
projections for which RAQS are based. Development potential would be similar compared to the project since there are no increases in density or development intensity associated with the project. Construction time frames and equipment for site-specific development projects are not available at this time, and there is a potential for multiple development projects to be constructed at one time, resulting in significant construction-related emissions. While future development under this alternative would be required to implement mitigation measures documented in the City’s General Plan, mitigation for air quality impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Therefore, impacts associated with air quality under the No Project Alternative would be significant and unavoidable, similar to the project.
d. Biological Resources
Future development under the No Project Alternative would occur as guided under the adopted TCSP, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC. The No Project Alternative would not include the River Bridge or outdoor performance uses in the AEN as these details are not identified in the adopted TCSP. Although not including the River Bridge and not allowing outdoor performances in the AEN would avoid some of the potential impacts to biological resources associated with the project, development consistent with the existing TCSP could still occur within areas that support sensitive biological resources.
Future development under the No Project Alternative would be subject to implementation of mitigation measures documented in the City’s General Plan for biological resources, which would reduce impacts related to sensitive species, sensitive habitats, and wetlands to a level less than significant. Applicable federal, state, and local regulations would also apply, such as the FESA, MBTA, CFG Code, and San Diego County MSCP. Not constructing the River Bridge and not allowing outdoor performance uses in the AEN under the No Project Alternative would avoid some of the potentially significant project impacts on the biological resources along the San Diego River. Therefore, impacts related to biological resources under the No Project Alternative would remain less than significant with mitigation and would have slightly less impacts compared to the project. e. Cultural Resources
Future development under the No Project Alternative would occur pursuant to the City’s adopted TCSP, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC.
The No Project Alternative would not include the River Bridge, as it is not included in the adopted TCSP. Future development under this alternative would be required to implement mitigation measures documented in the City’s General Plan for cultural resources. As described in Section 4.5, the Findings
project would result in less than significant cultural resources impacts with mitigation incorporated. Both the No Project Alternative and the proposed project would similarly result in potential impacts on historic resources due to the proximity of Housing Element sites 20A and 20B to the Edgemoor Polo Barn. The No Project Alternative would not include the River Bridge which is located within an area identified for moderate potential to contain eligible buried archaeological sites, and the potential for cultural resources impacts would be slightly reduced. Therefore, impacts related to cultural resources under the No Project Alternative would be less than significant with mitigation, slightly less than the project.
f. Energy
Future development under the No Project Alternative would be subject to the City’s adopted TCSP land use plan and zoning, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC, and would not be subject to the development and design standards and conceptual designs provided in the updated TCSP. Future development under the No Project Alternative would not result in increased energy use compared to the project as no changes to land uses or zoning are proposed. Therefore, impacts associated with energy would be less than significant, similar to the project.
g. Geology and Soils
Future development under the No Project Alternative would be subject to the City’s adopted TCSP land use plan and zoning, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC, and would not be subject to the development and design standards and conceptual designs provided in the updated TCSP. The No Project Alternative would support development consistent with the existing TCSP which could be subject to potential geologic hazards. Adherence to Safety Element policies, the SMC, and the CBC would ensure that future development under this alternative would not cause substantial adverse effects associated with fault rupture, ground shaking, liquefaction, landslide, or expansive soils, and impacts would be less than significant. Similarly, adherence to applicable SMC requirements would ensure that future development under this alternative would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil, and impacts would be less than significant.
Implementation of mitigation measures documented in the City’s General Plan for paleontological resources would reduce impacts related to paleontological resources to a level less than significant. Therefore, impacts related to geology and soils under the No Project Alternative would be mitigated to a level less than significant, similar to the project.
Findings
h. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Future development under the No Project Alternative would be subject to the City’s adopted TCSP land use plan and zoning, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC, and would not be subject to the development and design standards and conceptual designs provided in the updated TCSP. Future development under the No Project Alternative would also be subject to implementation of the City’s Sustainable Santee Plan (Climate Action Plan).
The project would result in less than significant GHG impacts with mitigation and impacts associated with GHG under the No Project Alternative would also be less than significant with mitigation, similar to the project. i. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The No Project Alternative would not involve changes to land use or zoning compared to the project, and thereby would not result in changes related to exposing potential hazards and hazardous materials to more people. Future development would be required to adhere to multiple regulations related to hazardous materials handling and transport, including applicable state and local regulatory measures. Citywide General Plan Safety Element policies would also support safe handling of hazardous materials. Future development under this alternative would be required to implement mitigation measures documented in the City’s General Plan for hazardous materials. Future development under this alternative located within the Gillespie Field and MCAS Miramar ALUCPs would be required to adhere to applicable City policies and regulations, as well as policies of the ALUCP.
Similar to the project, future development under the No Project Alternative could be determined by the ALUC to not conform to density requirements for areas identified within ALUCPs as potentially hazardous due to the proximity to an airstrip. Because the ALUC may identify a hazard during review of development under the No Project Alternative, impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials under the No Project Alternative may also be significant and unavoidable, similar to the project. j. Hydrology and Water Quality
Future development under the No Project Alternative would be subject to the City’s adopted TCSP land use plan and zoning, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC, and would not be subject to the development and design standards and conceptual designs provided in the updated TCSP. Future development under the No Project Alternative would be required to adhere to all applicable water quality standards as provided in various water quality regulations and plans including all pertinent requirements of the City’s Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plan, BMP Design Manual, NPDES General Construction Permit, as well as all regulations related to water quality. Both redevelopment and new development on vacant sites would be Findings
required to comply with applicable stormwater management requirements which focus on retention and infiltration of waters on-site. Additionally, development under this alternative would be required to comply with City General Plan policies and regulations that prioritize infiltration and treatment of stormwater. Future development would also be required to implement applicable stormwater BMPs and erosion control measures to retain flows on-site and minimize the velocity of stormwater runoff. Such BMPs could include on-site drainage swales, bioretention features, use of permeable pavers in parking areas and streets, or infiltration basins which also serve as a means for pollutant removal. Development under this alternative would be required to adhere to all state and local development regulations including the SMC (Chapter 11.36), which establishes Flood Damage Prevention standards. Therefore, impacts associated with hydrology and water quality under the No Project Alternative would be less than significant, similar to the project.
k. Land Use and Planning
Future development under the No Project Alternative would be subject to the City’s adopted TCSP land use plan and zoning, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC, and would not be subject to the development and design standards and conceptual designs provided in the updated TCSP. All future development under this alternative would be subject to a site-specific review that considers consistency with all applicable plans, including the City’s General Plan and the ALUCP. As discussed above for hazards, the ALUC may determine a safety concern during future review of projects under the No Project Alternative and a significant land use conflict may result.
Therefore, impacts related to land use under the No Project Alternative would be significant and unavoidable, similar to the project. l. Noise
Future development under the No Project Alternative would be subject to the adopted TCSP, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC. The No Project Alternative would not include outdoor performance uses in the AEN as this activity is not identified in the existing TCSP. Future development under the No Project Alternative would be subject to implementation of mitigation measures documented in the City’s General Plan for noise, which would reduce noise impacts to less than significant. Not allowing outdoor performance uses in the AEN under the No Project Alternative would avoid potentially significant noise impacts. Therefore, impacts related to noise under the No Project Alternative would be less than significant with mitigation and have less impacts compared to the project.
Findings
m. Population and Housing
Future development under the No Project Alternative would be located in areas that are already served by infrastructure as identified in the existing TCSP, and therefore would not induce population growth. The No Project Alternative would not displace a substantial number of people or housing.
Therefore, impacts associated with population and housing would be less than significant, similar to the project.
n. Public Services
Future development under the No Project Alternative would be subject to the adopted TCSP land use plan and zoning, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC, and would not be subject to the development and design standards and conceptual designs provided in the updated TCSP. Future development under the No Project Alternative would not result in increased demand to require construction of new fire protection, police protection, school, or library facilities, since each future development would pay its fair share toward anticipated facility needs. Construction of any future public service facilities would require a separate environmental review and approval. Therefore, impacts associated with public services would be less than significant, similar to the project.
o. Recreation
Future development under the No Project Alternative would be subject to the adopted TCSP land use plan and zoning, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC, and would not be subject to the development and design standards and conceptual designs provided in the updated TCSP. Future development under the No Project Alternative would not result in increased demand to require construction of new recreational facilities since each future development would pay its fair share toward anticipated facility needs.
Construction of any future public service facilities would require a separate environmental review and approval, implementing mitigation similar as proposed for the project. Therefore, impacts associated with recreation would be less than significant, similar to the project. p. Transportation
Future development under the No Project Alternative would occur pursuant to the City’s adopted TCSP, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC.
The No Project Alternative would not include the roadway improvements identified in the project as they are not included in the existing TCSP. Future development would be designed consistent with established roadway design standards, and access to the existing roadway network would be configured consistent with established roadway design standards that would allow for Findings
emergency access. Because the No Project Alternative applies the same land use densities and intensities in the project area, including within those areas located outside TPAs, significant VMT impacts could occur. Therefore, impacts associated with transportation would be significant and unavoidable, similar to the project.
q. Tribal Cultural Resources
Future development under the No Project Alternative would occur pursuant to the City’s adopted TCSP, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC.
The No Project Alternative would not include the River Bridge, which is consistent with the existing TCSP. Future development under this alternative would be required to conduct tribal consultation consistent with the requirements of AB 52. The No Project Alternative would not include the River Bridge which is located within an area identified for moderate potential to contain eligible buried archaeological sites, which may also be considered tribal cultural resources. As a result, the potential for tribal cultural resources impacts would be slightly reduced and impacts related to tribal cultural resources under the No Project Alternative would be less than significant with mitigation, slightly less than the project.
r. Utilities and Service Systems
Future development under the No Project Alternative would be subject to the adopted TCSP land use plan and zoning, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC, and would not be subject to the development and design standards and conceptual designs provided in the updated TCSP.
Development under the existing General Plan would increase demand for utilities and services. Utility infrastructure improvements and relocations under the No Project Alternative would be evaluated as part of a future review for site-specific projects. Should separate utility extensions be required outside of the footprints of future site-specific projects, they would require an environmental review and compliance with regulations in existence at that time would address potential environmental impacts. The No Project Alternative would likely result in similar demand for water supply, wastewater treatment, and solid waste disposal compared to development proposed under the project. Therefore, impacts associated with utilities and service system would be less than significant with mitigation, similar to as the project.
s. Wildfire
Future development under the No Project Alternative would be subject to the adopted TCSP land use plan and zoning, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC, and would not be subject to the development and design standards and conceptual designs provided in the updated TCSP. This Findings
alternative does not propose any changes to the City’s existing circulation network, and no land uses are proposed that would impair implementation of or physically interfere with the City’s emergency response plan, evacuation routes, or conflict with any of the Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan specific hazard mitigation goals, objectives, and related actions. Additionally, future development would be required to adhere to the City’s General Plan (Safety Element) policies including 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.11, and 4.12 which address emergency response and emergency evacuation.
Future development located within the Wildland Urban Interface would comply with applicable California Fire Code and City General Plan requirements, and include enhanced fire protection measures as detailed in the City’s building and fire codes. Future development under this alternative would also be required to comply with applicable regulations and policies related to flooding, drainage patterns, and landslides. Therefore, impacts associated with wildfire under the No Project Alternative would be less than significant, similar to the project.
As described above, the No Project Alternative would result in similar impacts compared to the project, with none of the environmental resources seeing an increase in the severity of impacts. Under the No Project Alternative, updated development standards and conceptual development plans and design standards for Housing Element sites 16A, 16B, 20A, and 20B would not be adopted as part of the TCSP to guide future development within the TCSP area and future development would be required to adhere to existing state and local regulations and would be required to implement relevant mitigation measures set forth in the City’s General Plan EIR. Therefore, less than significant impacts (with and without mitigation) associated with aesthetics, agricultural resources, energy, geology, and soils, GHGs, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, population and housing, public services, recreation, utilities and service systems, and wildfire would be similar under the No Project Alternative compared to the project. Impacts to biological resources and cultural resources would be slightly reduced under this alternative due to the absence of the River Bridge in and near areas of biological and cultural sensitivity. Impacts related to air quality and VMT would remain significant and unavoidable, similar to the project.
Attainment of Project Objectives: This alternative would partially meet some of the project objectives stated in Chapter 3.0, Project Description, as the adopted TCSP does provide for mobility needs, a variety of housing types and commercial and office/professional opportunities, including employment-supportive uses. However, the proposed project is a comprehensive update to the adopted TCSP that addresses the future needs of the TCSP area and would better fulfill all of the project objectives. Buildout of the No Project Alternative would not include the River Bridge which would provide recreational opportunities and would be part of the open space system to unify areas north and south of the San Diego River within the AEN. Also, the No Project Alternative would not include the roadway improvements or Findings
conceptual designs for Housing Element sites 16A, 16B, 20A, and 20B which would improve the mobility needs of the TCSP area and would provide for improved housing development opportunities.
Finding: The City Council rejects Alternative 1: No Project Alternative, on the following grounds, each of which individually provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative: (1) the alternative fails to meet many of the Project objectives; and (2) the alternative fails to avoid or reduce the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts relating to air quality, hazards, land use and planning, noise, and transportation.
2. Alternative 2: Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative Description: The Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative represents a modified update to the TCSP to avoid some of the biological impacts identified for the project.
Under this alternative the land use designations for an approximately 6-acre undeveloped area in the northeastern part of the TCSP area would be changed from Residential TC-R-14 (14 to 22 du/ac) to Floodway/Open Space. The 6-acre area is bound by Park Center Drive and Park/Open Space areas to the west, Institutional land uses to the north, and Residential land use to the south. The eastern part of the 6-acre site is bound by Cottonwood Avenue. This change would avoid impacts to 2.94 acres of biologically sensitive areas identified in the Biological Resources Technical Report (Appendix C). Also, the River Bridge over the San Diego River would not be included in the TCSP under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative, which would similarly avoid biologically sensitive areas in the TCSP area. The remaining aspects of the proposed TCSP, including the expansion of the TCSP area and AEN, updated development standards, proposed roadway network upgrades and roadway connections or associated pedestrian and bicycle improvements, and conceptual development plans and design standards for Housing Element sites 16A, 16B, 20A, and 20B, would remain as they are in the proposed project. While approximately 6 less acres of residential development would be available for development under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative, overall buildout of the TCSP area is assumed to be the same as the proposed project and as assumed in the City’s 6th Housing Element because development would likely be able to shift to other portions of residentially designated land, as needed. (Draft PEIR, p. 9-10 through 9-11) Impacts:
a. Aesthetics
Under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative, development within the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites would be similar to the proposed TCSP under the project, except that an area in the northeastern part of the TCSP area would be changed from Residential to Floodway/Open Space land uses and the River Bridge would not be constructed across the Findings
San Diego River. Development under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would be subject to development review consistent with SMC Chapter 13.08 to ensure consistency with General Plan policies and applicable design and development review requirements including the proposed design guidelines in the proposed update to the TCSP. The development review process would ensure that future development would not degrade scenic vistas, scenic resources, or visual quality. Compliance with SMC standards related to light and glare (Chapter 13.08.070(G)), requiring that outdoor lighting be directed away from adjacent properties and set in a way to avoid any detriment to the surrounding area and lighting standards of the Community Enhancement Element would ensure that future development would not result in impacts related to light and glare. A mitigation measure identified to address potential impacts to the Edgemoor Polo Barn near Housing Element sites 20A and 20B (MM CUL-5) would be implemented under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative as there would be no changes to the project near Housing Element sites 20A and 20B, which are in the southeastern part of the TCSP area and AEN.
Potentially significant aesthetics impacts under the No Project Alternative would be similar to the project as the potential for development of Housing Element sites 20A and 20B has the potential to damage views of an historic resource at the Edgemoor Polo Barn.
b. Agricultural Resources
Under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative, development within the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites would be similar to the project, except that an area in the northeastern part of the TCSP area would be changed from Residential to Floodway/Open Space land uses and the River Bridge would not be identified across the San Diego River. Areas identified as Farmland of Local Importance in the TCSP area and AEN do not include the 6-acre site that would be changed to Floodway/Open Space and remaining areas would still be developed and similarly result in less than significant impacts. Therefore, impacts associated with agriculture and forestry resources under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would be less than significant and similar to the project.
c. Air Quality
The updated TCSP under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would be subject to the development standards in the updated TCSP, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC. While this alternative would reduce the amount of residential land uses at an approximately 6-acre area in the northeastern part of the TCSP area, it is not anticipated that overall residential development in the TCSP area would be decreased. As there would be no change in overall development under this alternative, the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would be consistent with the existing Findings
growth projections for which regional air quality standards (RAQs) are based. Development potential would be similar compared to the project as it is expected that residential development would not decrease under this alternative. Construction time frames and equipment for site-specific development projects are not available at this time, and there is a potential for multiple development projects to be constructed at one time, resulting in significant construction-related emissions. While future development under this alternative would be required to implement air quality mitigation measures documented in the EIR, mitigation for air quality impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Therefore, impacts associated with air quality under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would be significant and unavoidable, similar to the project.
d. Biological Resources
The updated TCSP under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would result in the redesignation of 6 acres of Residential land uses in the northeastern part of the TCSP area to Floodway/Open Space and would not include the proposed River Bridge. While this alternative would avoid impacts to some of the biologically sensitive areas in the TCSP area, development consistent with the updated TCSP could still occur within other areas that support sensitive biological resources.
Future development under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would be subject to implementation of mitigation measures documented in this EIR for biological resources, which would reduce impacts related to sensitive species, sensitive habitats, and wetlands to a level less than significant.
Applicable federal, state, and local regulations would also apply, such as the FESA, MBTA, CFG Code, and San Diego County MSCP. Not constructing housing in a 2.94-acre biologically sensitive area in the northeastern part of the TCSP area and leaving it as an undeveloped site would reduce some of the biological resources impacts associated with the project. Also, not constructing the River Bridge would avoid potentially significant project impacts on biological resources along the San Diego River. Therefore, impacts related to biological resources under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would be less than significant with mitigation and would have slightly less impacts compared to the project.
e. Cultural Resources
The updated TCSP under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would result in the redesignation of 6 acres of Residential land uses in the northeastern part of the TCSP area to Floodway/Open Space and would not include the proposed River Bridge. The 6-acre area that would be changed from Residential to Floodway/Open Space is not located in a culturally sensitive area; however, the River Bridge is located in a culturally sensitive Findings
area and while this alternative would avoid some potential cultural resources impacts, development consistent with the updated TCSP could still occur in other areas that could result in cultural resources impacts.
Future development under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would occur pursuant to the City’s adopted TCSP, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC. Future development under this alternative would be required to implement mitigation measures documented in this EIR for cultural resources. As described in Section 4.5, the project would result in less than significant cultural resources impacts with mitigation incorporated. Both the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative and the proposed project would similarly result in potential impacts on historic resources due to the proximity of Housing Element sites 20A and 20B to the Edgemoor Polo Barn. The Reduced Biological Impacts would not include the River Bridge which is located within an area identified for moderate potential to contain eligible buried archaeological sites, and the potential for cultural resources impacts would be slightly reduced. Therefore, impacts related to cultural resources under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would be less than significant with mitigation, slightly less than the project. f. Energy
Future development under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would be subject to the updated TCSP land use plan and zoning, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC, and would be subject to the development and design standards and conceptual designs provided in the updated TCSP.
Future development under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would not result in increased energy use compared to the project as no changes to overall buildout of the TCSP area are assumed. Therefore, impacts associated with energy would be less than significant, similar to the project. g. Geology and Soils
Future development under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would be subject to the City’s updated development and design standards and conceptual designs provided in the updated TCSP, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC. The Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would support development consistent with the updated TCSP which could be subject to potential geologic hazards. Adherence to Safety Element policies, the SMC, and the CBC would ensure that future development under this alternative would not cause substantial adverse effects associated with fault rupture, ground shaking, liquefaction, landslide, or expansive soils, and impacts would be less than significant. Similarly, adherence to applicable SMC requirements would ensure that future development under this alternative would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil, and impacts would be less than significant. Implementation of mitigation Findings
measures documented in this EIR for paleontological resources would reduce impacts related to paleontological resources to a level less than significant. Therefore, impacts related to geology and soils under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would be mitigated to a level less than significant, similar to the project.
h. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Future development under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would be subject to the City’s updated development and design standards and conceptual designs provided in the updated TCSP, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC. Future development under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would also be subject to implementation of the City’s Sustainable Santee Plan (Climate Action Plan). While residential land uses would be reduced under this alternative, buildout of the TCSP area is anticipated to be the same as the project. The project would result in less than significant GHG impacts with mitigation and impacts associated with GHG under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would also be less than significant with mitigation, similar to the project. i. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The updated TCSP under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would result in the redesignation of 6 acres of Residential land uses in the northeastern part of the TCSP area to Floodway/Open Space and would not include the proposed River Bridge. Overall buildout and development intensity is anticipated to be the same under this alternative and the proposed project. Future development would be required to adhere to multiple regulations related to hazardous materials handling and transport, including applicable state and local regulatory measures. Citywide General Plan Safety Element policies would also support safe handling of hazardous materials. Future development under this alternative would be required to implement mitigation measures documented in this EIR for hazardous materials. Future development under this alternative located within the Gillespie Field and MCAS Miramar ALUCPs would be required to adhere to applicable City policies and regulations, as well as policies of the ALUCP.
Furthermore, applications for all future projects under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would be reviewed and approved by the Santee Fire Department prior to issuance of a building permit. Similar to the project, future development under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative could be determined by the ALUC to not conform to density requirements for areas identified within ALUCPs as potentially hazardous due to the proximity to an airstrip. Because the ALUC may identify a hazard under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative, impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative may also be significant and unavoidable, similar to the project.
Findings
j. Hydrology and Water Quality
The updated TCSP under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would result in the redesignation of 6 acres of Residential land uses in the northeastern part of the TCSP area to Floodway/Open Space and would not include the proposed River Bridge. Overall buildout and development intensity is anticipated to be the same under this alternative and the proposed project. Future development under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would be required to adhere to all applicable water quality standards as provided in various water quality regulations and plans including all pertinent requirements of the City’s Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plan, BMP Design Manual, NPDES General Construction Permit, as well as all regulations related to water quality. Both redevelopment and new development on vacant sites would be required to comply with applicable stormwater management requirements which focus on retention and infiltration of waters on-site. Additionally, development under this alternative would be required to comply with City General Plan policies and regulations that prioritize infiltration and treatment of stormwater. Future development would also be required to implement applicable stormwater BMPs and erosion control measures to retain flows on-site and minimize the velocity of stormwater runoff. Such BMPs could include on-site drainage swales, bioretention features, use of permeable pavers in parking areas and streets, or infiltration basins which also serve as a means for pollutant removal. Development under this alternative would be required to adhere to all state and local development regulations including SMC (Chapter 11.36), which establishes Flood Damage Prevention standards. Therefore, impacts associated with hydrology and water quality under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would be less than significant, similar to the project. k. Land Use and Planning
The updated TCSP under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would result in the redesignation of 6 acres of Residential land uses in the northeastern part of the TCSP area to Floodway/Open Space and would not include the proposed River Bridge. Overall buildout and development intensity is anticipated to be the same under this alternative and the proposed project. Future development under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would be subject to the City’s updated development and design standards and conceptual designs provided in the updated TCSP, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC. All future development under this alternative would be subject to a site-specific review that considers consistency with all applicable plans, including the updated TCSP and ALUCP. The ALUC may determine a safety concern during future review of projects under the No Project Alternative and a significant land use conflict may result. Therefore, impacts related to land use under the Reduced Findings
Biological Impacts Alternative would be significant and unavoidable, similar to the project.
l. Noise
Future development under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would be subject to the updated TCSP, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC. The Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would not include residential development in a 6 acre area in the northeastern part of the TCSP area and would also not include the River Bridge spanning the San Diego River. Future development under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would be subject to implementation of mitigation measures documented in this EIR for noise, which would reduce noise impacts to less than significant.
Removing residential land uses and the River Bridge under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would not avoid potentially significant noise impacts associated with construction and stationary sources and outdoor performances. Therefore, impacts related to noise under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would be less than significant with mitigation and have less impacts compared to the project.
m. Population and Housing
Future development under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would be located in areas that are already served by infrastructure as identified in the existing TCSP, and therefore would not induce population growth. While there would be less Residential land uses in the TCSP area, buildout under this alternative would not be reduced compared to the project. The Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would not displace a substantial number of people or housing. Therefore, impacts associated with population and housing would be less than significant, similar to the project. n. Public Services
Future development under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would not result in increased demand to require construction of new fire protection, police protection, school, or library facilities, since each future development would pay its fair share toward anticipated facility needs. Construction of any future public service facilities would require a separate environmental review and approval. Therefore, impacts associated with public services would be less than significant, similar to the project.
o. Recreation
Future development under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would be located in areas that are already served by infrastructure as identified in the existing TCSP, and therefore would not result in increased demand to Findings
require construction of new recreational facilities since each incremental housing development would pay its fair share toward anticipated facility needs. Construction of any future recreation facilities would require a separate environmental review and approval. Therefore, impacts associated with recreation would be less than significant, similar to the project. p. Transportation
Future development under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would occur pursuant to the City’s updated TCSP, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC. While there would be less Residential land uses in the TCSP area, buildout under this alternative would not be reduced compared to the project and traffic levels would not change. The Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would include the roadway improvements identified in the updated TCSP. Future development would be designed consistent with established roadway design standards, and access to the existing roadway network would be configured consistent with established roadway design standards that would allow for emergency access. Because the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative applies the same land use densities and intensities in the majority of the project area, including within those areas located outside TPAs, significant VMT impacts could occur. Therefore, impacts associated with transportation would be significant and unavoidable, similar to the project.
q. Tribal Cultural Resources
The updated TCSP under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would result in the redesignation of 6 acres of Residential land uses in the northeastern part of the TCSP area to Floodway/Open Space and would not include the proposed River Bridge. The 6-acre area that would be changed from Residential to Floodway/Open Space is not located in a culturally sensitive area; however, the River Bridge is located in a culturally sensitive area that could also be a tribal cultural resource. While this alternative would avoid some potential tribal cultural resources impacts, development consistent with the updated TCSP could still occur in other areas that could result in tribal cultural resources impacts.
Future development under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would occur pursuant to the City’s adopted TCSP, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC. Future development under this alternative would be required to implement mitigation measures documented in this EIR for tribal cultural resources. As described in Section 4.17, the project would result in less than significant tribal cultural resources impacts with mitigation incorporated. The Reduced Biological Impacts would not include the River Bridge which is located within an area identified for moderate potential to contain eligible buried archaeological sites, and the potential for tribal cultural resources Findings
impacts would be slightly reduced. Therefore, impacts related to tribal cultural resources under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would be less than significant with mitigation, slightly less than the project. r. Utilities and Service Systems
Future development under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would be subject to the updated TCSP land use plan and zoning, development and design standards, and conceptual designs provided in the updated TCSP.
Development under this alternative, like the project, would increase demand for utilities and services. Utility infrastructure improvements and relocations under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would be evaluated as part of a future review for site-specific projects. Should separate utility extensions be required outside of the footprints of future site-specific projects, they would require an environmental review and compliance with regulations in existence at that time would address potential environmental impacts. The Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would likely result in similar demand for water supply, wastewater treatment, and solid waste disposal compared to development proposed under the project. Therefore, impacts associated with utilities and service system would be less than significant with mitigation, similar to the project.
s. Wildfire
Future development under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would be subject to the updated TCSP land use plan and zoning, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC, and would be subject to the development and design standards and conceptual designs provided in the updated TCSP.
This alternative does not include land use changes that would impair implementation of or physically interfere with the City’s emergency response plan, evacuation routes, or conflict with any of the Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan specific hazard mitigation goals, objectives, and related actions. Additionally, future development would be required to adhere to the City’s General Plan (Safety Element) policies including 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.11, and 4.12 which address emergency response and emergency evacuation.
Future development under this alternative would also be required to comply with applicable regulations and policies related to flooding, drainage patterns, and landslides. Therefore, impacts associated with wildfire under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would be less than significant, similar to the project.
As described above, the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would result in similar impacts compared to the project, with none of the environmental resources seeing an increase in the severity of impacts. Under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative, most of the updated TCSP under the project would be similar; however, the land use designations for an approximately 6-acre undeveloped area Findings
in the northeastern part of the TCSP area would be changed from Residential TCR-14 (14 to 22 du/ac) to Floodway/Open Space and the River Bridge would not be included. Therefore, less than significant impacts (with and without mitigation) associated with aesthetics, agricultural resources, energy, geology, and soils, GHGs, hydrology and water quality, population and housing, public services, recreation, utilities and service systems, and wildfire would be similar under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative compared to the project. Impacts to biological resources and cultural resources would be slightly reduced under this alternative due to the redesignation of 6 acres from Residential to Floodway/Open Space and the removal of the River Bridge in and near areas of biological and cultural sensitivity. Impacts related to air quality, hazards, land use and planning, noise, and transportation would remain significant and unavoidable, similar to the project.
Attainment of Project Objectives: This alternative would partially meet some of the project objectives stated in Chapter 3.0, Project Description, as this alternative does provide for mobility needs, a variety of housing types and commercial and office/professional opportunities, including employment-supportive uses. Buildout of the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would not include the River Bridge which would provide recreational opportunities and would be part of the open space system to unify areas north and south of the San Diego River within the AEN and would better meet the project objectives.
Finding: The City Council rejects Alternative 2: Reduced Project Alternative, on the following grounds, each of which individually provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative: (1) the alternative partially meets the Project objectives; and (2) the alternative fails to avoid or reduce the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts relating to air quality, hazards, land use and planning, noise, and transportation.
3. Alternative 3: Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative Description: The Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative represents a modified update to the TCSP to further support the City’s goals to provide additional affordable housing opportunities in the City and within a TPA. Under this alternative, the Trolley Commercial land use designations near the center of the TCSP area and AEN would be revised to allow transit oriented development.
Specifically, this alternative would allow residential development up to 36 du/ac consistent with the Residential TC-R-3030 (30 to 36 du/ac) land use designation in the TCSP. For the purposes of this alternatives analysis, potential increases in residential development are estimated at an additional 1,515 du in the TCSP area and AEN at a density of 34 du/ac. The remaining aspects of the proposed TCSP, including the expansion of the TCSP area and AEN, updated development standards, proposed roadway network upgrades and roadway connections or associated pedestrian and bicycle improvements, and conceptual development Findings
plans and design standards for Housing Element sites 16A, 16B, 20A, and 20B, would remain as they are in the proposed project. (Draft PEIR, p. 9-17) Impacts:
a. Aesthetics
Under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative, development within the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites would be similar to the proposed TCSP under the project, except that the Trolley Commercial land use designations near the center of the TCSP area and AEN would be revised to allow increased density, transit oriented development. Development under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would be subject to development review consistent with SMC Chapter 13.08 to ensure consistency with General Plan policies and applicable design and development review requirements including the proposed design guidelines in the proposed update to the TCSP. The development review process would ensure that future development would not degrade scenic vistas, scenic resources, or visual quality. Compliance with SMC standards related to light and glare (Chapter 13.08.070(G)), requiring that outdoor lighting be directed away from adjacent properties and set in a way to avoid any detriment to the surrounding area and lighting standards of the Community Enhancement Element would ensure that future development would not result in impacts related to light and glare. This alternative does not propose changes to the Housing Element sites, and a mitigation measure identified to address potential impacts to the Edgemoor Polo Barn near Housing Element sites 20A and 20B (MM CUL-5) would be implemented under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative as there would be no changes to the project near Housing Element sites 20A and 20B. Potentially significant aesthetics impacts under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would be similar to the project as the potential for development of Housing Element sites 20A and 20B still has the potential to damage views of an historic resource at the Edgemoor Polo Barn.
b. Agricultural Resources
Under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative, development within the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites would be similar to the project, except Trolley Commercial land use designations near the center of the TCSP area and AEN would be revised to allow increased density, transit oriented development. Areas identified as Farmland of Local Importance in the TCSP area and AEN would still be developed and similarly result in less than significant impacts as these areas are identified for development and do not contain active agricultural uses.
Therefore, impacts associated with agriculture and forestry resources under Findings
the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would be less than significant and similar to the project.
c. Air Quality
The updated TCSP under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would be subject to the development standards in the updated TCSP, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC. This alternative would increase the amount of residential land uses within the Trolley Commercial land uses in the central part of the TCSP area and AEN by an additional 1,515 du. As there would be an increase in overall development under this alternative, the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would not be consistent with the existing growth projections for which RAQS are based. Construction time frames and equipment for site-specific development projects are not available at this time, and there is a potential for multiple development projects to be constructed at one time, resulting in significant construction-related emissions. As future development under this alternative would be required to implement mitigation measures documented in this EIR, mitigation for air quality impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Because there would be more development under this alternative, impacts associated with air quality under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would be significant and unavoidable, and greater than the project.
d. Biological Resources
The updated TCSP under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would result in an increase in the amount of residential land uses within the Trolley Commercial land uses in the central part of the TCSP area and AEN by an additional 1,515 du. This alternative would not avoid impacts to biologically sensitive areas and development under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative still occur within areas that support sensitive biological resources.
Future development under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would be subject to implementation of mitigation measures documented in this EIR for biological resources, which would reduce impacts related to sensitive species, sensitive habitats, and wetlands to a level less than significant. Applicable federal, state, and local regulations would also apply, such as the FESA, MBTA, CFG Code, and San Diego County MSCP.
Adding housing in the Trolley Commercial land uses would not reduce any of the biological resources impacts associated with the project. Therefore, impacts related to biological resources under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would be less than significant with mitigation and would have similar impacts compared to the project.
Findings
e. Cultural Resources
The updated TCSP under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would result in an increase in the amount of residential land uses within the Trolley Commercial land uses in the central part of the TCSP area and AEN by an additional 1,515 du. This alternative would not avoid impacts to culturally sensitive areas and development under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative still occur within areas that support sensitive cultural resources.
Future development under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would occur pursuant to the City’s adopted TCSP, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC. Future development under this alternative would be required to implement mitigation measures documented in this EIR for cultural resources. As described in Section 4.5, the project would result in less than significant cultural resources impacts with mitigation incorporated. Both the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative and the proposed project would similarly result in potential impacts on historic resources due to the proximity of Housing Element sites 20A and 20B to the Edgemoor Polo Barn. Therefore, impacts related to cultural resources under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would be less than significant with mitigation, similar to the project.
f. Energy
Future development under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would be subject to the updated TCSP land use plan and zoning, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC, and would be subject to the development and design standards and conceptual designs provided in the updated TCSP. Future development under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would result in some increased energy use compared to the project as overall buildout of the TCSP area would increase by 1,515 du; however, the increase in development would occur near transit and urban uses and would not conflict with energy plans or result in wasteful or inefficient energy use. Impacts associated with energy would be less than significant, similar to the project.
g. Geology and Soils
Future development under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would be subject to the City’s updated development and design standards and conceptual designs provided in the updated TCSP, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC. The Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would support development consistent with the updated TCSP which could be subject to potential geologic hazards. Adherence to Findings
Safety Element policies, the SMC, and the CBC would ensure that future development under this alternative would not cause substantial adverse effects associated with fault rupture, ground shaking, liquefaction, landslide, or expansive soils, and impacts would be less than significant. Similarly, adherence to applicable SMC requirements would ensure that future development under this alternative would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil, and impacts would be less than significant.
Implementation of mitigation measures documented in this EIR for paleontological resources would reduce impacts related to paleontological resources to a level less than significant. Therefore, impacts related to geology and soils under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would be mitigated to a level less than significant, similar to the project.
h. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Future development under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would be subject to the City’s updated development and design standards and conceptual designs provided in the updated TCSP, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC. Future development under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would also be subject to implementation of the City’s Sustainable Santee Plan (Climate Action Plan).
Transit-oriented residential land uses would be increased under this alternative and buildout of the TCSP area is anticipated to include 1,515 du more than the project. The project would result in less than significant GHG impacts with mitigation and impacts associated with GHG under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would also be less than significant with mitigation, and similar to the project. i. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The updated TCSP under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would include an anticipated 1,515 additional du in the Trolley Commercial land uses in the central part of the TCSP area and AEN. Future development would be required to adhere to multiple regulations related to hazardous materials handling and transport, including applicable state and local regulatory measures. Citywide General Plan Safety Element policies would also support safe handling of hazardous materials. Future development under this alternative would be required to implement mitigation measures documented in this EIR for hazardous materials. Future development under this alternative located within the Gillespie Field and MCAS Miramar ALUCPs could increase the potential for land use compatibility issues related to aircraft overflight hazards and like the proposed project, developments allowed under this alternative would be required to adhere to applicable City policies and regulations, as well as policies of the ALUCP and FAA and may result in similar safety conflicts Findings
during ALUC review. Therefore, impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would be significant and unavoidable, similar to the project. j. Hydrology and Water Quality
The updated TCSP under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would result in the addition of residential development within the Trolley Commercial land uses in the central part of the TCSP area and AEN.
Overall buildout and development intensity is anticipated to increase by 1,515 du compared to the proposed project. Future development under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would be required to adhere to all applicable water quality standards as provided in various water quality regulations and plans including all pertinent requirements of the City’s Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plan, BMP Design Manual, NPDES General Construction Permit, as well as all regulations related to water quality. Both redevelopment and new development on vacant sites would be required to comply with applicable stormwater management requirements which focus on retention and infiltration of waters on-site. Additionally, development under this alternative would be required to comply with City General Plan policies and regulations that prioritize infiltration and treatment of stormwater. Future development would also be required to implement applicable stormwater BMPs and erosion control measures to retain flows on-site and minimize the velocity of stormwater runoff. Such BMPs could include on-site drainage swales, bioretention features, use of permeable pavers in parking areas and streets, or infiltration basins which also serve as a means for pollutant removal. Development under this alternative would be required to adhere to all state and local development regulations including the SMC (Chapter 11.36), which establishes Flood Damage Prevention standards. Therefore, impacts associated with hydrology and water quality under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would be less than significant, similar to the project.
k. Land Use and Planning
The updated TCSP under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would result in allowing residential development in the Trolley Commercial land use with a zoning designation of Residential TC-R-3030 (30 to 36 du/ac). This alternative is estimated to result in an additional 1,515 du in the TCSP area and AEN compared to the project which would not allow residential in the Trolley Commercial land use. Future development under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would be subject to the City’s updated development and design standards and conceptual designs provided in the updated TCSP, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC. All future development under this alternative would be subject to a site-specific review that considers consistency with all applicable plans, Findings
including the updated TCSP and ALUCP. The ALUC may determine a safety concern during future review of projects under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative and a significant land use conflict may result.
Therefore, impacts related to land use under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would be less than significant, similar to the project.
l. Noise
Future development under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would be subject to the updated TCSP, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC. This alternative is estimated to result in an additional 1,515 du in the TCSP area and AEN compared to the project, which would not allow residential in the Trolley Commercial land use. Future development under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would be subject to implementation of mitigation measures documented in this EIR for noise, which would reduce noise impacts to less than significant. Allowing residential development in the Trolley Commercial land use under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would not increase noise; however, it would also not avoid potentially significant noise impacts associated with construction and stationary sources and outdoor performances. Therefore, impacts related to noise under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would be significant and unavoidable and have similar impacts compared to the project. m. Population and Housing
Future development under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would be located in areas that are already served by infrastructure as identified in the existing TCSP, and therefore would not induce population growth. While there would be increased residential development in the TCSP area, the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would not displace a substantial number of people or housing as the Trolley Commercial area does not include residential development under existing conditions. Therefore, impacts associated with population and housing would be less than significant, similar to the project. n. Public Services
Future development under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would not result in increased demand to require construction of new fire protection, police protection, school, or library facilities, since each future development would pay its fair share toward anticipated facility needs.
Construction of any future public service facilities would require a separate environmental review and approval. Therefore, impacts associated with public services would be less than significant, similar to the project.
Findings
o. Recreation
Future development under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would be located in areas that are already served by infrastructure as identified in the existing TCSP, and therefore would not result in increased demand to require construction of new recreational facilities since each incremental housing development would pay its fair share toward anticipated facility needs. Construction of any future recreation facilities would require a separate environmental review and approval.
Therefore, impacts associated with recreation would be less than significant, similar to the project.
p. Transportation
Future development under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would occur pursuant to the City’s updated TCSP, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC. While there would be more residential development in the TCSP area, the additional development is located near transit and would be within a TPA. The Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would include the roadway improvements identified in the updated TCSP. Future development would be designed consistent with established roadway design standards, and access to the existing roadway network would be configured consistent with established roadway design standards that would allow for emergency access. Although the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would provide more transit oriented development opportunities in TPAs located within the TCSP, this alternative applies the same land use densities and intensities in the majority of the project area, including within those in areas outside of TPAs, resulting in a similar potential for VMT impacts to occur. Therefore, impacts associated with transportation under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would be significant and unavoidable, similar to the project.
q. Tribal Cultural Resources
The Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would result in additional residential development in the Trolley Commercial land use designation in the southern part of the TCSP area and AEN. The Trolley Commercial land use is in a culturally sensitive area that could also be a tribal cultural resource. Development consistent with the updated TCSP could still occur in other culturally sensitive areas that could result in tribal cultural resources impacts. Future development under this alternative would be required to implement mitigation measures documented in this EIR for tribal cultural resources. As described in Section 4.17, the project would result in less than significant tribal cultural resources impacts with mitigation incorporated. Therefore, impacts related to tribal cultural resources under Findings
the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would be less than significant with mitigation, similar to the project. r. Utilities and Service Systems
Future development under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would be subject to the updated TCSP land use plan and zoning, development and design standards, and conceptual designs provided in the updated TCSP. Development under this alternative would involve 1,515 du more than the project and would result in some increase demand for utilities and services. Utility infrastructure improvements and relocations under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would be evaluated as part of a future review for site-specific projects. Should separate utility extensions be required outside of the footprints of future site-specific projects, they would require an environmental review and compliance with regulations in existence at that time would address potential environmental impacts. The Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would likely result in some increase in demand for water supply, wastewater treatment, and solid waste disposal compared to development proposed under the project. Therefore, impacts associated with utilities and service system would be less than significant with mitigation, greater than the project.
s. Wildfire
Future development under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would be subject to the updated TCSP land use plan and zoning, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC, and would be subject to the development and design standards and conceptual designs provided in the updated TCSP. This alternative does not include land use changes that would impair implementation of or physically interfere with the City’s emergency response plan, evacuation routes, or conflict with any of the Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan specific hazard mitigation goals, objectives, and related actions. Additionally, future development would be required to adhere to the City’s General Plan (Safety Element) policies including 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.11, and 4.12 which address emergency response and emergency evacuation. Future development located within the Wildland Urban Interface would comply with applicable California Fire Code and City General Plan requirements and include enhanced fire protection measures as detailed in the City’s building and fire codes. Future development under this alternative would also be required to comply with applicable regulations and policies related to flooding, drainage patterns, and landslides. Therefore, impacts associated with wildfire under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would be less than significant, similar to the project.
Findings
As described above, the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would result in similar impacts compared to the project, with a slight increase in the severity of impacts for air quality, GHGs, and utilities and service systems. Under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative, most of the updated TCSP under the project would be the same; however, the Trolley Commercial land use areas in the central part of the TCSP area and AEN would include residential development estimated to include 1,515 du. Therefore, less than significant impacts (with and without mitigation) associated with aesthetics, agricultural resources, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, population and housing, public services, recreation, tribal cultural resources, utilities and service systems, and wildfire would be similar under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative compared to the project.
Attainment of Project Objectives: This alternative would partially meet some of the project objectives stated in Chapter 3.0, Project Description, as this alternative does provide for mobility needs, a variety of housing types and commercial and office/professional opportunities, including employment-supportive uses. However, this alternative would not substantially avoid or reduce the project’s environmental impacts.
Finding: The City Council rejects Alternative 3: Increased Density Project Alternative, on the following grounds, each of which individually provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative: (1) the alternative only partially meets the Project objectives; and (2) the alternative fails to avoid or reduce the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts relating to air quality, hazards, land use and planning, noise and transportation.
4. No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative
Description: The No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative represents a modified update to the TCSP to avoid some of the noise impacts identified for the project.
Under this alternative outdoor performance uses would not be allowed within the Commercial Entertainment areas of the TCSP, north of the Town Center Transit Station, and would avoid an operational noise impact associated with outdoor gatherings of people for artistic, cinematic, theatrical, musical, sporting events, cultural, education or civic purposes. The remaining aspects of the proposed TCSP, including the expansion of the TCSP area and AEN, updated development standards, proposed roadway network upgrades and roadway connections or associated pedestrian and bicycle improvements, and conceptual development plans and design standards for Housing Element sites 16A, 16B, 20A, and 20B, would remain as they are in the proposed project. (Draft PEIR, p. 9-24 Findings
Impacts:
a. Aesthetics
Under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative, development within the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites would be similar to the proposed TCSP under the project, except that outdoor performance uses would not be allowed within the Commercial Entertainment areas of the TCSP, north of the Town Center Transit Station. All other requirements related to aesthetics as discussed throughout this section for the other alternatives would apply to this alternative, and a mitigation measure identified to address potential impacts to the Edgemoor Polo Barn near Housing Element sites 20A and 20B (MM CUL-5) would be implemented under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative as there would be no changes to the project near Housing Element sites 20A and 20B. Potentially significant aesthetics impacts under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would be similar to the project as the potential for development of Housing Element sites 20A and 20B has the potential to damage views of an historic resource at the Edgemoor Polo Barn.
b. Agricultural Resources
Under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative, development within the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites would be similar to the proposed TCSP under the project, except that outdoor performance uses would not be allowed within the Commercial Entertainment areas of the TCSP, north of the Town Center Transit Station. Areas identified as Farmland of Local Importance in the TCSP area and AEN would still be developed and similarly result in less than significant impacts as these areas are identified for development and do not contain active agricultural uses.
Therefore, impacts associated with agriculture and forestry resources under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would be less than significant and similar to the project.
c. Air Quality
The updated TCSP under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would be subject to the development standards in the updated TCSP, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC. As there would be no change in overall development under this alternative, the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would be consistent with the existing growth projections for which RAQS are based. Development potential would be similar compared to the project. Construction time frames and equipment for site-specific development projects are not available at this time, and there is a potential for multiple development projects to be constructed at one time, resulting in significant construction-related emissions. While future development under Findings
this alternative would be required to implement air quality mitigation measures documented in the EIR, mitigation for air quality impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Therefore, impacts associated with air quality under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would be significant and unavoidable, similar to the project.
d. Biological Resources
Under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative, development within the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites would be similar to the proposed TCSP under the project, except that outdoor performance uses would not be allowed within the Commercial Entertainment areas of the TCSP, north of the Town Center Transit Station.
Future development under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would be subject to implementation of mitigation measures documented in this EIR for biological resources, which would reduce impacts related to sensitive species, sensitive habitats, and wetlands to a level less than significant. Applicable federal, state, and local regulations would also apply, such as the FESA, MBTA, CFG Code, and San Diego County MSCP.
Restricting outdoor performance use would reduce noise levels in the TCSP area and would reduce the potential for noise to result in biological resources impacts associated with outdoor performances. Therefore, impacts related to biological resources under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would be less than significant with mitigation and would have less impacts compared to the project.
e. Cultural Resources
The updated TCSP under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would result in not allowing outdoor performance uses within the Commercial Entertainment areas of the TCSP, north of the Town Center Transit Station.
This alternative would not avoid impacts to culturally sensitive areas and development under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative still occur within areas that support sensitive cultural resources.
Future development under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would occur pursuant to the City’s adopted TCSP, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC. Future development under this alternative would be required to implement mitigation measures documented in this EIR for cultural resources. As described in Section 4.5, the project would result in less than significant cultural resources impacts with mitigation incorporated.
Both the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative and the proposed project would similarly result in potential impacts on historic resources due to the proximity of Housing Element sites 20A and 20B to the Edgemoor Polo Barn.
Therefore, impacts related to cultural resources under the No Outdoor Findings
Performance Use Alternative would be less than significant with mitigation, similar to the project.
f. Energy
Future development under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would be subject to the updated TCSP land use plan and zoning, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC, and would be subject to the development and design standards and conceptual designs provided in the updated TCSP. Future development under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would not result in increased energy use compared to the project as overall buildout of the TCSP area would remain and would not conflict with energy plans or result in wasteful or inefficient energy use. Impacts associated with energy would be less than significant, similar to the project. g. Geology and Soils
Future development under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would be subject to the City’s updated development and design standards and conceptual designs provided in the updated TCSP, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC. The No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would support development consistent with the updated TCSP which could be subject to potential geologic hazards. Adherence to Safety Element policies, the SMC, and the CBC would ensure that future development under this alternative would not cause substantial adverse effects associated with fault rupture, ground shaking, liquefaction, landslide, or expansive soils, and impacts would be less than significant. Similarly, adherence to applicable SMC requirements would ensure that future development under this alternative would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil, and impacts would be less than significant. Implementation of mitigation measures documented in this EIR for paleontological resources would reduce impacts related to paleontological resources to a level less than significant. Therefore, impacts related to geology and soils under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would be mitigated to a level less than significant, similar to the project.
h. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Future development under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would result in a similar level and type of development throughout the TCSP, except outdoor performances would not be allowed within the Commercial Entertainment areas of the TCSP. Like the proposed project, development would be subject to the City’s updated development and design standards and conceptual designs provided in the updated TCSP, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC. Future development under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would also be subject to implementation of the Findings
City’s Sustainable Santee Plan (Climate Action Plan). The project would result in less than significant GHG impacts with mitigation and impacts associated with GHG under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would also be less than significant with mitigation, similar to the project. i. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The updated TCSP under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would result in not allowing outdoor performance uses within the Commercial Entertainment areas of the TCSP, north of the Town Center Transit Station.
Like the proposed project, all other future development would be required to adhere to multiple regulations related to hazardous materials handling and transport, including applicable state and local regulatory measures. Citywide General Plan Safety Element policies would also support safe handling of hazardous materials. Future development under this alternative would be required to implement mitigation measures documented in this EIR for hazardous materials. Future development under this alternative located within the Gillespie Field and MCAS Miramar ALUCPs would be required to adhere to applicable City policies and regulations, as well as policies of the ALUCP. Furthermore, applications for all future projects under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would be reviewed and approved by the Santee Fire Department prior to issuance of a building permit. Therefore, impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would be mitigated to a level less than significant, similar to the project.
j. Hydrology and Water Quality
The updated TCSP under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would result in not allowing outdoor performance uses within the Commercial Entertainment areas of the TCSP, north of the Town Center Transit Station.
Overall buildout and development intensity is anticipated to be the same as the proposed project. Future development under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would be required to adhere to all applicable water quality standards as provided in various water quality regulations and plans including all pertinent requirements of the City’s Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plan, BMP Design Manual, NPDES General Construction Permit, as well as all regulations related to water quality. Both redevelopment and new development on vacant sites would be required to comply with applicable stormwater management requirements which focus on retention and infiltration of waters on-site. Additionally, development under this alternative would be required to comply with City General Plan policies and regulations that prioritize infiltration and treatment of stormwater. Future development would also be required to implement applicable stormwater BMPs and erosion control measures to retain flows on-site and minimize the velocity of stormwater runoff. Such BMPs could include on-site drainage Findings
swales, bioretention features, use of permeable pavers in parking areas and streets, or infiltration basins which also serve as a means for pollutant removal. Development under this alternative would be required to adhere to all state and local development regulations including SMC (Chapter 11.36), which establishes Flood Damage Prevention standards. Therefore, impacts associated with hydrology and water quality under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would be less than significant, similar to the project.
k. Land Use and Planning
The updated TCSP under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would result in the prohibition of outdoor performance uses in the TCSP area and AEN. Overall buildout and development intensity is anticipated to be the same under this alternative and the proposed project. Future development under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would be subject to the City’s updated development and design standards and conceptual designs provided in the updated TCSP, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC.
All future development under this alternative would be subject to a sitespecific review that considers consistency with all applicable plans, including the updated TCSP and ALUCP. The ALUC may determine a safety concern during future review of projects under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative and a significant land use conflict may result. Therefore, impacts related to land use under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would be significant and unavoidable, similar to the project.. l. Noise
The updated TCSP under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would not allow outdoor performance uses within the Commercial Entertainment areas of the TCSP, north of the Town Center Transit Station.
Future development under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would be subject to the updated TCSP, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC. Future development under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would be subject to implementation of mitigation measures documented in this EIR for noise, which would reduce noise impacts related to less than significant. Restricting outdoor performance uses under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would avoid potentially significant noise impacts associated with outdoor performances (NOI-3). Other noise impacts under the project would remain under this alternative. Therefore, impacts related to noise under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would be less than significant with mitigation and have reduced impacts compared to the project.
Findings
m. Population and Housing
Future development under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would be located in areas that are already served by infrastructure as identified in the existing TCSP, and therefore would not induce population growth. Buildout under this alternative would not be reduced compared to the project. The No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would not displace a substantial number of people or housing. Therefore, impacts associated with population and housing would be less than significant, similar to the project.
n. Public Services
Future development under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would not result in increased demand to require construction of new fire protection, police protection, school, or library facilities, since each future development would pay its fair share toward anticipated facility needs.
Construction of any future public service facilities would require a separate environmental review and approval. Therefore, impacts associated with public services would be less than significant, similar to the project. o. Recreation
Future development under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would be located in areas that are already served by infrastructure as identified in the existing TCSP, and therefore would not result in increased demand to require construction of new recreational facilities since each incremental housing development would pay its fair share toward anticipated facility needs. Construction of any future recreation facilities would require a separate environmental review and approval. Therefore, impacts associated with recreation would be less than significant, similar to the project. p. Transportation
Future development under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would occur pursuant to the City’s updated TCSP, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC. While there would be outdoor performance uses, buildout under this alternative would not be reduced compared to the project and traffic levels would not change. The No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would include the roadway improvements identified in the updated TCSP. Future development would be designed consistent with established roadway design standards, and access to the existing roadway network would be configured consistent with established roadway design standards that would allow for emergency access. Because the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative applies the same land use densities and intensities in the majority of the project area, including within those areas Findings
located outside of TPAs, significant VMT impacts could occur. Therefore, impacts associated with transportation would be significant and unavoidable, similar to the project.
q. Tribal Cultural Resources
The updated TCSP under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would result in not allowing outdoor performance uses within the Commercial Entertainment areas of the TCSP, north of the Town Center Transit Station.
Future development under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would occur pursuant to the City’s adopted TCSP, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC. Future development under this alternative would be required to implement mitigation measures documented in this EIR for tribal cultural resources. As described in Section 4.17, the project would result in less than significant tribal cultural resources impacts with mitigation incorporated. The No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would not include the River Bridge which is located within an area identified for moderate potential to contain eligible buried archaeological sites, and the potential for tribal cultural resources impacts would be slightly reduced.
Therefore, impacts related to tribal cultural resources under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would be less than significant with mitigation, similar to the project.
r. Utilities and Service Systems
Future development under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would be subject to the updated TCSP land use plan and zoning, development and design standards, and conceptual designs provided in the updated TCSP. Development under this alternative, like the project, would increase demand for utilities and services. Utility infrastructure improvements and relocations under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would be evaluated as part of a future review for site-specific projects. Should separate utility extensions be required outside of the footprints of future site-specific projects, they would require an environmental review and compliance with regulations in existence at that time would address potential environmental impacts. The No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would likely result in similar demand for water supply, wastewater treatment, and solid waste disposal compared to development proposed under the project. Therefore, impacts associated with utilities and service system would be less than significant with mitigation, similar to the project.
s. Wildfire
Future development under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would be subject to the updated TCSP land use plan and zoning, as well as Findings
the City’s General Plan and SMC, and would be subject to the development and design standards and conceptual designs provided in the updated TCSP. This alternative does not include land use changes that would impair implementation of or physically interfere with the City’s emergency response plan, evacuation routes, or conflict with any of the Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan specific hazard mitigation goals, objectives, and related actions. Additionally, future development would be required to adhere to the City’s General Plan (Safety Element) policies including 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.11, and 4.12 which address emergency response and emergency evacuation.
Future development located within the Wildland Urban Interface would comply with applicable California Fire Code and City General Plan requirements and include enhanced fire protection measures as detailed in the City’s building and fire codes. Future development under this alternative would also be required to comply with applicable regulations and policies related to flooding, drainage patterns, and landslides. Therefore, impacts associated with wildfire under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would be less than significant, similar to the project.
As described above, the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would result in similar impacts compared to the project, with none of the environmental resources seeing an increase in the severity of impacts. Under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative, most of the updated TCSP under the project would be similar; however, the updated TCSP would not allow outdoor performance uses within the Commercial Entertainment areas of the TCSP, north of the Town Center Transit Station. Therefore, less than significant impacts (with and without mitigation) associated with aesthetics, agricultural resources, air quality, cultural resources, energy, geology, and soils, GHGs, hydrology population and housing, public services, recreation, tribal cultural resources, utilities and service systems, and wildfire would be similar under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative compared to the project. Impacts to biological resources would be slightly reduced under this alternative due to the elimination of outdoor performance uses near areas of biological sensitivity and a noise impact associated with outdoor performances would be avoided. Impacts related to air quality, hazards and hazardous materials, land use and planning, noise, and transportation would remain significant and unavoidable, similar to the project.
Attainment of Project Objectives: This alternative would partially meet some of the project objectives stated in Chapter 3.0 as this alternative does provide for mobility needs, a variety of housing types and commercial and office/professional opportunities, including employment-supportive uses. This alternative would not fully meet the project objectives to create a variety of commercial services to establish the TCSP area as an activity center of the community and to create community-serving public and civic uses within the TCSP as it would reduce opportunities to provide outdoor activities.
Finding: The City Council rejects Alternative 4: No Outdoor Performance Use Findings
Alternative, on the following grounds, each of which individually provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative: (1) the alternative only partially meets the Project objectives; and (2) the alternative fails to avoid or reduce the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts relating to air quality, hazards, land use and planning, noise and transportation.
E. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2) requires an EIR to identify the environmentally superior alternative. If the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, the EIR must identify an environmentally superior alternative from the other alternatives. The project itself may not be identified as the environmentally superior alternative. The No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative because it would incrementally reduce significant impacts associated with biological resources and would avoid a noise impact compared to the project.
Although this alternative would provide less flexibility for potential outdoor uses, the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would ultimately result in development of the same amount of residential and non-residential development as the project as no other aspects of the TCSP would be altered. The No Outdoor Performance Use would meet most project objectives; however, it might not as fully meet the project objective to allow for communityserving, civic, and public uses within the TCSP area to become focal points for residents and visitors to enjoy. (Draft PEIR, p. 9-31)
Findings
SECTION IX.
ADOPTION OF STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093(a), the City Council must balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the Project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. If the specific benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, those environmental effects may be considered acceptable.
Having reduced the adverse significant environmental effects of the Project to the extent feasible by adopting the mitigation measures; having considered the entire administrative record on the project; the City Council has weighed the benefits of the Project against its unavoidable adverse CEQA impacts after mitigation in regards to air quality, land use compatibility, airport hazards and transportation/traffic. While recognizing that the unavoidable adverse impacts are significant under CEQA thresholds, the City Council nonetheless finds that the unavoidable adverse impacts that will result from the Project are acceptable and outweighed by specific social, economic, and other benefits of the Project.
In making this determination, the factors and public benefits specified below were considered. Any one of these reasons is sufficient to justify approval of the Project. Thus, even if a court were to conclude that not every reason is supported by substantial evidence, the City Council would be able to stand by its determination that each individual reason is sufficient. The substantial evidence supporting the various benefits can be found in the preceding findings, which are incorporated by reference into this section, and in the documents found in the Records of Proceeding.
The City Council therefore finds that for each of the significant impacts which are subject to a finding under CEQA Section 21081(a)(3), that each of the following social, economic, and environmental benefits of the Project, independent of the other benefits, outweigh the potential significant unavoidable adverse impacts and render acceptable each and every one of these unavoidable adverse environmental impacts:
A. Establish standards that encourage new development and redevelopment of the TCSP area as an active town center with integrated, well-designed and interconnected commercial, residential, public and civic uses.
B. Implement Program 9 of the 6th Cycle 2021-2029 Housing Element to provide for the opportunity for future residential development on various sites throughout the City as identified by the Sites Inventory, with a density range of 30 to 36 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) on selected sites.
C. Increase the City of Santee’s (City) overall housing capacity and capability to accommodate housing as required per the adopted Housing Element for the 2021-2029 housing cycle.
Findings
D. Enforce objective design standards that facilitate the development of affordable housing, encourage distinct neighborhoods, provide enhanced connections between homes, activity centers, shopping, and open space opportunities, and ensure quality development occurs that is sensitive to the existing environment and surrounding uses.
4.0 Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Final EIR
4-1
4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
4.1 Introduction
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared for use in ensuring the implementation of the required mitigation for the Santee Town Center Specific Plan (project). The MMRP has been prepared in compliance with State law and the Santee Town Center Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 2023090032).
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the adoption of a reporting or monitoring program for the measures that are placed on a project to mitigate or avoid adverse effects on the environment (California Public Resources Code, Section 21081.6). The law states that the reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. The monitoring program generally contains the following elements:
1) The mitigation measures are recorded with the action and procedure necessary to ensure compliance. In some instances, one action may be used to verify the implementation of several mitigation measures.
2) A procedure for compliance and verification has been outlined for each action necessary. This procedure designates who will take action, what action will be taken and when, and to whom and when compliance will be reported. 3) The program has been designed to be flexible. As monitoring progresses, changes to compliance procedures may be necessary based upon recommendations by those responsible for the program. As changes are made, new monitoring compliance procedures and records will be developed and incorporated into the program.
This MMRP includes mitigation measures outlined in the Final EIR.
4.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Responsibilities
As the Lead Agency, the City of Santee (City) is responsible for ensuring full compliance with the mitigation measures adopted for the project. The City will monitor and report on all mitigation activities.
4.0 Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Final EIR
4-2
Table 4-1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measures Timeframe of Mitigation Monitoring,
Enforcement,
and Reporting
Responsibility
Aesthetics
Scenic Vistas CUL-5:
Avoidance is the preferred measure
to mitigate adverse effects to the
Edgemoor Polo Barn. Future plans
must design around the Polo Barn
consistent with the TCSP “Historic
Site Adjacency” Objective Design
Standard. If avoidance is not
possible, the preferred alternative is
to preserve the Polo Barn by moving
it to another location in accordance
with mitigation measures previously
published by Bull and Price, as
referenced in the Cultural Resources
Report (HELIX 2024b; Appendix D).
Prior to the issuance of any permit
for future development on Site 20A.
City of Santee
Visual Character or Quality Refer to CUL-5 above. Refer to CUL-5 above. City of Santee Air Quality
Cumulative Net Increases of
Criteria Pollutants
AQ-1:
Use of electrically powered
landscape equipment. Electric
receptacles/outlets shall be installed
at the exterior of all single-family
units, all multi-family buildings
(including those with affordable
units), and all common area
buildings, so that homeowners and
landscape contractors hired by the
Prior to the issuance of any permit
for a development in the TCSP
area or AEN (excluding the
Housing Element sites).
City of Santee
4.0 Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Final EIR
4-3
Table 4-1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measures Timeframe of Mitigation Monitoring,
Enforcement,
and Reporting
Responsibility
Biological Resources homeowners’ association may utilize electrically powered lawnmowers,
leaf blowers, and chainsaws. Project
plans shall include: (1) all necessary
receptacles/outlets; and (2) a note
that states “All landscape
maintenance contracts provided by
the applicable homeowners
association must require that
landscape contractors use
electrically powered lawn mowers,
leaf blowers, and chain saws.” City
staff must verify both requirements
prior to approval of the final plans.
Sensitive Species BIO-1:
Focused surveys for smooth tarplant
will be completed during the
blooming period for this species
(April to September) before clearing
and grubbing for development of
sites 16A, 16B, 20A, and 20B.
Smooth tarplant observed in a
proposed impact area will be flagged
and avoided during construction. If
impacts to smooth tarplant
individuals cannot be avoided,
mitigation will consist of on- or offsite preservation, translocation, and/or restoration within a BRCA,
Prior to clearing and grubbing for
site development in Housing
Element sites 16A, 16B, 20A, and
20B.
City of Santee
4.0 Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Final EIR
4-4
Table 4-1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measures Timeframe of Mitigation Monitoring,
Enforcement,
and Reporting
Responsibility
with a preference for species salvage
and transplantation on-site if feasible,
as determined by a qualified biologist
and approved by the City. Seed
material will be sourced from within
25 miles of the project area, but if
seed is not available, due to
seasonality or a poor seeding year,
seed collected from southeastern
San Diego County may be used. If
species are transplanted for
mitigation, these species will be
included in a plant salvage and
translocation plan according to
mitigation measure BIO-2.
BIO-2:
Prior to vegetation clearing for
development of the sites 16A, 16B,
20A, and 20B, if smooth tarplant is
being impacted and translocation is
selected as part of the mitigation
package according to mitigation
measure BIO-1, a plant salvage and
translocation plan shall be prepared
for smooth tarplant impacted by the
project. The plan shall, at a
minimum, evaluate options for plant
salvage and relocation, including
native plant mulching, selective soil
salvaging, and application/relocation
Prior to clearing and grubbing for
site development in Housing
Element sites 16A, 16B, 20A, and
20B.
City of Santee
4.0 Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Final EIR
4-5
Table 4-1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measures Timeframe of Mitigation Monitoring,
Enforcement,
and Reporting
Responsibility
of resources within the project area.
Relocation efforts may include seed
collection and/or transplantation to a
suitable receptor site and will be
based on the most reliable methods
of successful relocation. The
program shall contain a
recommendation for method of
salvage and relocation/application
based on the feasibility of
implementation and the likelihood of
success. The program shall include,
at a minimum, an implementation
plan, maintenance and monitoring
program, success criteria, estimated
completion time, and any relevant
contingency measures. The resource
salvage plan shall be prepared by a
qualified biologist and shall be
implemented according to the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program for the project, to the
satisfaction of the City.
BIO-3:
To help ensure errant impacts to
sensitive vegetation communities
and jurisdictional waters outside of
the impact footprint are avoided
during construction in the Housing
Element sites, environmental
• Fencing installation prior to
clearing and grubbing for site
development in Housing
Element sites 16A, 16B, 20A,
and 20B.
City of Santee
4.0 Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Final EIR
4-6
Table 4-1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measures Timeframe of Mitigation Monitoring,
Enforcement,
and Reporting
Responsibility
exclusionary fencing, where
determined necessary by the
qualified biologist, would be installed
at the edges of the impact limits
before the initiation of grading. All
construction staging shall occur
within the approved limits of
construction. A qualified biologist will
monitor the installation of
environmental fencing wherever it
would abut sensitive vegetation
communities.
The biologist will periodically monitor
the limits of construction operations
to ensure that avoidance areas are
delineated with temporary fencing
and that fencing remains intact.
Unless otherwise determined by the
monitoring biologist, periodically
means once every 14 days after
environmental exclusionary fencing
has been installed at the edges of
the impact limits.
• Monitoring during project
construction in in Housing
Element sites 16A, 16B, 20A,
and 20B.
BIO-4:
Prior to vegetation clearing for
development of the Housing Element
sites a qualified biologist shall
conduct a Worker Environmental
Awareness Program (WEAP) training
Prior to clearing and grubbing for
site development in Housing
Element sites 16A, 16B, 20A, and
20B.
City of Santee
4.0 Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Final EIR
4-7
Table 4-1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measures Timeframe of Mitigation Monitoring,
Enforcement,
and Reporting
Responsibility
session for project and construction
personnel prior to the
commencement of work. The training
shall include a description of the
species of concern and their habitats,
the general provisions of the
Endangered Species Acts (FESA
and CESA), the penalties associated
with violating the provisions of the
acts, the general measures that are
being implemented to conserve the
species of concern as they relate to
the project, and the access routes to
and project area boundaries.
BIO-5:
Immediately following completion of
temporary construction activities
within the TCSP area, AEN, and
Housing Element sites, the
contractor shall restore the
temporary impact areas to preconstruction contours and revegetate the areas with native plant material,
as follows: excavated soils and
cleared native plant material shall be
stockpiled within an appropriate
staging area along the edge of the
work corridor to the extent feasible;
excavated soils shall be backfilled
upon completion of construction and
• Initiation of restoration and
revegetation immediately
following completion of
temporary construction
activities in the TCSP area,
AEN, or Housing Element sites.
• Maintenance and monitoring of
the revegetation shall be
provided for a period up to 25
months.
City of Santee
4.0 Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Final EIR
4-8
Table 4-1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measures Timeframe of Mitigation Monitoring,
Enforcement,
and Reporting
Responsibility
recontoured to pre-existing
conditions; cleared native plant
material shall be distributed over the
temporarily disturbed areas; native
seed application and installation of
native container plants. Plant and
seed material will be sourced from
within 25 miles of the project area,
but if plant and seed material is not
available, due to seasonality or a
poor seeding year, seed collected
from southeastern San Diego County
may be used.
Maintenance and monitoring of the
revegetation shall be provided for a
period up to 25 months or for a
period sufficient to establish native
plant material and to provide
vegetative cover that prevents soil
erosion. Appropriate landscaping will
be selected based on the vegetation
communities within the portion of the
study area adjacent to the project. In
areas supporting native (or disturbed
native) vegetation communities,
revegetation of temporarily impacted
areas will be with appropriate native
plant materials. Only non-invasive
plant species will be included in the
4.0 Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Final EIR
4-9
Table 4-1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measures Timeframe of Mitigation Monitoring,
Enforcement,
and Reporting
Responsibility
revegetation plans (species not listed
on the California Invasive Plant
Inventory prepared by the California
Invasive Plant Council ([Cal-IPC]
2024). A qualified landscape
architect and/or qualified biologist
shall review landscape plant palettes
prior to implementation to ensure that
no invasive species are included.
Any planting stock brought onto the
project area shall be inspected to
ensure it is free of pest species that
could invade natural areas, including
but not limited to, Argentine ants
(Linepithema humile) and South
American fire ants (Solenopsis
invicta). Inspections of planting stock
for habitat revegetation shall be by a
qualified biologist. Any planting stock
found to be infested with such pests
shall be quarantined, treated, or
disposed of according to best
management practices (BMPs) by
qualified personnel, in a manner that
precludes invasions into natural
habitats. Temporary irrigation via
irrigation lines and appurtenances (or
alternate method approved by the
City and qualified biologist) shall be
provided by the contractor for a
4.0 Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Final EIR
4-10
Table 4-1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measures Timeframe of Mitigation Monitoring,
Enforcement,
and Reporting
Responsibility
period sufficient to establish plant
material and to provide vegetative
cover that prevents soil erosion.
Irrigation shall be performed in a
manner that avoids runoff, seepage,
and overspray onto adjacent
properties, non-irrigated areas, walls,
roadways, waterways, or structures.
BIO-6:
Applications for future development
outside of sites 16A, 16B, 20A, and
20B, where the City has determined
a potential for impacts to sensitive
biological resources, shall be
required to comply with the following
mitigation measure:
a. Prior to issuance of any
construction permit or any earthmoving activities, a site specific general biological resources
survey shall be conducted to
identify the presence of any
sensitive biological resources,
including any sensitive plant or
wildlife species. A biological
resources report shall be
submitted to the City to document
the results of the biological
resources survey. The report
shall include (1) the methods
• Perform site specific survey
prior to the issuance of any
permit for development in the
TCSP area or AEN (excluding
the Housing Element sites).
• Perform described awareness,
management, and monitoring
activities during project
construction in the TCSP area
or AEN (excluding the Housing
Element sites).
City of Santee
4.0 Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Final EIR
4-11
Table 4-1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measures Timeframe of Mitigation Monitoring,
Enforcement,
and Reporting
Responsibility
used to determine the presence
of sensitive biological resources;
(2) vegetation mapping of all
vegetation communities and/or
land cover types; (3) the locations
of any sensitive plant or wildlife
species; (4) an evaluation of the
potential for occurrence of any
listed, rare, and narrow endemic
species; and (5) an evaluation of
the significance of any potential
direct or indirect impacts from the
proposed project. If suitable
habitat for sensitive species is
identified based on the general
biological survey, then focused
presence/absence surveys shall
be conducted in accordance with
applicable resource agency
survey protocols and
incorporated into the biological
resources report. If potentially
significant impacts to sensitive
vegetation communities and
biological resources are
identified, project-level grading
and site plans shall incorporate
project design features to avoid
or minimize direct impacts on
4.0 Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Final EIR
4-12
Table 4-1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measures Timeframe of Mitigation Monitoring,
Enforcement,
and Reporting
Responsibility
sensitive biological resources to
the extent feasible, and the report
shall also recommend
appropriate mitigation to reduce
the impacts to below a level of
significance, where feasible.
Mitigation measures shall be
consistent with the standards
contained in the Santee Subarea
Plan, and projects shall be
required to obtain all necessary
permits to ensure compliance
with applicable federal, state, and
local regulations, such as the
federal and state Endangered
Species Acts. Mitigation ratios for
sensitive vegetation community
impacts are:
• Wetland habitats – 3:1 ratio
• Diegan coastal sage scrub –
2:1 ratio
• Non-native grassland – 0.5:1
ratio
Mitigation ratios shall be doubled
for sensitive vegetation
community impacts within the
Preserve and Open Space
System designated by the Santee
Subarea Plan, once adopted.
4.0 Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Final EIR
4-13
Table 4-1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measures Timeframe of Mitigation Monitoring,
Enforcement,
and Reporting
Responsibility
b. Environmentally Sensitive Areas
shall be identified in the biological
resources report and avoided to
the maximum extent practicable.
In areas near or adjacent to
Environmentally Sensitive Areas
(i.e., natural habitats and
vegetation, wetlands, wildlife
areas, wildlife corridors), the
biological resources report will
consider the following measures:
Avoidance of Environmentally
Sensitive Areas. In areas near or
adjacent to Environmentally
Sensitive Areas, construction
limits shall be clearly demarcated
using highly visible barriers (such
as silt fencing), which shall be
installed under the supervision of
a qualified biologist prior to the
commencement of work.
Construction personnel shall
strictly limit their activities,
vehicles, equipment, and
construction materials to the
project footprint, including
designated staging areas, and
routes of travel. The construction
areas shall be limited to the
4.0 Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Final EIR
4-14
Table 4-1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measures Timeframe of Mitigation Monitoring,
Enforcement,
and Reporting
Responsibility
minimal area necessary to
complete the proposed project.
The fencing shall remain in place
until the completion of all
construction activities and shall
be promptly removed when
construction is complete.
Biological Monitoring. A qualified
biological monitor shall conduct
construction monitoring of all
work conducted within/adjacent to
environmentally sensitive areas
during all vegetation removal and
ground-disturbing activities such
as staging and grading, for the
duration of the proposed project
to ensure that practicable
measures are being employed to
avoid incidental disturbance of
habitat outside the project
footprints and to survey for
sensitive wildlife species. When
vegetation removal and grounddisturbing activities are not occurring, as needed monitoring
at the project areas shall occur.
4.0 Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Final EIR
4-15
Table 4-1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measures Timeframe of Mitigation Monitoring,
Enforcement,
and Reporting
Responsibility
Worker Environmental
Awareness Program. In areas
near or adjacent to
Environmentally Sensitive Areas,
a qualified biologist shall conduct
a WEAP training session for
project and construction
personnel prior to the
commencement of work. The
training shall include a description
of the species of concern and
their habitats, the general
provisions of the Endangered
Species Acts (FESA and CESA),
the penalties associated with
violating the provisions of the
acts, the general measures that
are being implemented to
conserve the species of concern
as they relate to the project, and
the access routes to and project
area boundaries.
Best Management Practices.
During future project construction
activities, the following BMPs
shall be implemented:
• All equipment maintenance,
staging, and dispensing of
4.0 Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Final EIR
4-16
Table 4-1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measures Timeframe of Mitigation Monitoring,
Enforcement,
and Reporting
Responsibility
fuel, oil, or any other such
activities shall occur in
developed or designated nonsensitive upland habitat
areas. The designated upland
areas shall be located to
prevent runoff from any spills
from entering Waters of the
US.
• A construction Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) and a soil erosion
and sedimentation plan shall
be developed (where
requirements are met) to
minimize erosion and identify
specific pollution prevention
measures that shall eliminate
or control potential point and
nonpoint pollution sources
onsite during and following
the project construction
phase. The SWPPP shall
identify specific BMPs during
project construction to prevent
any water quality standard
exceedances. In addition, the
SWPPP shall contain
provisions for changes to the
plan such as alternative
4.0 Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Final EIR
4-17
Table 4-1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measures Timeframe of Mitigation Monitoring,
Enforcement,
and Reporting
Responsibility
mechanisms, if necessary,
during project design and/or
construction to achieve the
stated goals and performance
standards.
• Trash shall be stored in
closed containers so that it is
not readily accessible to
scavengers and shall be
removed from the
construction site on a daily
basis.
• Water quality shall be visually
monitored by the biological
monitor to ensure that no
substantial increases in
turbidity occur during
construction. All relevant
natural resource permits and
authorizations shall be
obtained from appropriate
agencies (i.e., USACE,
RWQCB, and CDFW) prior to
the initiation of construction
activities. Permit conditions
contained within the permits
and authorizations shall be
employed throughout the
duration of the project.
4.0 Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Final EIR
4-18
Table 4-1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measures Timeframe of Mitigation Monitoring,
Enforcement,
and Reporting
Responsibility
• Hydrologic connectivity shall
be maintained within
drainages during the duration
of construction. Brush, debris
material, mud, silt, or other
pollutants from construction
activities shall not be placed
within drainages and shall not
be allowed to enter a flowing
stream.
• Dust control measures shall
be implemented by the
contractor to reduce
excessive dust emissions.
Dust control measures shall
be carried out at least two
times per day on all
construction days, or more
during windy or dry periods,
and may include wetting work
areas, the use of soil binders
on dirt roads, and wetting or
covering stockpiles.
• No pets shall be allowed in, or
adjacent to, the project areas.
• Rodenticides, herbicides,
insecticides, or other
chemicals that could
potentially harm wildlife or
native plants shall not be used
4.0 Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Final EIR
4-19
Table 4-1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measures Timeframe of Mitigation Monitoring,
Enforcement,
and Reporting
Responsibility
near or within
Environmentally Sensitive
Areas within or near the
roadway segments.
• Construction equipment shall
be cleaned of mud or other
debris that may contain
invasive plants and/or seeds
and inspected to reduce the
potential of spreading noxious
weeds before mobilizing to
the site and before leaving the
site during construction.
• The cleaning of equipment will
occur at least 300 feet from
Environmentally Sensitive
Area fencing.
• Use of Native Plants. All
project-related planting and
landscaping shall not use plants
listed on California Invasive Plant
Council. Locally native plants shall
be used near open space and native
areas to the greatest extent feasible.
•
BIO-7:
Grubbing or clearing of vegetation
within the TCSP area, AEN, or
Housing Element sites during the
general avian breeding season
(February 1 to September 15), least
• Perform pre-construction
surveys no more than 3 days
prior to clearing and grubbing
for site development in the
TCSP area, AEN, or Housing
Element sites.
City of Santee
4.0 Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Final EIR
4-20
Table 4-1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measures Timeframe of Mitigation Monitoring,
Enforcement,
and Reporting
Responsibility
Bell’s vireo breeding season (March
15 to September 15), coastal
California gnatcatcher breeding
season (March 1 to August 15), or
raptor breeding season (January 15
to July 15) shall be avoided to the
extent feasible. If grubbing, clearing,
or grading would occur during the
breeding season, a pre-construction
survey shall be conducted by a
qualified biologist no more than three
days prior to the commencement of
activities to determine if active bird
nests are present in the affected
areas. If there are no nesting birds
(includes nest building or other
breeding/nesting behavior) within
300 feet of the survey area (500 feet
for raptors), clearing, grubbing, and
grading shall be allowed to proceed
in that area. Furthermore, if clearing,
grubbing, or grading activities are to
resume in an area where they have
not occurred for a period of seven or
more days during the breeding
season, an updated survey for avian
nesting will be conducted by a
qualified biologist within three days
prior to the commencement of
clearing, grubbing, or grading
• Implement avoidance
measures during project
construction in the TCSP area,
AEN, or Housing Element sites.
4.0 Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Final EIR
4-21
Table 4-1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measures Timeframe of Mitigation Monitoring,
Enforcement,
and Reporting
Responsibility
activities in that area. If active nests
or nesting birds are observed within
300 feet of the survey area (500 feet
for raptors), the biologist shall flag a
buffer around the active nests, and
clearing, grubbing, or grading
activities shall not occur within 300
feet of active nests (500 feet for
raptors) until nesting behavior has
ceased, nests have failed, or young
have fledged as determined by a
qualified biologist. If the qualified
biologist determines that the species
will not be impacted with a reduced
buffer (i.e., less than 300 feet for
general avian species and 500 feet
for raptors), potentially with the
implementation of avoidance
measures to reduce noise, as
necessary, and/or the qualified
biologist monitors the active nest
during clearing, grubbing, or grading
to ensure no impacts to the species
occur, these activities may occur
outside the reduced buffer during the
breeding season, as long as the
species is not impacted.
BIO-8:
If heavy equipment would be in
operation during construction within
• Perform pre-construction
survey prior to clearing and
City of Santee
4.0 Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Final EIR
4-22
Table 4-1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measures Timeframe of Mitigation Monitoring,
Enforcement,
and Reporting
Responsibility
the TCSP area, AEN, or Housing
Element sites during the breeding
season for least Bell’s vireo (March
15 to September 15), coastal
California gnatcatcher (March 1 to
August 15), or raptors (January 15 to
July 15), pre-construction survey(s)
shall be conducted by a qualified
biologist, as appropriate, to
determine whether these species
occur within the areas potentially
impacted by noise. If preconstruction surveys determine that active nests belonging to these
species are absent from the potential
noise impact area (within 300 feet for
vireo or gnatcatcher, 500 feet for
raptors, or as otherwise determined
by a qualified biologist), clearing,
grubbing, and grading shall be
allowed to proceed. If preconstruction surveys determine the presence of active nests belonging to
these species, then clearing,
grubbing, and grading within 300 feet
of the nest location(s) for vireo or
gnatcatcher and 500 feet for raptors,
shall: (1) be postponed until a
permitted biologist determines the
nest is no longer active; (2) be
grubbing for site development
in the TCSP area, AEN, or
Housing Element sites.
• Implement avoidance
measures during project
construction in the TCSP area,
AEN, or Housing Element sites.
4.0 Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Final EIR
4-23
Table 4-1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measures Timeframe of Mitigation Monitoring,
Enforcement,
and Reporting
Responsibility
allowed to continue if nest monitoring
by a qualified biologist determines
that noise levels are not adversely
affecting the nesting birds, or (3) not
occur until a temporary noise barrier
or berm is constructed at the edge of
the clearing, grubbing, or grading
footprint an d/or around the piece of
equipment to ensure that noise levels
are reduced to below 60 dBA hourly
average or to the maximum hourly
average ambient noise level if it
already exceeds 60 dBA at the nest
location. Decibel output for Item (3)
will be confirmed by a qualified noise
specialist and intermittent monitoring
by a qualified biologist will be
required to ensure that conditions
have not changed.
BIO-9:
If periodic noise (such as events) or
continuous noise (such as
mechanical equipment) generated by
standard operation of land uses
within the TCSP, AEN, or Housing
Element sites 16A, 16B, 20A, and
20B will produce noise levels that will
adversely affect nesting birds during
the breeding season for least Bell’s
vireo (March 15 to September 15),
• During design for site
development in the TCSP area,
AEN, or Housing Element sites.
• Maintain sound levels during
operation in the TCSP area,
AEN, or Housing Element sites.
City of Santee
4.0 Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Final EIR
4-24
Table 4-1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measures Timeframe of Mitigation Monitoring,
Enforcement,
and Reporting
Responsibility
coastal California gnatcatcher (March
1 to August 15), or raptors (January
15 to July 15), activities nearby to
suitable special-status species
habitat on preserved land will be
designed and implemented to
minimize noise impacts to preserves
and wildlife. Operational activities
shall be allowed to continue if a noise
barrier or berm is constructed at the
edge of the suitable special-status
species habitat to ensure that noise
levels are reduced to below 60 dBA
hourly average or the maximum
hourly average ambient noise level if
it already exceeds 60 dBA at the
edge of suitable habitat during the
breeding season.
BIO-10:
A focused pre-construction survey for
special status animal species will be
completed by a qualified biologist
prior to clearing and grubbing within
the TCSP area, AEN, or sites 16A,
16B, 20A, and 20B. Aside from birds,
which are covered by other mitigation
measures, this survey will focus on
the special status animal species
identified as having high potential to
occur on-site: western spadefoot
• Perform pre-construction
survey prior to clearing and
grubbing for site development
in the TCSP area, AEN, or
Housing Element sites.
• Implement avoidance
measures during project
construction in the TCSP area,
AEN, or Housing Element sites.
City of Santee
4.0 Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Final EIR
4-25
Table 4-1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measures Timeframe of Mitigation Monitoring,
Enforcement,
and Reporting
Responsibility
toad, San Diegan legless lizard,
California glossy snake, Belding’s
orange-throated whiptail, San Diegan
tiger whiptail, red diamond
rattlesnake, Blainville’s horned lizard,
and two-striped garter snake.
Occupied special status species
habitat observed in the proposed
impact area will be flagged and
avoided during construction until the
qualified biologist determines that
special status species are no longer
using the habitat.
Sensitive Vegetation Communities Refer to BIO-3 through BIO-6 above. Refer to BIO-3 through BIO-6 above.
City of Santee
BIO-11:
Applications where the City has
determined a potential for impacts to
jurisdictional waters and wetlands
shall be required to comply with the
following permitting and mitigation
framework.
Before the issuance of any
construction permit or any earthmoving activities, a site specific general biological resources survey
(BIO-6) shall be conducted to identify
the presence of any sensitive
biological resources, including any
• Perform wetland delineation
prior to the issuance of any
permit for development in the
TCSP area, AEN, or Housing
Element sites.
• Implement avoidance
measures during project
construction in the TCSP area,
AEN, or Housing Element sites.
City of Santee
4.0 Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Final EIR
4-26
Table 4-1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measures Timeframe of Mitigation Monitoring,
Enforcement,
and Reporting
Responsibility
wetlands. Should any potential
jurisdictional waters or wetlands be
identified on-site during the general
biological resources survey, then a
jurisdictional wetlands delineation
shall be conducted following the
methods outlined in the USACE’s
1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual
and the Regional Supplement to the
Corps of Engineers Delineation
Manual for the Arid West Region or
most current USACE guidance. The
limits of any riparian habitats on-site
under the sole jurisdiction of CDFW
shall also be delineated, as well as
any special aquatic sites that may
not meet federal jurisdictional criteria
but are regulated by the RWQCB.
Avoidance measures based on
project-level grading and site plans
shall be incorporated into the project
design to minimize direct impacts to
jurisdictional waters consistent with
federal, state, and City guidelines.
Unavoidable impacts to wetlands
shall be minimized to the maximum
extent practicable and would be
subject to alternatives and mitigation
analyses consistent with the
4.0 Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Final EIR
4-27
Table 4-1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measures Timeframe of Mitigation Monitoring,
Enforcement,
and Reporting
Responsibility
USACE’s and RWQCB’s permit
processes. Unavoidable impacts
would require the project to submit
permit applications to the USACE
under CWA Section 404, the
RWQCB under CWA Section 401
and/or the State Porter-Cologne
Water Quality Control Act, and/or the
CDFW under CFG Code Sections
1600 et seq., depending on the
jurisdictional resources impacted.
The permits issued for the project will
set the mitigation requirements,
which typically require the in-kind
creation of new wetland of the same
type lost, at a ratio determined by the
applicable regulatory agencies that
would prevent any net loss of
wetland functions and values. (See
mitigation measure BIO-12 for the
proposed mitigation package for the
Riverview Parkway Project.) Wetland
creation on-site or within the same
wetland system should be given
preference over replacement off-site
or within a different system. The City
shall also control use and
development in surrounding areas of
influence to wetlands with the
application of buffer zones as may be
4.0 Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Final EIR
4-28
Table 4-1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measures Timeframe of Mitigation Monitoring,
Enforcement,
and Reporting
Responsibility
required for wetlands pursuant to
federal and/or state permits in
accordance to the Land Use
Adjacency Guidelines, conservation
measures and wetland protection
standards in the Draft Subarea Plan
Chapter 5. Use and development
within buffer areas shall be limited to
minor passive recreational uses,
such as trails, with fencing,
desiltation, or erosion control
facilities, or other improvements
deemed necessary to protect the
habitat, to be located in the upper
(upland) half of the buffer when
feasible. All wetlands and buffers
shall be permanently conserved or
protected through the application of
an open space easement or other
suitable device.
BIO-12:
Site 16A would result in impacts to
0.37 acre of wetland and nonwetland waters of the U.S., 0.37 acre of wetland and non-wetland waters of
the State, and 1.18 acres CDFW
Jurisdictional Habitat. By re-aligning
and widening the Las Colinas
Channel, mitigation will comprise
creation of 0.74 acre waters of the
During project construction in
Housing Element site 16A.
City of Santee
4.0 Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Final EIR
4-29
Table 4-1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measures Timeframe of Mitigation Monitoring,
Enforcement,
and Reporting
Responsibility
U.S., 0.74 acre waters of the State,
and 1.24 acres riparian habitat.
Additionally, 0.08 acre of existing
waters of the U.S./State that would
be temporarily affected by
recontouring (will remain within the
widened Las Colinas Channel) will
also be revegetated and maintained.
Wetlands Refer to BIO-3, BIO-4, BIO-6, BIO11, and BIO-12 above.Refer to BIO-3, BIO-4, BIO-6, BIO11, and BIO-12 above.City of Santee Habitat Conservation Planning Refer to BIO-6 and BIO-11 above. Refer to BIO-6 and BIO-11 above. City of Santee Policies and Ordinances
Protecting Biological Resources
Refer to BIO-5 through BIO-8, BIO11, and BIO-12 above.Refer to BIO-5 through BIO-8, BIO11, and BIO-12 above.City of Santee Cultural Resources
Historic Resources CUL-1:
Prior to approval of an individual
project (including the four Housing
Element sites) under the TCSP area
or AEN, a cultural resources survey
shall be conducted for that project. If
cultural resources are identified in
conjunction with the cultural
resources survey, they must be
evaluated to assess their eligibility for
the CRHR and, thus, whether the
project would have an effect on
historic properties (cultural
resources) per CEQA. If significant
effects to historic properties/cultural
resources are identified, appropriate
Prior to the issuance of any permit
for development in the TCSP area,
AEN, or Housing Element sites.
City of Santee
4.0 Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Final EIR
4-30
Table 4-1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measures Timeframe of Mitigation Monitoring,
Enforcement,
and Reporting
Responsibility
avoidance or mitigation measures
must be developed as part of the
cultural resources study and
implemented prior to project
development.
CUL-2:
Prior to issuance of grading permits
for any projects (including the
Housing Element sites) within the
TCSP area or AEN: The
applicant/developer shall provide
evidence to the City of Santee that a
qualified professional archaeologist
has been contracted to implement a
Cultural Resources Management
Plan (CRMP), the City must agree to
the selected archaeologist and agree
to the implementation prescribed in
the CRMP. A CRMP shall be
developed in coordination with the
consulting tribe(s) that addresses the
details of all activities and provides
procedures that must be followed to
reduce the impacts to cultural and
historic resources to a level that is
less than significant, as well as
address potential impacts to
undiscovered buried archaeological
resources associated with this
project.
• Prepare CRMP prior to the
issuance of a grading permit for
development in the TCSP area,
AEN, or Housing Element sites.
• Implement training and
monitoring during project
construction in the TCSP area,
AEN, or Housing Element sites.
City of Santee
4.0 Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Final EIR
4-31
Table 4-1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measures Timeframe of Mitigation Monitoring,
Enforcement,
and Reporting
Responsibility
For each construction project within
the TCSP, AEN, or Housing Element
sites, the CRMP shall contain, at a
minimum, the following:
Archaeological Monitoring. An
adequate number of qualified
archaeological monitors shall be on
site to ensure all earth-moving
activities are observed in areas being
monitored. This includes all grubbing,
grading, and trenching on-site and
for all off-site improvements.
Inspections will vary based on the
rate of excavation, the materials
excavated, and the presence and
abundance of artifacts and features.
The frequency and location of
inspections will be determined and
directed by the Project Archaeologist.
Cultural Resources Sensitivity
Training. The Project Archaeologist
and a representative designated by
the consulting Tribe(s) shall attend
the pre-grading meeting with the
contractors to provide Cultural
Resources Sensitivity Training for all
construction personnel. Training will
include a brief review of the cultural
4.0 Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Final EIR
4-32
Table 4-1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measures Timeframe of Mitigation Monitoring,
Enforcement,
and Reporting
Responsibility
sensitivity of the project and the
surrounding area; the areas to be
avoided during grading activities;
what resources could potentially be
identified during earth-moving
activities; the requirements of the
monitoring program; the protocols
that apply in the event unanticipated
cultural resources are identified,
including who to contact and
appropriate avoidance measures
until the find(s) can be properly
evaluated; and any other appropriate
protocols. This is a mandatory
training, and all construction
personnel must attend prior to
beginning work on the project site.
Unanticipated Resources: If
previously unidentified potentially
significant cultural resources are
discovered, the Archaeological
and/or Tribal Monitor(s) shall have
the authority to divert or temporarily
halt ground disturbance operations in
the area of discovery to allow
evaluation of potentially significant
cultural resources. The Project
Archaeologist, in consultation with
4.0 Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Final EIR
4-33
Table 4-1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measures Timeframe of Mitigation Monitoring,
Enforcement,
and Reporting
Responsibility
the Tribal monitor, shall determine
the significance of discovered
prehistoric archaeological resources.
The Project Archaeologist shall
determine the significance of
discovered historic-period
archaeological resources. Further,
before construction activities are
allowed to resume in the affected
area, the artifacts shall be recovered
and features recorded using
professional archaeological methods.
The Project Archaeologist shall
determine the amount of material to
be recovered for an adequate artifact
sample for analysis. Isolates and
clearly non-significant deposits shall
be minimally documented in the field,
and the monitored grading can
proceed.
Artifact Disposition: The
landowner(s) shall relinquish
ownership of all cultural resources
that are unearthed on the project
property during any grounddisturbing activities, including previous investigations and/or Phase
III data recovery. Recovered cultural
artifacts shall be curated with
4.0 Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Final EIR
4-34
Table 4-1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measures Timeframe of Mitigation Monitoring,
Enforcement,
and Reporting
Responsibility
accompanying catalog to current
professional repository standards or
be returned to the appropriate Native
American Tribe(s), as agreed upon
by the Principal Investigator, Native
American representative(s), and City
staff.
CUL-3:
Prior to the issuance of grading
permits, the developer/permit
applicant shall enter into an
agreement(s) with the consulting
tribe(s) for a Kumeyaay Native
American Monitor(s).
In conjunction with the
Archaeological monitor(s), the
Kumeyaay Native American
Monitor(s) shall attend the pregrading meeting with the contractors to provide Cultural Resources
Sensitivity Training for all
construction personnel. In addition,
an adequate number of Kumeyaay
Native American Monitor(s) shall be
on-site during all initial grounddisturbing activities and excavation of each portion of the project site,
including clearing, grubbing, tree
removals, grading, and trenching. In
• Enter into agreement prior to
the issuance of a grading
permit for development in the
TCSP area, AEN, or Housing
Element sites.
• Monitor during project
construction in the TCSP area,
AEN, or Housing Element sites.
City of Santee
4.0 Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Final EIR
4-35
Table 4-1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measures Timeframe of Mitigation Monitoring,
Enforcement,
and Reporting
Responsibility
conjunction with the archaeological
monitor(s), the Kumeyaay Native
American Monitor(s) shall have the
authority to temporarily divert,
redirect, or halt the ground
disturbance activities to allow
identification, evaluation, and
potential recovery of cultural
resources.
CUL-4:
In the event that potential human
remains are encountered, grounddisturbing activities within 100 feet of the discovery will be halted, and the
requirements of California Health and
Safety Code Section 7050.5 will be
implemented. The archaeological
monitor will immediately notify the
Project Archaeologist, who will notify
the County Medical Examiner’s
(ME’s) Office. A representative of the
ME’s Office will determine whether
the human remains appear to be
Native American in origin. If so, the
ME’s Office will notify the Native
American Heritage Commission
(NAHC) who will designate the Most
Likely Descendant (MLD). The MLD
will make recommendations for the
appropriate treatment of the remains
During project construction in the
TCSP area, AEN, or Housing
Element sites.
City of Santee
4.0 Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Final EIR
4-36
Table 4-1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measures Timeframe of Mitigation Monitoring,
Enforcement,
and Reporting
Responsibility
and any associated grave goods.
The County ME’s office will make the
determination of the origin of the
remains within two working days and
will notify the NAHC within 24 hours
of their decision if the human
remains are determined to be Native
American. In the event human
remains or burial items are
discovered, all parties will refrain
from publicly disclosing the reburial
location unless otherwise required by
law.
Refer to CUL-5 above. Refer to CUL-5 above. City of Santee Archaeological Resources Refer to CUL-1 through CUL-4
above.
Refer to CUL-1 through CUL-4
above.
City of Santee
Human Remains Refer to CUL-4 above. Refer to CUL-4 above. City of Santee Geology/Soils
Paleontological Resources and
Unique Geology
GEO-1:
To address potential impacts to
paleontological resources, the City
shall review the project application
materials including the geotechnical
report to determine if project grading
has the potential to disturb geologic
formations with the potential to
contain paleontological resources. As
part of the grading application
process, the City may request
information from the applicant such
• Determine sensitivity prior to
the issuance of any permit for
development in the TCSP area,
AEN, or Housing Element sites.
• Monitor and recover during
project construction in the
TCSP area, AEN, or Housing
Element sites.
• Manage, report, and curate
after project construction in the
TCSP area, AEN, or Housing
Element sites.
City of Santee
4.0 Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Final EIR
4-37
Table 4-1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measures Timeframe of Mitigation Monitoring,
Enforcement,
and Reporting
Responsibility
as the depth of grading, geologic
formations, and paleontological
sensitivity in order to determine the
potential for impacts. In the event
grading may disturb geologic
formations with a moderate or high
potential to contain paleontological
resources, the following monitoring
program shall be implemented prior
to and during grading operations:
1. Preconstruction Personnel and
Repository: Prior to the
commencement of construction, a
qualified project paleontologist
shall be retained to oversee the
mitigation program. A qualified
project paleontologist is a person
with a doctorate or master’s
degree in paleontology or related
field and who has knowledge of
the County of San Diego
paleontology and documented
experience in professional
paleontological procedures and
techniques. In addition, a regional
fossil repository, such as the San
Diego Natural History Museum,
shall be designated by the City of
Santee to receive any discovered
fossils.
4.0 Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Final EIR
4-38
Table 4-1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measures Timeframe of Mitigation Monitoring,
Enforcement,
and Reporting
Responsibility
2. Preconstruction Meeting: The
project paleontologist shall attend
the preconstruction meeting to
consult with the grading and
excavation contractors
concerning excavation schedules,
paleontological field techniques,
and safety issues.
3. Preconstruction Training: The
project paleontologist shall
conduct a paleontological
resource training workshop to be
attended by earth excavation
personnel.
4. During-Construction Monitoring:
A project paleontologist or
paleontological monitor shall be
present during all earthwork in
formations with moderate to high
paleontological sensitivity. A
paleontological monitor (working
under the direction of the project
paleontologist) shall be on site on
a full-time basis during all original
cutting of previously undisturbed
deposits.
5. During-Construction Fossil
Recovery: If fossils are
discovered, the project
paleontologist (or paleontological
4.0 Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Final EIR
4-39
Table 4-1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measures Timeframe of Mitigation Monitoring,
Enforcement,
and Reporting
Responsibility
monitor) shall recover them. In
most cases, fossil salvage can be
completed in a short period of
time. However, some fossil
specimens (e.g., a bone bed or a
complete large mammal skeleton)
may require an extended salvage
period. In these instances, the
project paleontologist (or
paleontological monitor) has the
authority to temporarily direct,
divert, or halt grading to allow
recovery of fossil remains in a
timely manner.
6. Post-Construction Treatment:
Fossil remains collected during
monitoring and salvage shall be
cleaned, repaired, sorted, and
cataloged.
7. Post-Construction Curation:
Prepared fossils, along with
copies of all pertinent field notes,
photos, and maps, shall be
deposited in the designated fossil
repository.
8. Post-Construction Final Report: A
final summary paleontological
mitigation report that outlines the
results of the
4.0 Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Final EIR
4-40
Table 4-1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measures Timeframe of Mitigation Monitoring,
Enforcement,
and Reporting
Responsibility
mitigation program shall be
completed and submitted to the
City of Santee within two weeks
of the completion of each
construction phase of the
proposed project. This report
shall include discussions of the
methods used, stratigraphic
section(s) exposed, fossils
collected, inventory lists of
cataloged fossils, and
significance of recovered fossils.
GEO-2:
If fossils are inadvertently discovered
anywhere in the TCSP area, the
construction contractor shall
immediately stop all activities within
100 feet of the fossil and notify the
City within 24 hours of the find.
Before work can proceed within 100
feet of the find, a project
paleontologist (or paleontological
monitor) shall be hired to monitor
construction activities and recover
the fossils. In most cases, fossil
salvage can be completed in a short
period of time. However, some fossil
specimens (e.g., a bone bed or a
complete large mammal skeleton)
may require an extended salvage
• Monitor and recover during
project construction in the
TCSP area, AEN, or Housing
Element sites.
• Manage, report, and curate
after project construction in the
TCSP area, AEN, or Housing
Element sites.
City of Santee
4.0 Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Final EIR
4-41
Table 4-1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measures Timeframe of Mitigation Monitoring,
Enforcement,
and Reporting
Responsibility
period. In these instances, the
project paleontologist (or
paleontological monitor) has the
authority to temporarily direct, divert,
or halt grading to allow recovery of
fossil remains in a timely manner.
1. Post-Construction Treatment:
Fossil remains collected during
monitoring and salvage shall be
cleaned, repaired, sorted, and
cataloged.
2. Post-Construction Curation:
Prepared fossils, along with
copies of all pertinent field notes,
photos, and maps, shall be
deposited in the designated fossil
repository.
3. Post-Construction Final Report:
A final summary paleontological
mitigation report that outlines the
results of the mitigation program
shall be completed and
submitted to the City of Santee
within two weeks of the
completion of each construction
phase of the proposed project.
This report shall include
discussions of the methods
used, stratigraphic section(s)
4.0 Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Final EIR
4-42
Table 4-1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measures Timeframe of Mitigation Monitoring,
Enforcement,
and Reporting
Responsibility
exposed, fossils collected, inventory
lists of cataloged fossils, and
significance of recovered fossils.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Greenhouse Gas Emissions GHG-1:
New residential construction shall
meet or exceed California Green
Building Standards Tier 2 Voluntary
Measures, such as obtaining green
building ratings including LEED,
Build it Green, or Energy Star
Certified building certification in
scoring development and explain the
measures implemented.
Prior to the issuance of any permit
for development in the Housing
Element sites.
City of Santee
GHG-2:
The project shall utilize tree planting
for shade and energy efficiency such
as tree planting in parking lots and
streetscapes.
Prior to the issuance of any permit
for development in the Housing
Element sites.
City of Santee
GHG-3:
The project shall install electric
vehicle chargers for 13 percent of
total parking provided.
Prior to the issuance of any permit
for development in the Housing
Element sites.
City of Santee
GHG-4:
The project shall provide exterior
recycling storage space in
accordance with California Green
Building Standards and the Santee
Municipal Code.
Prior to the issuance of any permit
for development in the Housing
Element sites.
City of Santee
4.0 Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Final EIR
4-43
Table 4-1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measures Timeframe of Mitigation Monitoring,
Enforcement,
and Reporting
Responsibility
GHG-5:
The project shall install at least 1
kilowatt per unit of photovoltaic solar
systems, unless the installation is
infeasible due to poor solar
resources established in a solar
feasibility study prepared by a
qualified consultant submitted with
an applicant’s formal project
submittal to City.
Prior to the issuance of any permit
for development in the Housing
Element sites.
City of Santee
Policies, Plans, and Regulations
Intended to Reduce GHG
Emissions
Refer to GHG-1 through GHG-5
above.
Refer to GHG-1 through GHG-5
above.
City of Santee
Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
Use, Transport, Disposal HAZ-1:
Applications for future development
in the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing
Element sites, wherein the City has
determined a potential for impacts to
known and unknown hazardous
materials sites shall be required to
identify potential conditions which
require further regulatory oversight
and demonstrate compliance
consistent with the following prior to
issuance of any permits.
A. Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment (ESA) shall be
Prior to the issuance of any permit
for development in the TCSP area,
AEN, or Housing Element sites.
City of Santee
4.0 Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Final EIR
4-44
Table 4-1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measures Timeframe of Mitigation Monitoring,
Enforcement,
and Reporting
Responsibility
completed in accordance with
American Society of Testing and
Materials Standards. If hazardous
materials are identified requiring
remediation, a Phase II ESA and
remediation effort shall be
conducted in conformance with
federal, state, and local
regulations.
B. If the Phase II ESA identifies the
need for remediation, then the
following shall occur prior to the
issuance of grading permits.
1. The applicant shall retain a
qualified environmental
engineer to develop a soil
and/or groundwater
management plan to address
the notification, monitoring,
sampling, testing, handling,
storage, and disposal of
contaminated media or
substances (soil,
groundwater). The qualified
environmental consultant
shall monitor excavations and
grading activities in
accordance with the plan. The
plans shall be approved by
4.0 Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Final EIR
4-45
Table 4-1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measures Timeframe of Mitigation Monitoring,
Enforcement,
and Reporting
Responsibility
the City prior to development
of the site.
2. The applicant shall submit
documentation showing that
contaminated soil and/or
groundwater on proposed
development parcels have
been avoided or remediated
to meet cleanup requirements
established by appropriate
local regulatory agencies
(Regional Water Quality
Control Board
[RWQCB]/DTSC/DEHQ)
based on the future planned
land use of the specific area
within the boundaries of the
site (i.e., commercial,
residential), and that the risk
to human health of future
occupants of these areas
therefore has been reduced to
below a level of significance.
3. The applicant shall obtain
written authorization from the
appropriate regulatory agency
(RWQCB/DTSC/DEHQ)
confirming the completion of
remediation. A copy of the
authorization shall be
4.0 Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Final EIR
4-46
Table 4-1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measures Timeframe of Mitigation Monitoring,
Enforcement,
and Reporting
Responsibility
submitted to the City to
confirm that all appropriate
remediation has been
completed and that the
proposed development parcel
has been cleaned up to the
satisfaction of the regulatory
agency. In the situation where
previous contamination has
occurred on a site that has a
previously closed case or on
a site included on a list of
hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section
65962.5, the DEHQ shall be
notified of the proposed land
use.
4. All cleanup activities shall be
performed in accordance with
all applicable federal, state,
and local laws and
regulations, and required
permits shall be secured prior
to commencement of
construction to the
satisfaction of the City and
compliance with appliable
regulatory agencies such as
but not limited to the SMC.
4.0 Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Final EIR
4-47
Table 4-1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measures Timeframe of Mitigation Monitoring,
Enforcement,
and Reporting
Responsibility
Accidental Release Refer to HAZ-1 above. Refer to HAZ-1 above. City of Santee Emissions Near a School Refer to HAZ-1 above. Refer to HAZ-1 above. City of Santee Noise
Noise Standards NOI-1:
Noise levels from construction of
future projects within the TCSP area
shall not exceed 5 dBA above the
maximum hourly average daytime
baseline ambient noise levels as
measured at nearby noise-sensitive
land uses. To ensure the reduction of
noise levels, a Construction
Management Plan describing
measures shall be included on future
construction plans to ensure
compliance with the aforementioned
limits. The plans shall be prepared by
future project applicants and
submitted to the City for approval
prior to issuance of a grading permit.
The following measures may be
included to reduce construction
noise:
• Construction equipment to be
properly outfitted and maintained
with manufacturer-recommended
noise-reduction devices.
• Diesel equipment to be operated
with closed engine doors and
Prior to the issuance of any permit
for development in the TCSP area,
AEN, or Housing Element sites.
City of Santee
4.0 Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Final EIR
4-48
Table 4-1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measures Timeframe of Mitigation Monitoring,
Enforcement,
and Reporting
Responsibility
equipped with factoryrecommended mufflers.
• Mobile or fixed “package”
equipment (e.g., arc-welders and
air compressors) to be equipped
with shrouds and noise control
features that are readily available
for that type of equipment.
• Electrically powered equipment to
be used instead of pneumatic or
internal combustion powered
equipment, where feasible.
• Unnecessary idling of internal
combustion engines (e.g., in
excess of 5 minutes) to be
prohibited.
• Material stockpiles and mobile
equipment staging, parking, and
maintenance areas to be located
as far as practicable from noise
sensitive receptors.
• The use of noise-producing
signals, including horns, whistles,
alarms, and bells, shall be for
safety warning purposes only.
• No project-related public address
or music system shall be audible
at any adjacent sensitive
receptor.
4.0 Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Final EIR
4-49
Table 4-1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measures Timeframe of Mitigation Monitoring,
Enforcement,
and Reporting
Responsibility
• Temporary sound barriers or
sound blankets may be installed
between construction operations
and adjacent noise-sensitive
receptors. If barriers are to be
used, the noise barrier should be
constructed of a material with an
STC 20 rating with no gaps or
perforations and remain in place
until the conclusion of demolition,
grading, and construction
activities.
• The project applicant shall notify
residences within 100 feet of the
project’s property line in writing
within one week of any
construction activity such as
demolition, concrete sawing,
asphalt removal, and/or heavy
grading operations. The
notification shall describe the
activities anticipated, provide
dates and hours, and provide
contact information with a
description of a complaint and
response procedure.
• The on-site construction
supervisor shall have the
responsibility and authority to
receive and resolve noise
4.0 Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Final EIR
4-50
Table 4-1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measures Timeframe of Mitigation Monitoring,
Enforcement,
and Reporting
Responsibility
complaints. A clear appeal
process for the affected resident
shall be established prior to
construction commencement to
allow for resolution of noise
problems that cannot be
immediately solved by the site
supervisor.
• On-site noise measurements may
be used to monitor compliance of
construction noise levels at
nearby noise-sensitive land uses.
NOI-2:
Noise generated by standard
operation of future projects within the
TCSP area shall not exceed 60 dBA
hourly average or the maximum
hourly average ambient level if it
already exceeds 60 dBA when
measured at nearby noise-sensitive
land uses such as residences,
schools, daycares, hospitals, or
hotels. To ensure that noise levels
are reduced to adequate levels, a
site-specific noise study may be
requested by the City for individual
future projects, as deemed
necessary by the City’s Planning
Department. If noise levels are
anticipated to exceed this limit, the
Prior to the issuance of any permit
for development in the TCSP area,
AEN, or Housing Element sites.
City of Santee
4.0 Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Final EIR
4-51
Table 4-1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measures Timeframe of Mitigation Monitoring,
Enforcement,
and Reporting
Responsibility
City shall ensure that appropriate
noise-attenuation features are
installed by the project applicant to
ensure noise levels are reduced.
NOI-3:
When plans for future temporary or
permanent performance spaces or
entertainment activities are prepared,
they shall be analyzed to ensure that
noise levels generated by future
events are reduced to 60 dBA hourly
average or the maximum hourly
average ambient level if it already
exceeds 60 dBA at nearby noisesensitive land uses such as residences, schools, daycares,
hospitals, or hotels. For each
proposed performance area or venue
where noise levels could exceed this
limit, a noise assessment shall be
performed by a qualified noise
consultant which analyzes
anticipated noise-generating sources.
The study shall assess any noiseamplifying equipment, directionality of amplified noise, positioning of
bandstands, and potential crowd
noise. The analysis shall also
consider the anticipated event types.
If modeled noise levels exceed the
Prior to the issuance of any permit
for development or special activity
in the TCSP area and AEN
(excluding the Housing Element
sites).
City of Santee
4.0 Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Final EIR
4-52
Table 4-1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measures Timeframe of Mitigation Monitoring,
Enforcement,
and Reporting
Responsibility
limits, design considerations shall be
provided to ensure noise levels are
reduced to 60 dBA or the maximum
hourly average ambient noise level if
it already exceeds 60 dBA. Noise
attenuation features to be considered
may include, but are not limited to,
the following:
• Permanent barriers blocking the
line-of-sight between the noise
source and sensitive land use;
• Relocation of noise-generating
equipment or areas where noisegenerating activities may occur; • Repositioning of noise-generating
equipment facing away from
sensitive uses; and
• Enclosing event spaces within
structures, as feasible.
• The results of the study shall
be incorporated into design plans
and be approved by the City
Planning Department.
Groundborne Noise and Vibration NOI-4:
A site-specific vibration study shall
be prepared for proposed land uses
that have the potential for
construction-related vibration
impacts. Construction activities within
200 feet and pile-driving within 600
Prior to the issuance of any permit
for development in the TCSP area
and AEN (excluding the Housing
Element sites).
City of Santee
4.0 Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Final EIR
4-53
Table 4-1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measures Timeframe of Mitigation Monitoring,
Enforcement,
and Reporting
Responsibility
feet of a vibration-sensitive use could
be potentially disruptive to vibrationsensitive operations. Proposed development shall implement
recommended measures within the
study to ensure that projects reduce
construction-related vibration impacts
to below 0.1 in/sec PPV at vibrationsensitive uses. Measures to reduce noise may include, but are not limited
to, placing vibratory rollers in static
mode within set distances of
vibration-sensitive structures,
prohibiting vibratory construction
operations during specific hours, and
limiting pile driving operations.
Transportation
Vehicle Miles Traveled TRA-1:
For development projects located
outside of a TPA that both: do not
meet other VMT screening criteria
and exceed VMT thresholds
established by the City, the City shall
require implementation of applicable
Mobility Element Policies that would
support VMT reductions for individual
projects. Specifically, the City shall
require that future projects be
compliant with Mobility Element
Policies 9.1 through 9.5, which
Prior to the issuance of any permit
for development in the TCSP area,
AEN, and Housing Element sites
20A and 20B.
City of Santee
4.0 Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Final EIR
4-54
Table 4-1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measures Timeframe of Mitigation Monitoring,
Enforcement,
and Reporting
Responsibility
encourage the use of Transportation
Demand Management (TDM)
strategies, such as ride sharing
programs, flexible work schedule
programs, and incentives for
employees to use transit.
Additionally, alternative
transportation modes, such as
walking, cycling and public transit are
encouraged to reduce peak hour
vehicular trips, save energy, and
improve air quality. Sample TDM
measures that may be applied at the
project-level are provided below:
• Increase mixed-use development
• Increase transit accessibility
• Provide pedestrian network
improvement along project
frontage
• Provide bicycle network
improvement along project
frontage
• Provide bicycle parking and bike
lockers
• Implement subsidized or
discounted transit passes
• Provide rider-sharing programs
• Implement commute trip
reduction marketing
• Implement school pool program
4.0 Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Final EIR
4-55
Table 4-1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Potential Significant Impact Mitigation Measures Timeframe of Mitigation Monitoring,
Enforcement,
and Reporting
Responsibility
• Implement bike-sharing or micro
mobility program
• Provide local shuttle to connect
visitors to different attractions
throughout the City.
Additional measures can be found in
the California Air Pollution Control
Officers Association Quantifying
Greenhouse Gas Mitigation
Measures report
(https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/ceqa/handbook/capcoaquantifying-greenhouse-gasmitigation-measures.pdf). Mitigation measures should be consistent with
the City’s Active Transportation Plan.
Utilities and Service Systems
Utility Infrastructure See BIO-1 through BIO-6; CUL-1
through CUL-4; GEO-1; HAZ-1; and
NOI-1, NOI-2, and NOI-4 above.
See BIO-1 through BIO-6; CUL-1
through CUL-4; GEO-1; HAZ-1;
and NOI-1, NOI-2, and NOI-4
above.
City of Santee
4.0 Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Final EIR
4-56
This page intentionally left blank
Town Center Specific Plan - February 2025 Draft
The following updates have been incorporated into the version of the Town Center Specific Plan published on August 29, 2024. This version shows additional text underlined, and text deletions struck out. Moved text is shown in struck out green text and it is shown as green underlined text in its new placement. Updated figures have a blue marker and note on the margin that reads “This figure has been updated”. The revisions are listed below:
X Revisions to Acknowledgments List to reflect updated roster (page iii).
X Revision to caption in section 1.4 Relationship to Other Planning Documents, to update Green line to Copper line. Incorporation of captions in Chapter 2 to describe illustrative concepts.
X Updated Figure 2-1: Neighborhoods to include the Animal Care Shelter as part of the Facilities-Based Neighborhood.
X Updated Figure 2-19: Facilities-Based Neighborhood to include the Animal Care Shelter as part of the Facilities-Based Neighborhood.
X Updated Figure 3-30: Sign Location Plan to include the Animal Care Shelter as part of the FacilitiesBased Neighborhood.
X Moved reference related to roof-mounted signs from page 109 to page 102. Removed duplicate Figure formerly on page 109.
X Updated Figure 3-43: Lighting Location Plan to include the Animal Care Shelter as part of the FacilitiesBased Neighborhood.
X Revisions to section 2.5.5 Facilities-Based Neighborhood (page 47) to include the Animal Care Shelter.
X Revision to section 2.7 Objective Design Standards, under the k. Noise header.
X Revision to section 2.7 Objective Design Standards, under the J. Aviation Land Use Compatibility header.
X Updated Figure 3-19: Transit Network to update Green line to Copper line.
The Strike Through Version of TCSP attachment is available via the link below:
https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/departments/city-clerk/documentcentral/city-clerk/council-agendas/2025/02-26-2025-item-8-9- strike-through-version-tcsp-february-2025.pdf
The Santee TCSP Update Volume I: Final Environmental Impact Report attachment is available via the link below:
https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/departments/city-clerk/documentcentral/city-clerk/council-agendas/2025/02-26-2025-item-8-10- santee-tcsp-final-eir-volume-%201.pdf
The Santee TCSP Update Volume II: Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report attachment is available via the link below:
https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/departments/city-clerk/documentcentral/city-clerk/council-agendas/2025/02-26-2025-item-8-11- santee-tcsp-eir-volumeii-revised-draft-eir.pdf
The Santee TCSP Update: Volume III: Appendix A-H attachment is available via the link below:
https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/departments/city-clerk/documentcentral/city-clerk/council-agendas/2025/02-26-2025-item-8-12- santee-tcsp-eir-volume-iii-appendices.pdf
STAFF REPORT
PUBLIC HEARING FOR TENTATIVE MAP (TM-2024-0002), DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT (DR-2024-0004), AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (ENV-2025-0004) FOR A MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF 53 UNITS AND RELATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS ON TWO LOTS TOTALING 2.3 NET ACRES LOCATED AT 701 PARK CENTER DRIVE (APN 381-032-07 & 08) IN THE TOWN CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN AREA WITH A MEDIUM-HIGH RESIDENTIAL (R-14) LAND USE DESIGNATION
AND FINDING THE PROJECT EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PURSUANT TO THE CLASS 32 INFILL EXEMPTION.
APPLICANT: CITY VENTURES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
FEBRUARY 26, 2025
On February 14, 2025 Notice of the Public Hearing was published in the East County Californian and 67 adjacent owners or residents of property within 300 feet of the request and other interested parties were notified by U.S. Mail.
A. SITUATION AND FACTS
1. Requested by ............................. City Ventures
2. Land Owner………………………. City Ventures
3. Type and Purpose of Request …. Tentative Map and Development Review for a multi- Staff Report, February 26, 2025
Paseo Park Center Townhomes – TM-2024-0002/DR-2024-0004/ENV-2025-0004
family residential development consisting of 53 units.
4. Location ………………………….. 701 Park Center Drive
5. Site Area …………………………. 2.3 net acres
6. Number of lots …………………… Two
7. Hillside Overlay ........................... No
8. Existing Zoning…………………… Town Center - Residential 14-22 DU/AC (TC-R-14)
9. Surrounding Zoning..................... North: Neighborhood Commercial (NC) South: Town Center – Institutional (TC – Inst)
East: Town Center – Residential 14-22 DU/AC (TCR-14)
West: Town Center – Parkway
10. General Plan Designation ……… Town Center (TC)
11. Existing Land Use........................ Vacant___________________________
12. Surrounding Land Use................. North: Auto repair South: Nursing home
East: Multi-family and single-family residential
West: Open space and single-family residential
13. Terrain ......................................... Generally flat
14. Environmental Status .................. The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to the
CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, In-Fill Development
15. APN............................................ 381-032-07 and 381-032-08
16. Within Airport Influence Area...... Within Airport Influence Area 2; not within an Airport Safety Zone
B. BACKGROUND
History:
On August 9, 2023, City Council approved Development Review Permit DR2022-5 to allow for the construction of a 54-unit apartment complex on the subject site. The project consisted of seven three-story buildings with units ranging in size from 810 square feet to 1,660 square feet.
Staff Report, February 26, 2025
Paseo Park Center Townhomes – TM-2024-0002/DR-2024-0004/ENV-2025-0004
Existing Conditions:
The vacant 2.3 net acre project site is located at 701 Park Center Drive, approximately 300 feet south of the intersection with Mast Boulevard. An auto repair shop (Phantastic Auto Repair) is located to the north, an apartment complex (The Addison) and a singlefamily home to the east, a nursing home (Edgemoor Hospital) to the south, and open space and single-family homes to the west. Annual brush and weed abatement for fire prevention has resulted in the site being disturbed with no habitat value.
C. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Overview:
The proposed project is a multi-family residential development consisting of 53 units within 10 buildings with three-stories on two parcels in the Town Center Specific Plan (TCSP) area with a land use designation of R-14 (14-22 dwelling units per acre).
The project includes three floor plans that range in size from 1,345 square feet to 1,737 square feet with three bedrooms. The maximum building height would be 40 feet 3 inches. Each unit has an attached two-car garage and 14 guest parking spaces are provided. Within the 14 guest parking spaces are three electric vehicle (EV) charging spaces and one space accessible parking space consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). A new driveway on the east side of Park Center Drive will provide access to the site. Street improvements are required of the project, including repair or replacement of inadequate pavement and sidewalks and modified striping on Park Center Drive to provide a two-way left lane onto Mast Boulevard.
Approximately 18,085 square feet (18 percent of the site) of ornamental landscaping is proposed, including 50 trees, along with a variety of shrubs and ground cover plants.
Gathering spaces and recreational amenities are provided such as an event lawn, a barbeque area with picnic tables, a social seating area, and child play structures.
Zoning Requirements:
This site has a General Plan designation of Town Center, is zoned Town Center (TC) and is governed by the TCSP that was initially adopted in 1986 with subsequent amendments. This site’s TCSP land use designation was recently amended as part of the 6th Cycle Housing Element from High Density Residential (R-22) to MediumHigh Density Residential (R-14). The base document for determining allowable uses as well as development standards is the TCSP. However, additional uses and standards are supplemented by the Zoning Ordinance.
D. ANALYSIS
General Plan Consistency:
This project is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan.
The project has a density of 20.8 units per gross acre, which is consistent with the R14 TCSP land use designation. The project furthers Objective 5.0 of the Housing Element which encourages a wide range of housing by location, type of unit, and price.
Staff Report, February 26, 2025
Paseo Park Center Townhomes – TM-2024-0002/DR-2024-0004/ENV-2025-0004
The project site is identified as Site No. 19 in the Housing Element Sites Inventory that will help achieve the City’s moderate income housing needs. The City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation for moderate income-level housing in the current housing cycle period (2021 to 2029) is 188 dwelling units. The proposed market rate for-sale units are considered affordable to moderate-income households.
Town Center Specific Plan and Zoning Ordinance Consistency:
This project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the TCSP. The building design is compatible with multi-family buildings in the vicinity, which features tile roofs and earth-toned colored stucco and emphasizes the area’s urban character. The project provides landscape buffers from the public right-of-way and adjacent properties. Furthermore, the proposed multi-family residential use is consistent with allowed uses in the TCSP Land Use Matrix.
Development Standards
The project is consistent with the development standards of the TCSP and the Zoning Ordinance for the Medium-High Density Residential (R-14) Zone/designation as shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Development Standards Summary (R-14)
Required Proposed
Density 14-22 dwelling units/acre 20.8 dwelling units/acre Maximum Lot
Coverage
60% 43%
Maximum Height 45 feet (four stories) 40 feet 3 inches (three stories)
Total Parking 120 120
Resident Parking 106 106
Guest Parking 14 14
EV Parking 2 3
Setbacks (Main
Buildings)
Front 10 feet 10 feet
Sides 10 feet 10 feet (both sides)
Rear 10 feet 10 feet
Architectural Style
The proposed townhome buildings incorporate architectural elements seen in Spanish Colonial Revival, Mission Revival, and Mediterranean style buildings common to Santee and California. The buildings feature stucco painted with earth-toned colors and s-tile roofs. Architectural details are provided to create visual interest and articulation such as wall plane projections, windowsill trim, decorative window shutters, awnings, metal balcony railings, and variation of roof lines. Combined with a colorful palette of trees, shrubbery and vegetative groundcover, the proposed project Staff Report, February 26, 2025
Paseo Park Center Townhomes – TM-2024-0002/DR-2024-0004/ENV-2025-0004
would offer a visually attractive residential development that enhances the area and the Town Center.
Compatibility Adjacent Land Uses
The project site is surrounded by various land uses including an auto repair shop to the north, open space and single-family residential to the west, a nursing facility to the south, and an apartment building and single-family residence to the east. A Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis (Noise Analysis) was prepared in August 2024 for the proposed project. The Noise Analysis identified the auto repair shop to the north and the apartment building to the east as sources of noise within the vicinity of the project site. Noise measurements levels were taken at multiple locations at the project site.
The assessments in the report for both interior and exterior noise determined that the noise levels for both exterior and interior areas would be below the City’s standards.
Located in a transitional area between varying residential scales and commercial structures and with adjacent pedestrian walking trails and open space areas, the project is designed to complement this existing urban form. The Town Center area has evolved into a vibrant community center with services and amenities that serve residential uses, including nearby restaurants and eateries, grocers, retail outlets, parkland, fitness centers, and a community center, all of which would be easily accessible and complemented by the proposed development.
Parking & Access
The parking standard as outlined in Section 13.24.040 of the Zoning Ordinance requires two spaces for each three-bedroom unit for resident parking and one guest parking space for every four units for guest parking. A total of 120 parking spaces are required for the project, of which 106 spaces are to be provided in two-car garages for residents and 14 spaces to be reserved for guests. The Zoning Ordinance requires that 13 percent of the required guest parking spaces be dedicated for EV charging.
Two EV spaces are required, and three EV spaces are proposed. The site will be accessed from a new 30-foot-wide driveway on the east side of Park Center Drive, which meets City standards. The driveway will include decorative crosswalk pavers in accordance with the TCSP.
Traffic
The Transportation Analysis Screening for the project indicates approximately 424 daily vehicle trips would be generated, with approximately 10 percent, or 77 trips, occurring during the peak hour. A Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) or Level of Service (LOS) traffic analysis was not required based on the amount of daily vehicle trips.
Safe Routes to School:
This project would be served by Rio Seco for grades K-8th and Santana High School.
Routes to both schools have existing sidewalks along their entire lengths.
Drainage:
The existing drainage generally slopes from the northeast portion of the site to the southerly property line where on-site stormwater and stormwater received from adjacent parcels to the north and east flow into an existing brow ditch on the adjacent Staff Report, February 26, 2025
Paseo Park Center Townhomes – TM-2024-0002/DR-2024-0004/ENV-2025-0004
property to the south. The brow ditch directs runoff to a private storm drain system that flows south and releases into open space. Proposed modifications to the site include swales along the north, east, and west property line to capture off-site runoff and prevent comingling with onsite stormwater. Off-site runoff will be collected by a proposed bypass storm drain system and discharge into the existing 18” storm drain system located in Park Center Drive. On-site inlets and storm drains are proposed to collect and convey on-site runoff to proposed underground storage vaults for hydromodification management and 100-year detention. Proposed stormwater infrastructure will direct low flows to a Modular Wetlands System (MWS) for stormwater treatment and high flow will discharge to separate storm drain. After exiting the MWS, stormwater will be pumped and converge with the high flow storm drain into a junction structure. The junction structure will discharge into the existing 18” public system by connecting to an existing curb inlet on the east side of Park Center Drive.
Environmental Status:
The proposed project is exempt from the requirements of CEQA, pursuant to Section 15332; Class 32 of the CEQA Guidelines (In-fill Development), because the project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, is located in an urbanized area on property less than five acres, has no habitat value, would not result in any significant effects on traffic, noise, air quality or water quality, and can be served by all required utilities and public services.
Development Impact Fees:
The applicant shall pay all development impact fees in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. At present, the fees are estimated to be as follows:
Drainage .................$ 36,780.05
Traffic Mitigation .....$ 177,057.45
Traffic Signal...........$ 24,805.15
Park-in-Lieu ............$ 633,814.35
Public Facilities .......$ 495,247.65
RTCIP Fee..............$ 152,378.18
Fire Facilities...........$ 166,793.25
Long Range Plan. ...$ 7,698.15
Administration.........$ 30,843.92
Total $1,725,366.83
E. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
1) Conduct and close the public hearing.
2) Find Tentative Map TM-2024-0002 and Development Review Permit DR-2024- 0004 Categorically Exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines and authorize the filing of a Notice of Exemption; and
3) Approve Tentative Map TM-2024-0002 per the attached Resolution; and 4) Approve Development Review Permit DR-2024-0004 per the attached Resolution.
AERIAL VICINITY MAP
Mast Boulevard
Project Site
Park Center Drive
N Magnolia Avenue
Palm Glen Drive
The Project Plan attachment is available via the link below:
https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/departments/cityclerk/document-central/city-clerk/councilagendas/2025/02-26-2025-item-9-project-planattachment.pdf The Class 32 CEQA Exemption Analysis attachment is
available via the link below:
https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/departments/cityclerk/document-central/city-clerk/councilagendas/2025/02-26-2025-item-9-class-32-ceqaexemption-analysis.pdf RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTEE, CALIFORNIA APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP (TM)-2024-002, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT (DR-2024-0004), AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (ENV-2025-0004) FOR A MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF 53 UNITS AND RELATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS ON TWO LOTS TOTALING 2.3 NET ACRES LOCATED AT 701 PARK CENTER DRIVE (APN 381-032-07 & 08) IN THE TOWN CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN AREA WITH A MEDIUM-HIGH RESIDENTIAL (R-14) LAND USE DESIGNATION
AND FINDING THE PROJECT EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PURSUANT TO THE CLASS 32 INFILL EXEMPTION. (APPLICANT:
CITY VENTURES)
APPLICANT: CITY VENTURES
APN: 381-032-07 and 381-032-08
RELATED CASE FILES: DR-2024-0004 & ENV-2025-0004
WHEREAS, on July 16, 2024, City Ventures submitted a complete application for a Tentative Map TM-2024-0002 and Development Review Permit DR-2024-0004 to construct a 53-unit multi-family residential development on two parcels (APNs 381-032-07 and 381- 032-08) totaling 2.3 net acres located at 701 Park Center Drive in the Town Center Specific Plan (TCSP) Area with a Medium-High Density Residential (R-14) Land Use Designation and a Town Center (TC) Zoning Classification; and
WHEREAS, based on the environmental assessment, the City, as lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. has determined the project is located in an urbanized area on property less than five acres, has no habitat value, would not result in any significant effects to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality, and can be served by all required utilities and public services; and WHEREAS, the 2.3-acre project site is in the Housing Element Sites Inventory and the project would result in a net gain of 53 units for moderate-income households that would be added to the City’s housing stock; and
WHEREAS, the project is consistent with the applicable General Plan Land Use Designation, all applicable General Plan policies, applicable goals and objectives of the TCSP, and the Zoning Ordinance land use regulations; and WHEREAS, the proposed project is located within Airport Influence Area 2 of the Gillespie Field Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and does not require review by the San Diego Airport Land Use Commission. On June 25, 2024, the Federal Aviation Administration determined that the project, as designed, presented no hazard to air navigation; and WHEREAS, the project furthers Objective 5.0 of the Housing Element which encourages a wide range of housing by location, type of unit, and price; and WHEREAS, the project is subject to the payment of development impact fees based on the project’s residential use classification and number of units; and RESOLUTION NO.
WHEREAS, development impact fees ensure that new development will not burden the existing service population with the cost of facilities required to adequately support new development; and
WHEREAS, new development requires the construction of capital improvements, including, without limitation, drainage improvements, traffic improvements, traffic signals, public park facilities, community facilities and other public improvements, public services and community amenities; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of the development impact fees imposed on the subject project is to provide a funding source from the project to fund related capital improvements that serve the project, specifically drainage improvements, traffic improvements and traffic signals; and
WHEREAS, it is in the interest of the public’s health, safety and welfare for the project to pay the costs of constructing these public facilities that are reasonably related to the impacts of the project; and
WHEREAS, a reasonable relationship exists between the use of the development impact fees and the project as capital improvements funded by these fees are expected to provide a citywide network of parks, public facilities, drainage and traffic-related facilities beneficial to the project; and
WHEREAS, the project’s facilities need, specifically the need for parks, public facilities, drainage, traffic and traffic signal facilities, is based on the project’s residential classification and on the demand generated by the project for those facilities and the project’s corresponding fair share contribution toward funding of said needed facilities; and WHEREAS, the development impact fees established for the project are based on the number of residential units to ensure a reasonable proportionality between the project and the cost of the facilities attributable to the project; and WHEREAS, the subject project is not subject to Measure N as the project is not a General Plan amendment, Planned Development Area, or new Specific Planning Area, nor would it increase the residential density permitted by law, make changes to the General Plan Residential Land Use categories that would intensify use, make changes to the land use designation of any parcel in a manner that intensifies use, nor make changes to slope criteria, minimum parcel sizes, or lot averaging provisions of the General Plan that would permit increased density or intensity of use; and
WHEREAS, the Planning & Building Department scheduled Tentative Map TM-2024- 0002 for public hearing on February 26, 2025; and
WHEREAS, on February 26, 2025, the City Council held a duly advertised public hearing on Tentative Map TM-2024-0002; and
RESOLUTION NO.
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Staff Report, the CEQA Exemption, all recommendations by staff, public testimony, and all other relevant information contained in the administrative record regarding the project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santee, California, after considering the evidence presented at the public hearing, as follows:
SECTION 1: On February 26, 2025, the City Council approved filing a CEQA Exemption pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 and determined that the project qualifies under the Class 32 categorical exemption. The project (a) is consistent with the applicable General Plan Designation and all applicable General Plan policies, as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations; (b) the proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses; (c) the project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species; (d) approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and (e) the site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. None of the exceptions to the Class 32 exemption found in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply to the project. No further environmental review is required for the City to adopt this Resolution.
SECTION 2: The findings in accordance with the State Subdivision Map Act (Government Code Section 66410 et. seq.) Chapter 12 of the Santee Municipal Code (SMC) are made as follows:
A. The Tentative Map as conditioned is consistent with all Elements of the Santee General Plan a because the site has a TC General Plan Land Use Designation that is implemented by the TC-R-14 Zoning Classification. The TC-R-14 zoning classification allows a residential density of 14 to 22 dwelling units per gross acre. The proposed Tentative Map includes 53 condominium units with a residential density of 20.8 dwelling units per acre.
B. The 2.3-acre project site is in the Housing Element Sites Inventory and the project would result in a net gain of 53 units for moderate-income households that would be added to the City’s housing stock.
1. The design and improvements of the proposed development are consistent with all Elements of the Santee General Plan as well as City Ordinances because all necessary services and facilities are, or will be, available to serve this subdivision.
The applicant shall pay all development impact fees in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. The fees are to be used for and are needed for the impacts caused by the development to which they apply. At present, the fees are estimated to be as follows:
RESOLUTION NO.
Drainage ................ $ 36,780.05
Traffic Mitigation..... $ 177,057.45
Traffic Signal.......... $ 24,805.15
Park-in-Lieu............ $ 633,814.35
Public Facilities ...... $ 495,247.65
RTCIP Fee............. $ 152,378.18
Fire Facilities.......... $ 166,793.25
Long Range Plan. .. $ 7,698.15
Administration ........ $ 30,843.92
Total $1,725,366.83
C.The site is physically suitable for density and type of development because the site is designated in the Santee General Plan and zoned for multi-family residential development within the proposed density. The use is compatible with surrounding development, access is provided to the site, and utilities are available to serve the development.
D.The discharge of sewage waste from the subdivision into the Padre Dam Municipal Water District sewer system will not result in violation of existing requirements prescribed by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board specified by the Health and Safety Code Section 5411.
E. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not cause serious public health problems since the project will be connected to a public sewer system.
F. Neither the design of the subdivision nor the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat because no habitat or endangered wildlife species currently exist on the development footprint of the site.
G.The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements do not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of property with the proposed subdivision. The Tentative Map identifies existing easements which do not conflict with the design or improvements of the subdivision.
H.The design of the subdivision has provided, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities as defined under Section 66473.1 of the State Subdivision Map Act due to the orientation of the proposed lots and homes.
I. The effects of the subdivision on the housing need for the San Diego region have been considered and balanced against the public service needs of the City of Santee residents and available fiscal and environmental resources.
RESOLUTION NO.
SECTION 3: Tentative Map TM-2024-0002, dated February 26, 2025 consisting of 10 townhome buildings with a total of 53 units, a private driveway, a parking area, and a common open space area on two lots totaling 2.3 net acres located at 701 Park Center Drive is hereby approved subject to the following conditions:
A. The applicant shall obtain approval of Development Review Permit DR-2024-0002.
B. Minor and Major Revisions to the Tentative Map shall be reviewed by the Engineering Department for substantial conformance and approved by the City Engineer, unless, in the City Engineer’s judgement, a Major Revision should be reviewed by City Council.
C.The applicant shall include provisions in their design contract with their design consultants that following acceptance by the City, all construction drawings or technical reports accepted by the City, exclusive of architectural building plans, shall become the property of the City. Once accepted, these plans may be freely used, copied or distributed by the City to the public or other agencies as the City may deem appropriate.
An acknowledgement of this requirement from the design consultant shall be included on all construction drawings at the time of plan submittal. (Engineering) D.Prior to Building Permit issuance:
1. Street Improvement Plans shall be submitted to the Engineering Department and will be completed and accepted prior to the issuance of a building permit for any given phase. Improvements will be phased to coincide with the specific development for any given phase. Phase specific conditions shall be specified at the time of approval for any given phase.
Prior to the start of construction of any improvements, public or private, within the limits of the public right-of-way, the applicant shall have plans accepted, agreements executed, securities posted, and an Encroachment Permit issued. All improvements shall be installed in accordance with City standards and at the applicant's cost unless otherwise indicated. The following improvements are conditioned as part of this development:
a. Repair or replace failed or inadequate pavement to the centerline of the street and/or failed sidewalk on Park Center Drive to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
b. Construct a 30-foot wide driveway entrance on Park Center Drive per City of Santee Public Works Standard Drawing PW-21, modified to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
c. Modify the striping on Park Center Drive to a two-way left turn lane between the left turn pocket to turn onto Mast Boulevard and the left turn pocket to turn onto Edgemoor Hospital to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The striping material shall be thermal plastic.
RESOLUTION NO.
d. Street improvement plans shall be one hundred percent (100%) complete at the time of plan submittal, be prepared in accordance with City guidelines and the requirements set forth herein, and be ready for acceptance by the City. Partial or incomplete submittals will not be accepted for plan check. The applicant shall make an electronic submittal via the City of Santee Permitting and Licensing Portal. The items to be submitted include but are not limited to the following:
1) 100 percent complete improvement plans
2) Estimate for the cost of construction
3) Resolution of Approval approving the project
4) Plan check fees
In addition to the above electronic submittal requirements, one hard copy of the full-sized improvement plans shall be provided to the project engineer. Plan check and inspection fees shall be paid in accordance with the City Fee Schedule. The amount due will be determined by staff after the initial intake. To begin the review process, fees must be paid in full. (Engineering)
2. A Storm Water Facilities Maintenance Agreement accepting responsibility for all structural BMP maintenance, repair and replacement as outlined in said O&M plan binding on the land throughout the life of the project will be required prior to issuance of building permit. (Engineering)
3. The applicant shall pay all development impact fees in effect at the time of issuance of building permits.
4. Impact fee amounts shall be calculated in accordance with current fee ordinances in effect at the time of issuance of building permit. The applicant shall provide certification of final site and building areas by their engineer of work to be approved by the City Engineer for use in calculating the final fee amounts. Fees shall be adjusted on an annual basis in accordance with the Municipal Code.
5. Plot Plans shall be submitted to the Engineering Department and be completed and accepted prior to issuance of any building permits or start of construction of the street improvements. The plans shall be prepared at a scale of 1" = 20’. Plan format and content shall comply with Engineering Department standards. (Engineering)
E. Prior to Grading Permit Issuance:
1. Rough Grading Plans may be submitted to the Engineering Department and accepted prior to map recordation. The following conditions shall apply to acceptance of the grading plans and issuance of a grading permit:
a. Project landscape and irrigation plans for all slope planting on all slopes over three feet in height shall be included in the grading plan set and shall be prepared at the same scale as the grading plans 1" = 20’. Design shall include a temporary RESOLUTION NO.
high line for irrigation to permit slope planting to occur immediately following grading until such time as individual meters are installed to permit connection of the irrigation to the homeowner’s meter.
b. Project improvement plans shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering and ready for approval prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
Plans shall be prepared at a scale of 1” = 20’.
c. Project plot plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of any building permits or the start of construction of the street improvements. d. Obtain a grading permit and complete rough grading in accordance with City standards prior to the issuance of any building permits. e. All recommended measures identified in the approved geotechnical and soil investigation shall be incorporated into the project design and construction. f. The grading plans shall be prepared at a scale of 1” = 20’. Plans shall include a note that requires immediate planting of all slopes within sixty days following installation of water mains to serve the project. Slope planting shall be fully established prior to occupancy of any unit.
g. Excess soil generated from grading operations shall be hauled to a legal dumping site as approved by the Director of Engineering.
h. Grading plans shall be one hundred percent complete at the time of plan check submittal, be prepared in accordance with City guidelines and be ready for acceptance by the City. Partial or incomplete submittals will not be accepted for plan check. The applicant shall make an electronic submittal via the City of Santee Permitting and Licensing Portal. The items to be submitted include but are not limited to the following:
1) 100% complete grading, landscape, and irrigation plans. 2) A completed grading permit application.
3) Estimate for the cost of construction.
4) Drainage Study specified here within.
5) Geotechnical Study specified here within.
6) Storm Water Quality Management Plan specified here within. 7) Operation & Maintenance (0&M) plan specified here within. 8) Letters of permission from any adjoining property owners if grading is proposed off-site. Letters shall be in a form acceptable to the City. 9) Letters of acknowledgement signed and sealed, from each design consultant acknowledging City ownership of all construction drawings following City approval as specified here within.
10)Resolution of Approval approving the project.
2. Prior to first submittal of grading plans, the applicant shall obtain a Right-of-Entry permit from the County of San Diego to tie storm drain and sewer connections for the project into the existing County facilities located at the northern portion of the Edgemoor Hospital property. (Engineering)
3. Construction Site Storm Water Compliance (Engineering):
RESOLUTION NO.
a. Provide proof of coverage under the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit, WQ 2022-0057-DWQ) prior to start of construction. This project disturbs one or more acres of soil or disturbs less than one acre but is part of a larger common plan of development that in total disturbs one or more acres. Construction activity subject to this permit includes clearing, grading and disturbances to the ground such as stockpiling, or excavation.
b. Submit a copy of the draft project specific Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to the City for review and approval. The Construction SWPPP should contain a site map(s) which shows the construction site perimeter, existing and proposed buildings, lots, roadways, storm water collection and discharge points, general topography both before and after construction, and drainage patterns across the project. The Construction SWPPP must list BMPs the applicant will use to protect storm water runoff and the placement of those BMPs. Section XIV of the Construction General Permit describes the SWPPP requirements.
4. A Waste Discharger Identification Number must be obtained from the State Water Resources Control Board prior to obtaining a grading permit. (Stormwater)
5. The site shall be designed using gravity drainage and downward slopes for site drainage to the maximum extent practicable. (Engineering)
6. Two or more pet waste stations shall be installed. Call out/identify their locations in the landscaping and/or grading plans sheets. (Stormwater) F. Prior to approval of the Final Map, unless other timing is indicated, the subdivider shall complete the following or have plans submitted and approved, agreements executed, and securities posted:
1. To coordinate with the City’s Geographic Information System, horizontal and vertical control for all construction drawings, grading plans, landscape plans, street improvement plans, plot plans, etc., shall be obtained from ROS 11252. All plans, exclusive of the map and building plans, shall be prepared at an engineering scale of 1" = 20' unless otherwise approved by the project engineer. (Engineering)
2. If plans are prepared in digital format using computer aided drafting (CAD), unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. In addition to providing one hard copy and a digital submittal of the plans the applicant shall submit a copy of the plans in a digital .DXF file format at the time of its approval or as requested by the City Engineer.
The digital file shall be based on accurate coordinate geometry calculations. The digital file for the Final Map shall specifically include each of the following items in a separate layer: (Engineering)
a. Lot boundaries.
b. Lot numbers.
c. Subdivision boundary.
RESOLUTION NO.
d. Right-of-way.
e. Street centerlines, and
f. Approved street names.
3. Obtain the basis of bearings for the Final Map from ROS 11252 and install street survey monumentation as necessary (SDRSD M-10) in accordance with San Diego Regional Standards and County mapping standards. All other monumentation shall be in accordance with the SMC and shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (Engineering)
4. Final Map - The applicant shall make an electronic submittal via the City of Santee Permitting and Licensing Portal. The items to be submitted include but are not limited to the following:
Please include the following with the first submittal:
a. Final Map
b. Current preliminary title reports (dated within six months of submittal date). c. All documents listed in the preliminary title report. d. All reference maps used to prepare the Final Map.
e. Closure calculations for the map.
f. Resolution of Approval approving the project.
In addition to the above electronic submittal requirements, one hard copy of the fullsized Final Map shall be provided to the project engineer. Map check fees shall be paid in accordance with the City Fee Schedule. The amount due will be determined by staff after the initial intake. To begin the review process, fees must be paid in full. (Engineering)
5. Starting with the first plan check submittal, all plan sets including the Final Map shall be submitted concurrently to Padre Dam Municipal Water District for review and approval. The City does not coordinate the review process with Padre Dam, this is the responsibility of the design engineer and the landscape architect. Failure to properly coordinate this review may result in delay of issuance of permits required for construction. It is incumbent upon the applicant to oversee the plan submittals of their design consultants. (Engineering)
6. Applicant consents to annexation of the property under development to the Santee Roadway Lighting District and agrees to waive any public notice and hearing of the transfer. Applicant shall pay the necessary annexation costs and upon installation of any street lights required for the development, pay the necessary street light energizing and temporary operating costs. (Engineering)
7. A grading permit to allow early subdivision grading in accordance with Section
11.40.155 of the Grading Ordinance may be obtained following approval of the Tentative Map.
RESOLUTION NO.
8. Provide a drainage study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer, with demonstrated expertise in drainage analysis and experience in fluvial geomorphology and water resources management. Storm drainage shall be designed to adequately convey storm water runoff without damage or flooding of surrounding properties or degradation of water quality. (Engineering)
a. The drainage study shall identify and calculate storm water runoff quantities expected from the site and upstream of the site and verify the adequacy of all on-site or off-site facilities necessary to discharge this runoff. The drainage system design shall be capable of collecting and conveying all surface water originating within the site, and surface water that may flow onto the site from upstream lands, and shall be in accordance with the latest adopted Master Drainage Plan, the requirements of the City of Santee Public Works Standards, including analysis of the 10-year, 50-year and 100-year frequency storms, and be based on full development of upstream areas.
b. The drainage study shall compute rainfall runoff characteristics from the project area including, at a minimum, peak flow rate, flow velocity, runoff volume, time of concentration, and retention volume. These characteristics shall be developed for the 10-year, 50-year and 100-year frequency six- hour storm during critical hydrologic conditions for soil and vegetative cover. Storm events shall be developed using isopluvial maps and in accordance with the San Diego County Hydrology Manual.
9. Provide a Storm Water Quality Management Plan (SWQMP) prepared and in accordance with the City of Santee Storm Water Ordinance and in accordance with the City of Santee Best Management Practices (BMP) Design Manual dated February 2016. The SWQMP must include BMPs to address water quality and hydromodification. An Operation and Maintenance (O & M) Plan describing maintenance requirements and costs for BMP maintenance and provision of maintenance verification will be provided. (Engineering) The SWQMP shall include the following:
a. Develop and implement appropriate BMPs to ensure that the project does not increase pollutant loads from the site. A combination of respective storm water BMPs, including Site Design, Source Control, and Structural Treatment Control shall be implemented in accordance with the approved SWQMP. b. The project design shall incorporate Low Impact Development (LID) and site design BMPs to minimize directly connected impervious areas and to promote infiltration using LID techniques as outlined in the County of San Diego's LID handbook. Parking areas shall be designed to drain to landscape areas. Private roads shall be designed to drain to vegetated swales or landscaped areas. c. The site shall comply with full trash capture requirements by providing completely enclosed trash and recycling enclosures, and fitting all storm drain inlets with a State certified grate/screen or trash rack. Said devices must be designed to capture debris of 5 mm or greater, while preventing flooding RESOLUTION NO.
potential. In addition, any adjacent public storm drain inlet structure to which the site discharges must also be retrofitted with trash capture devices. The device which shall be used for public inlets is the ADS FlexStorm Connector Pipe Screen system or approved equal.
d. All inlets must be labeled with a concrete stamp or equivalent - stating, "No Dumping - Drains to River". If work is performed on a public inlet, the public inlet must be labeled with the following standard specification: Public storm drain inlet markers shall be 4" diameter, stainless steel, natural embossed, inlet marker as manufactured by Almetek Industries or approved equal. Marker shall contain/state “No Dumping” with “Fish w/ Wave” symbol and “Drains to Waterways” legend. Marker shall contain 2” long x 1/4" diameter threaded rod and shall be installed flush and wet-set in top of inlet, centered on width of inlet opening.
e. Down spouts and HVAC systems are not permitted to be connected to any storm drain conveyance system. All non-storm water discharges must either drain to landscaped areas or be plumbed to the sewer.
f. Fire suppression systems must be designed to be able to discharge to a sewer clean out for all maintenance and testing activities or otherwise captured and contained on-site.
g. California native/drought-tolerant plants shall be used to the maximum extent feasible to minimize the need for irrigation. Where irrigation is necessary, then the system shall be designed and installed to prevent overspray or irrigation runoff during normal operations and during a break in the line. h. The final project submittal shall include a standalone O&M Plan in accordance with the City of Santee BMP Design Manual.
10.Minimum best management practices for storm water and water quality will be incorporated into the development's CC&R’s via reference to the project's SWQMP.
11.The applicant shall make the following conveyances on the Final Map:
a. Dedicate a visibility clearance easement at all street intersections in accordance with Section 13.10.050 of the Zoning Ordinance.
b. Dedicate drainage and access easements for all storm drainage improvements proposed for City maintenance.
c. Dedicate landscape maintenance easements for all landscaping proposed for City maintenance.
d. The applicant shall quitclaim the existing 5-foot SDG&E easement, as defined by Book 370, Page 113 of Official Records, recorded December 31, 1934. e. Applicant shall vacate the excess right-of-way of approximately 6,636 square feet along Park Center Drive adjacent to the site such that the distance behind the curb is 10 feet.
f. Applicant shall vacate the existing 30-foot wide road easements as defined by document No. 1971-220040, recorded September 27,1971; document No.
RESOLUTION NO.
1971-220041, recorded September 27, 1971; document No. 1973-30565, recorded February 5, 1973; document No. 1971-220042, recorded September 27, 1971; document No. 1971-199626, recorded September 2, 1971; and document No. 62528, recorded April 29, 1957.
G. During grading, site preparation or construction activities:
1. The applicant shall notify all contractors, subcontractors and material suppliers that the following work schedule restrictions apply to this project:
a. No site work, building construction, or related activities, including equipment mobilization will be permitted to start on the project prior to 7:00 am and all work for the day shall be completed by 7:00 pm.
b. No work is permitted on Sundays or City Holidays.
c. No deliveries, including equipment drop-off and pick-up, shall be made to the project except between the hours of 8:00 am and 6:00 pm, Monday through Saturday, excluding City Holidays. Deliveries of emergency supplies or equipment necessary to secure the site or protect the public are excluded. d. If the applicant fails or is unable to enforce compliance with their contractors, subcontractors and material suppliers regarding the specified work hours, a reduction of permissible work hours may be imposed by the Director of Engineering.
In addition to the above the applicant shall erect one or more signs stating the work hour restrictions. Signs shall be installed as may be required, in the vicinity of the project construction trailer if a job site trailer is used, or at such other locations as may be deemed appropriate by the Engineering Department. The sign shall be a minimum of 24" x 36" and shall be weather-proofed. The sign content shall be provided by the Engineering Department.
2. Trench work when required within City streets shall be completed within two weeks of the initial start date, including placement of the final trench patch. Trench plates or temporary pavement placement shall be installed at the end of each work day. Advance warning signs on lighted barricades notifying the public of trench plates and or uneven pavement shall be placed and maintained until permanent pavement repairs are made. The maximum length of time including weekends and holidays that trench plates may remain on the street is 72 hours after which temporary or permanent asphalt paving shall be placed. (Engineering)
3. Applicant shall place all new utilities required to serve the project underground.
No overhead facilities or extension of overhead facilities is permitted.
H. Prior to Occupancy:
1. Provide two print copies and a digital copy of both the final approved SWQMP RESOLUTION NO.
and the O & M Plan. (Engineering)
2. Submit a print and digital copy of the BMP Certification package. The BMP certification package includes but is not limited to: ‘wet’ signed and stamped certification form(s), all BMP related product receipts and materials delivery receipts, an inspection and installation log sheet, and photographs to document each stage of BMP installation. (Engineering)
3. Prior to issuance of the final phase of occupancy, an executed contract must be in place with a qualified storm water service provider and a copy of the SWQMP provided to the consultant and the property manager. (Engineering)
4. Provide a geotechnical study prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Santee General Plan. The study will be subject to independent third-party review to be paid for by the applicant. The applicant shall place a cash deposit with the Engineering Department in an amount satisfactory to the Director of Engineering to cover the cost of the review. All recommended measures identified in the approved study shall be incorporated into the project design.
The Geotechnical/Seismic Hazard Study for the Safety Element of the Santee General Plan which details, in Table A-1, study criteria necessary to conform to the General Plan requirements, can be accessed from the City's website.
The geotechnical report shall analyze any proposed infiltration techniques (trenches, basins, dry wells, permeable pavements with underground reservoir for infiltration) for any potential adverse geotechnical concerns. Geotechnical conditions such as: slope stability, expansive soils, compressible soils, seepage, groundwater depth, and loss of foundation or pavement subgrade strength should be addressed, and mitigation measures provided. (Engineering)
5. Provide certification to the Director of Engineering that sewer and water can be provided to the site and that financial arrangements have been made to provide said services. If private sewer or water mains are allowed to serve the project, then a building permit for these facilities will be required and they shall be maintained by a homeowner's association. (Engineering)
6. The applicant shall comply with all applicable sections of the Municipal Code, Land Development Manual and Public Works Standards of the City of Santee.
7. Following issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall complete rough grading in accordance with the approved grading plans and the recommendations of the project's geotechnical engineer. Following completion of the rough grading and prior to issuance of any building permits, provide three originals of a rough grading report, which shall include a compaction report prepared by the geotechnical engineer, and a certification by the project civil engineer that all property corners, slopes, retaining walls, drainage devices and RESOLUTION NO.
building pads are in conformance with the approved grading plans.
8. Applicants shall place all new utilities required to serve the project underground. No overhead facilities or extension of overhead facilities is permitted. (Engineering)
9. Applicant shall obtain Final Map approval and record the Final Map. Once recorded, the applicant shall, within thirty days of recordation, provide one mylar copy, and one digital copy of the recorded map to the City for their permanent records. The mylars shall be in accordance with City standards in effect at the time of recordation.
10.Plant all new trees in and within 10 feet of the public right-of-way with root control barriers. (Engineering)
11.Construct all improvements within the public right-of-way and improvements as shown on the approved plot plans. Improvements shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (Engineering)
12.To the maximum extent practicable, avoid intersection/overlap of sanitary sewer and storm drain systems. In areas where sanitary sewer and storm drain systems intersect, details and cross sections must be provided and show elevations of both pipes. Sanitary sewer pipes shall be placed at a lower elevation (e.g. beneath) storm drain pipes. (Engineering)
13. Full trash capture devices shall be installed in the two storm drain inlets located on either side of Park Center Drive, located just south of the project (COSID Nos. 1283 & 1284). (Stormwater)
SECTION 4: The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Santee and its officers, employees, and agents from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City and/or its officers, employees or agents to attack or set aside, void, or annul the approval of the City of Santee concerning this Tentative Map, or any action relating to or arising out of its approval.
SECTION 5: The terms and conditions of the Tentative Map TM-2024-0002 approval shall be binding upon the permittee and all persons, firms, and corporations having an interest in the property subject to this Tentative Map and the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of each of them, including municipal corporations, public agencies and districts.
SECTION 6: The approval of the Tentative Map TM-2024-002 expires on February 26, 2028 at 5:00 p.m. The Final Map or Maps conforming to this conditionally approved Tentative Map shall be filed with the City Council in time so that City Council may approve the Final Map or Maps before this approval expires unless a time extension for obtaining such approval of the Final Map is approved as provided by the Santee Subdivision RESOLUTION NO.
Ordinance. The City Council expressly grants to the Planning & Building Director the authority to extend the expiration date of this approval pursuant to Section 13.04.090.B of the SMC, when a request for an extension is filed 60 days prior to the original expiration date.
SECTION 7: Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020, the 90-day approval period in which the applicant may protest the imposition of any fees, dedications, reservations, or exactions imposed pursuant to this approval, shall begin on February 26, 2025.
SECTION 8: The City of Santee hereby notifies the applicant that State Law (SB1535) authorizes the County Clerk to collect a documentary handling fee for the processing of CEQA documents. In order to comply with State Law, the applicant should remit to the City of Santee Department of Development Services, within two (2) working days of the effective date of this approval (the "effective date" being the end of the appeal period, if applicable), a certified check payable to the "County Clerk" in the amount of $ 50.00. The City of Santee shall file the Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk upon receipt of the certified check. Failure to remit the required fee in full within the time specified above will result in a delay of the start of the thirty-five (35) day statute of limitations on court challenges to the approval under CEQA.
SECTION 9: The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings have been based are located with the City Clerk at the City of Santee City Clerk’s office at 10601 Magnolia Avenue, Building #3, Santee, CA 92071.
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Santee, California, at a Regular Meeting thereof held this 26th day of February 2025, by the following roll call vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
APPROVED:
JOHN W. MINTO, MAYOR
ATTEST:
JAMES JEFFRIES, CITY CLERK
RESOLUTION NO.
1 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTEE, CALIFORNIA APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT (DR-2024-0004), AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (ENV-2025-0004) FOR A MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF 53 UNITS AND RELATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS ON TWO LOTS TOTALING 2.3 NET ACRES LOCATED AT 701 PARK CENTER DRIVE (APN 381-032-07 & 08) IN THE TOWN CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN AREA WITH A MEDIUM-HIGH RESIDENTIAL (R-14) LAND USE DESIGNATION AND
FINDING THE PROJECT EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PURSUANT TO THE CLASS 32 INFILL EXEMPTION. (APPLICANT:
CITY VENTURES)
APPLICANT: CITY VENTURES
APN: 381-032-07 and 381-032-08
RELATED CASE FILES: TM-2024-0002 & ENV-2025-0004
WHEREAS, the Town Center Specific Plan (TCSP) requires a Development Review Permit for all proposed development in the Town Center (TC) Zone; and WHEREAS, on July 16, 2024, City Ventures submitted a complete application for Development Review Permit DR-2024-0004 to construct a 53-unit multi-family residential development on two parcels (APNs 381-032-07 and 381-032-08) totaling 2.3 net acres located at 701 Park Center Drive in the TCSP Area with a Medium-High Density Residential (R-14) Land Use Designation and a TC Zoning Classification; and WHEREAS, the 2.3-acre project site is in the Housing Element Sites Inventory and the project would result in a net gain of 53 units for moderate-income households that would be added to the City’s housing stock; and
WHEREAS, the project is consistent with the applicable General Plan Land Use Designation, all applicable General Plan policies, applicable goals and objectives of the TCSP, and the Zoning Ordinance land use regulations; and WHEREAS, the site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services,
WHEREAS, the proposed project is located within Airport Influence Area 2 of the Gillespie Field Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and does not require review by the San Diego Airport Land Use Commission. On June 25, 2024, the Federal Aviation Administration determined that the project, as designed, presented no hazard to air navigation; and
WHEREAS, the project furthers Objective 5.0 of the Housing Element which encourages a wide range of housing by location, type of unit, and price; and WHEREAS, the project is subject to the payment of development impact fees in effect at the time of issuance of building permits based on the project’s residential use classification and number of units; and
RESOLUTION NO.
2 WHEREAS, development impact fees ensure that new development will not burden the existing service population with the cost of facilities required to adequately support new development; and
WHEREAS, new development requires the construction of capital improvements, including, without limitation, drainage improvements, traffic improvements, traffic signals, public park facilities, community facilities, other public improvements, public services, and community amenities; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of the development impact fees imposed on the subject project is to provide a funding source from the project to fund related capital improvements that serve the project, specifically drainage improvements, traffic improvements and traffic signals; and
WHEREAS, it is in the interest of the public’s health, safety and welfare for the project to pay the costs of constructing these public facilities that are reasonably related to the impacts of the project; and
WHEREAS, a reasonable relationship exists between the use of the development impact fees and the project as capital improvements funded by these fees are expected to provide a citywide network of parks, public facilities, drainage and traffic-related facilities beneficial to the project; and
WHEREAS, the project’s facilities need, specifically the need for parks, public facilities, drainage, traffic and traffic signal facilities, is based on the project’s residential classification, the demand generated by the project for those facilities, and the project’s corresponding fair share contribution toward funding of said needed facilities; and WHEREAS, the development impact fees established for the project are based on the number of residential units to ensure a reasonable proportionality between the project and the cost of the facilities attributable to the project; and WHEREAS, the subject project is not subject to Measure N as the project is not a General Plan amendment, within a Planned Development Area, a new Specific Planning Area, nor would it increase the residential density permitted by law, make changes to the General Plan Residential Land Use categories that would intensify use, make changes to the land use designation of any parcel in a manner that intensifies use, nor make changes to slope criteria, minimum parcel sizes, or lot averaging provisions of the General Plan that would permit increased density or intensity of use; and WHEREAS, the Planning & Building Department scheduled Development Review Permit DR-2024-0004 for public hearing on February 26, 2025; and WHEREAS, on February 26, 2025, the City Council held a duly advertised public hearing on Development Review Permit DR-2024-0004; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Staff Report, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Exemption, all recommendations by staff, public RESOLUTION NO.
3 testimony, and all other relevant information contained in the administrative record regarding the project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santee, California, after considering the evidence presented at the public hearing, as follows:
SECTION 1: On February 26, 2025, the City Council approved filing a CEQA Exemption and determined that the project qualifies under the Class 32 categorical exemption (State CEQA Guidelines § 15332). The project (a) is consistent with the applicable General Plan designation and all applicable General Plan policies, as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations; (b) the proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses; (c) the project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species; (d) approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and (e) the site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. None of the exceptions to the Class 32 exemption found in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply to the project. No further environmental review is required for the City to adopt this Resolution.
SECTION 2: The findings in accordance with Section 13.08.080 of the Santee Municipal Code (SMC) for a Development Review Permit are made as follows:
A. The proposed development meets the purpose and design criteria prescribed in these procedures and other pertinent sections of the zoning ordinance and municipal code.
The proposed development meets the purpose and design criteria prescribed in the SMC and TCSP because the TCSP prescribes multi-family residential as an allowable use, and the building and site design are consistent with the goals, objectives, and development standards in the TCSP. Additionally, all development standards are met, including density, landscaping, and building setbacks. The proposed project is consistent with the Fire Code and all proposed improvements will meet the public works standards of the City. The project proposes 20.8 dwelling units per gross acre which is within the allowed density range of 14 to 22 dwelling units per acre within the R-14 land use designation/zone. The proposed development is compatible with the existing multi-family residential development in the area.
B. The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan.
The proposed development conforms to the General Plan in that the proposed multifamily development is permitted within the TCSP R-14 Medium-High Density Residential land use designation and public services and facilities will be available to serve the development. The project is consistent with the Objective 5.0 of the Housing Element which encourages a wide range of housing by location, type of unit, and price. The project includes 53 units amongst 10 buildings with architectural features such as varying rooflines, window sill trim, cornices, decorative shutters, and awnings. The proposed development would be compatible with nearby multifamily developments, including the Addison and Magnolia Lakes Condominiums RESOLUTION NO.
4 located to the east of the project site and the Riverwalk Townhomes west of the project site.
SECTION 3: Development Review Permit DR-2024-0004 for a multi-family residential project located at 701 Park Center Drive (APN 381-032-07 and 381-032-08), is hereby approved subject to the following conditions:
A. The applicant shall obtain approval of Tentative Map TM-2024-0002.
B. All construction shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plans dated February 26, 2025, as amended by this Resolution. (All Departments) C. The applicant shall comply with all applicable requirements of the SMC, Land Development Manual, and Public Works Standards of the City of Santee. (All Departments)
D. The applicant shall obtain building permits, as necessary, for the proposed work in compliance with all applicable SMC sections, Uniform Building Code, California Building Code (CBC), Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Public Works Standards of the City of Santee, and all requirements of the Fire Department. (All Departments)
E. The project shall be compliance with the adopted California Building Standards Code at the time of building permit application and shall be subject to expirations for plan review per SMC Section 11.04.030 (Building)
F. All building permits shall expire per the CBC, Section 105. (Building) G. Following project approval, the applicant shall schedule with the City Project Planner a post approval meeting to discuss the project conditions of approval, timing of design and construction and implementation of the project conditions.
The meeting shall be scheduled within 30 days of project approval and prior to any plan submittals. The applicant should include their project design team including project architect, their design engineer and their landscape architect. (Planning) H. Minor or Major Revisions to the Development Review Permit, such as changes to the building elevations, site design, or landscaping design, shall be approved by the Planning & Building Director unless in the Director’s judgment, a Major Revision should be reviewed by the City Council. (Planning) I. The applicant shall include provisions in their design contract with their design consultants that following approval by the City, all construction drawings or technical reports accepted by the City, exclusive of architectural building plans, shall become the property of the City. Once accepted, these plans may be freely used, copied or distributed by the City to the public or other agencies, as the City may deem appropriate. A letter of acknowledgement of this requirement from each design consultant is required at the time of plan submittal. This letter shall be in a format acceptable to the City Engineer. (Engineering)
RESOLUTION NO.
5 J. Prior to Building Permit issuance:
1. All construction plans shall include the following notes (Planning):
a. Operations shall conform to SMC Section 5.04.090.
b. All equipment shall be equipped with properly maintained mufflers. c. The construction contractor shall place noise-generating construction equipment and locate construction staging areas at the greatest possible distance from sensitive uses whenever feasible during all project construction.
d. The construction contractor shall use on-site electrical sources to power equipment rather than diesel generators where feasible.
2. The following shall be incorporated into the project construction plan: “Control of Construction Hours. Construction activities occurring as part of the project shall be subject to the limitations and requirements of Section 5.04.090 of the City Municipal Code which states that construction activities may occur between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Mondays through Saturdays. No construction activities shall be permitted outside of these hours or on Sundays and federal holidays.” (Planning)
3. A complete 40-amp electrical service and minimum AC Level 2 electrical vehicle charging station shall be installed in the garage for all units in accordance with the California Code of Regulations Title 24. (Building)
4. All residential units located within 500 feet of the construction site shall be sent a notice regarding the construction schedule. A sign legible at a distance of 50 feet shall also be posted at the construction site. All notices and the signs shall indicate the dates and durations of construction activities, as well as provide a telephone number for the “noise disturbance coordinator.” (Planning and Building)
A “noise disturbance coordinator” shall be established. The disturbance coordinator shall be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator shall determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early or bad muffler) and shall be required to implement reasonable measures to reduce noise levels. (Planning and Building)
5. The project shall provide and maintain a minimum of 14 on-site guest parking spaces. These parking spaces shall be properly signed (i.e. stenciled signage) as guest parking and shall not be used for permanent parking by residents. (Planning)
6. A landscape plan shall be submitted that meets the requirements of the City's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. The landscape plan shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect, and the landscaping shall be to the satisfaction of the Planning & Building Director. (Planning)
RESOLUTION NO.
6 7. A bond, equal to the cost of full landscape installation, shall be deposited with the Planning & Building Department and retained for a minimum of one year or until the landscaping is established to the satisfaction of the Planning & Building Director. (Planning)
8. The landscape plan shall provide details for the recreation area required in accordance with Chapter 13.10 of the SMC. The amenities in the recreation area may be modified to include similar or higher quality features to the satisfaction of the Planning & Building Director. (Planning)
9. Provide a Construction and Demolition debris deposit as required by Chapter
9.04 of the SMC. (Planning)
10.Applicant shall obtain Final Map approval and record the Final Map. Once recorded, the applicant shall within thirty days of recordation, provide one mylar copy of the recorded map to the Engineering Department together with a digital copy of the map to the City for their permanent record. The prints and mylar shall be in accordance with City standards in effect at the time of recordation. (Engineering)
11.The owner/owner’s agent and/or responsible licensed builder shall be responsible for the development, implementation, and maintenance of an approved, written Site Safety Plan establishing a Fire Prevention Program at the project site that is applicable throughout all phases of the construction, repair, alteration, or demolition work. This plan shall be required to be submitted at the Construction Permit phase (CFC Chapter 33 & NFPA 241). (Fire)
12.Three fire hydrants are required for the project. The hydrants shall have one, 21/2" port and two, 4" ports. Hydrants shall be of all bronze construction, painted “fire hydrant yellow” and be installed per Padre Dam Municipal Water District requirements. The exact installation location shall be approved by the Fire Department prior to installation via the grading permit plan review process (CFC §507.1). (Fire)
13.If the fire hydrants are to be privately owned, a deferred submittal is required for the private fire service main and private hydrant system and must be submitted to the Santee Fire Department (CFC §105.6.18). (Fire)
14. Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 26 feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. (Fire)
15.A lighted directory map meeting the current Santee Fire Department standard shall be installed at each the driveway entrance (SMC §11.18.020(B)(4)). (Fire)
16.Each home shall have address numbers placed on the street side, near the roofline of the structures visible from the street. Numbers shall be block-style, a RESOLUTION NO.
7 minimum of 6” in height, black in color (or other approved color), in contrast with their background (CFC §505.1). (Fire)
17.Automatic fire sprinkler systems are required for these structures. A deferred submittal is required for each structure and must be submitted to the Santee Fire Department (SMC §11.18.020(C)(1) & CFC §105.6.1). (Fire)
18.One or more exterior approved audio/visual device(s) shall be connected to every automatic sprinkler system in an approved location. Such sprinkler waterflow alarm devices shall be activated by water flow equivalent to the flow of a single sprinkler of the smallest orifice size installed in the system. Where a building fire alarm system is installed, actuation of the automatic sprinkler system shall actuate the building fire alarm system (SMC §11.18.020(C)(2)). (Fire)
19.A fire alarm control unit is required for the monitoring of valves controlling the water supply for the automatic sprinkler systems. A deferred submittal is required and must be submitted to the Santee Fire Department (CFC §903.4 & §105.6.6). (Fire)
20.An operational permit from the Santee Fire Department is required to operate a private fire hydrant system. The operational permit shall be applied for and obtained at the completion of the private fire service main and hydrant installation and acceptance (CFC §105.5.41). (Fire)
21.Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be provided with an approved paved surface (SMC §11.18.020(B)(2)). (Fire)
22.Following issuance of a grading permit the applicant shall complete rough grading in accordance with the approved grading plans and the recommendations of the project's geotechnical engineer. Following completion of the rough grading and prior to issuance of any building permits, provide three originals of a rough grading report, which shall include a compaction report prepared by the geotechnical engineer, and a certification by the project civil engineer that all property corners, slopes, retaining walls, drainage devices and building pads are in conformance with the approved grading plans. (Engineering)
23.At present, the fees are estimated to be as follows:
a. Drainage . . . . . . . . $ 135,786
b. Traffic . . . . . . . . . . $ 156,403
c. Traffic Signal . . . . . $ 16,165
d. Park-in-Lieu . . . . . . $ 488,024
e. Public Facilities. . . $ 400,892
f. RTCIP Fee . . . . . . $ 152,378.18
g. Fire Facilities. . . . . $ 166,793.25
h. Long Range Plan. . $ 7,698.15
i. Administration . . . . $ 30,843.92
RESOLUTION NO.
8 Impact fee amounts shall be calculated in accordance with current fee ordinances in effect at the time of issuance of building permit. The drainage fee shall be calculated based on the actual impermeable area created by the project including off-site street improvements or other improvements beyond the project boundary. The applicant shall provide certification of final site and building areas by their engineer of work to be approved by the City Engineer for use in calculating the final fee amounts. Fees shall be adjusted on an annual basis in accordance with the Municipal Code. (Engineering)
K. Prior to Grading Permit Issuance:
1. Prior to the start of ground-disturbing activities, the applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Archaeology (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2012) to carry out all mitigation related to cultural resources. The applicant shall also retain a Native American Monitor of Kumeyaay descent.
2. Prior to the start of ground-disturbing activities, the qualified archaeologist shall conduct cultural resources sensitivity training for all construction personnel.
Construction personnel shall be informed of the types of archaeological resources that may be encountered, and of the proper procedures to be enacted in the event of an inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources or human remains. The applicant shall ensure that construction personnel attend the training and sign an attendance acknowledgment form. The applicant shall retain documentation demonstrating attendance.
L. During grading, site preparation or construction activities:
1. All underground utilities, hydrants, water mains, curbs, gutters and sidewalks must be installed, and the drive surface shall be approved prior to combustibles being brought on site (SMC §11.18.020(B)(2)). (Fire)
2. The construction contractor shall use construction equipment powered by California Air Resources Board certified Tier 4, or newer, engines and haul trucks that conform to current U.S. Environmental Protection Agency truck standards. (Building and Planning)
3. During all grading and site preparation activities, the on-site construction superintendent shall ensure implementation of standard best management practices as required by the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) Rules 50, 51, 52, 54, and 55, Fugitive Dust Control. (Engineering)
4. During all grading and site preparation activities, the on-site construction superintendent shall ensure implementation of applicable California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) Sustainable (Green) Building Program Measures, as specified on the CalRecycle website. (Engineering)
RESOLUTION NO.
9 5. The project shall utilize high-efficiency equipment and fixtures consistent with the current California Green Building Standards Code and Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. (Building)
6. The project shall include the installation of infrastructure necessary for electric vehicle parking, as well as providing preferential parking for electric vehicles. The project shall provide bike parking on-site. (Building and Planning)
7. The project shall comply with the Santee Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance.
The ordinance promotes water conservation and efficiency by imposing various requirements related to evapotranspiration rates, irrigation efficiency, and plant factors. (Planning)
8. The project shall comply with Chapters 9.02 and 9.04 of the SMC that pertain to solid waste management and demolition and construction debris recycling. (Building)
9. In conformance with the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) Rule
67.0.1, Architectural Coatings, the project shall use low volatile organic compound (VOC) paints. (Building)
10.The project shall not include wood burning stoves or fireplaces. (Building)
11.In conformance with CEQA, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and the California Fish and Game Code, brushing, clearing, and/or grading shall not be allowed during the bird breeding season (between January 15 and September 15). If vegetation is to be cleared during the bird breeding season, a qualified biologist shall perform a nesting bird survey within the proposed construction area and appropriately sized buffer no more than 72 hours prior to vegetation disturbance.
If the planned vegetation disturbance does not occur within 72 hours of the nesting bird survey, then the area will be resurveyed. If nesting birds are found, then the qualified biologist will establish an adequate buffer zone (on a speciesby-species, case-by-case basis) in which construction activities would be prohibited until the nest is no longer active. The size of the buffer zone is determined by the biologist based on the amount, intensity, and duration of construction and can be altered based on site conditions. If appropriate, as determined by the biologist, additional monitoring of the nesting birds may be conducted during construction to ensure that nesting activities are not disrupted. (Planning)
12.All vehicles, equipment, tools, and supplies shall stay within the limits of the impact area. Any planting stock to be brought onto the project site for landscaping shall first be inspected to ensure that it is free of pest species that could invade natural areas, including, but not limited to, Argentine ants (Linepithema humile), non-native fire ants (e.g., Solenopsis invicta), and other insect pests. (Engineering)
RESOLUTION NO.
10 Best management practices (BMP) features (e.g., silt fencing, straw wattles, and gravel bags) shall be installed where necessary to prevent off‐site sedimentation. (Engineering)
13.The Construction Contractor shall ensure that construction of the project complies with the recommendations identified in the project specific geotechnical investigation. Recommendations related to general construction, seismic considerations, earthwork, foundations, building floor slabs, lateral earth pressures, corrosivity, drainage, storm infiltrations, exterior concrete and masonry flatwork, and paved areas shall be adhered to during all project design and construction. (Engineering)
14.A qualified archaeologist, or an archaeological monitor (working under the direct supervision of the qualified archaeologist), shall observe all initial grounddisturbing activities, including but not limited to brush clearance, vegetation removal, grubbing, grading, and excavation. The qualified archaeologist, in coordination with the applicant and the City, may reduce or discontinue monitoring if it is determined by the qualified archaeologist that the possibility of encountering buried archaeological deposits is low based on observations of soil stratigraphy or other factors. Archaeological monitoring shall be conducted by an archaeologist familiar with the types of archaeological resources that could be encountered within the project site. The archaeological monitor shall be empowered to halt or redirect ground-disturbing activities away from the vicinity of a discovery until the qualified archaeologist has evaluated the discovery and determined appropriate treatment (as prescribed below). The archaeological monitor shall keep daily logs detailing the types of activities and soils observed, and any discoveries. After monitoring has been completed, the qualified archaeologist shall prepare a monitoring report that details the results of monitoring. The report shall be submitted to the City and any Native American groups who request a copy. A copy of the final report shall be filed at the South Coastal Information Center (SCIC). (Engineering and Planning)
15.The Native American Monitor shall be present for any pre-construction meeting and for all ground disturbing activities associated with the project. Should any cultural or tribal cultural resources be discovered, no further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the City Planner, or designee, with concurrence from the Native American Monitor, are satisfied that treatment of the resource has occurred. In the event that a unique archaeological resource or tribal cultural resource is discovered, and in accordance with Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21083.2(b)(1), (2), and (4), the resource shall be moved and buried in an open space area of the Project site, such as slope areas, which will not be subject to further grading activity, erosion, flooding, or any other ground disturbance that has the potential to expose the resource. The on-site area to which the resource is moved shall be protected in perpetuity as permanent open space. No identification of the resource shall be made on-site; however, the Applicant shall plot the new location of the resource on a map showing latitudinal and longitudinal coordinates and provide that map to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for inclusion in the Sacred Lands File (SLF).
RESOLUTION NO.
11 Disposition of the resources shall be at the discretion of the City of Santee, but in accordance with the foregoing. (Engineering and Planning)
16.In the event of the unanticipated discovery of archaeological materials, all work shall immediately cease in the area (within 100 feet) of the discovery until it can be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist in consultation with the Native American Monitor. Construction shall not resume until the qualified archaeologist has conferred with the applicant and the City on the significance of the resource. (Engineering and Planning)
17.If it is determined that the discovered archaeological resource constitutes a historical resource or a unique archaeological resource under CEQA, avoidance and preservation in place is the preferred manner of mitigation. Preservation in place may be accomplished by, but is not limited to, avoidance, incorporating the resource into open space, capping, or deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. In the event that preservation in place is demonstrated to be infeasible and data recovery through excavation is the only feasible mitigation available, a Cultural Resources Treatment Plan shall be prepared and implemented by the qualified archaeologist in consultation with the applicant and the City that provides for the adequate recovery of the scientifically consequential information contained in the archaeological resource. The qualified archaeologist and the City shall consult with appropriate Native American representatives in determining treatment for prehistoric or Native American resources to ensure cultural values ascribed to the resources, beyond those which are scientifically important, are considered. (Engineering and Planning)
18.If human remains are encountered, all work shall halt in the vicinity (within 100 feet) of the discovery and the San Diego County Coroner will be contacted in accordance with PRC Section 5097.98 and Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. The applicant and the City will also be notified. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are Native American, the NAHC will be notified in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, subdivision (c), and PRC Section 5097.98 (as amended by AB 2641). The NAHC will designate a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) for the remains per PRC Section 5097.98. The MLD shall complete the inspection of the site within 48 hours of being granted access and shall provide recommendations for the treatment of the remains. Until the landowner has conferred with the MLD, the applicant will ensure that the immediate vicinity where the discovery occurred is not disturbed by further activity, is adequately protected according to generally accepted cultural or archaeological standards or practices. (Engineering and Planning) M. Prior to Occupancy of any unit, the developer shall complete the following:
1. Complete construction of all improvements shown on the approved plans to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (Engineering)
2. Plant all new trees in and within 10 feet of the public right-of-way with root control barriers. (Planning)
RESOLUTION NO.
12 3. Submit to the City of Santee for review, the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the project. The CC&Rs shall be recorded prior to granting occupancy of the first unit. These CC&Rs should include discussion of, but are not limited to the following issues (Planning):
a. Prohibition on parking boats, recreational vehicles, etc. on the property. b. Internal setbacks / building separations.
c. Individual lot coverage limitations.
d. Maintenance of private roads, water and sewer lines, and storm water facilities.
e. Maintenance of open space / common recreation areas
f. Maintenance of common walls and fences.
g. Future accessory structures standards such as carports, patio covers, gazebos, etc
N. Upon establishment of the use pursuant to this Development Review Permit the following conditions shall apply:
1. All required landscaping shall be adequately watered and maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris. (Planning)
2. The parking areas and driveways shall be well maintained, free of potholes, ruts, and cracks. (Planning)
3. All groundcover installed pursuant to an approved landscape plan shall provide 100 percent coverage within nine months of planting or additional landscaping, to be approved by the Planning & Building Director, shall be required in order to meet this standard. The developer shall be responsible for this planting even if their involvement in the project is otherwise complete. (Planning) SECTION 4: The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Santee and its officers, employees, and agents from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City and/or its officers, employees or agents to attack or set aside, void, or annul the approval of the City of Santee concerning this Development Review Permit, or any action relating to or arising out of its approval.
SECTION 5: The terms and conditions of Development Review Permit DR-2024-0004 shall be binding upon the permittee and all persons, firms, and corporations having an interest in the property subject to this Development Review Permit and the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of each of them, including municipal corporations, public agencies and districts.
SECTION 6: The approval of Development Review Permit DR-2024-0004 expires on February 26, 2028 at 5:00 p.m. except where substantial use has commenced prior to its expiration. If use of the development has not commenced within the three-year period, said expiration date may be extended pursuant to a request for time extension received 60 days prior to the original expiration date. The City Council expressly grants to the City RESOLUTION NO.
13 Planner the authority to extend the expiration date of this approval pursuant to Section
13.04.090 of the Santee Municipal Code, when a request for an extension is filed 60 days prior to the original expiration date.
SECTION 7: Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020, the 90-day approval period in which the applicant may protest the imposition of any fees, dedications, reservations, or exactions imposed pursuant to this approval, shall begin on February 26, 2025.
SECTION 8: The City of Santee hereby notifies the applicant that State Law (AB3158), effective January 1, 1991, requires certain projects to pay fees for purposes of funding the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. In order to comply with State Law, the applicant should remit to the City of Santee Department of Development Services, within two (2) working days of the effective date of this approval (the "effective date" being the end of the appeal period, if applicable), a certified check payable to the "San Diego County Clerk" in the amount of $50.00. Failure to remit the required fee in full within the time specified above will result in notification to the State that a fee was required but not paid, and could result in State imposed penalties and recovery under the provisions of the Revenue and Taxation Code. In addition, Section 21089 (b) of the Public Resources Code, and Section 711.4 (c) of the Fish and Game Code, provide that no project shall be operative, vested, or final until the required filing fee is paid.
SECTION 9: The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings have been based are located with the City Clerk at the City of Santee City Clerk’s office at 10601 Magnolia Avenue, Building #3, Santee, CA 92071.
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Santee, California, at a Regular Meeting thereof held this 26th day of February 2025, by the following roll call vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
APPROVED:
JOHN W. MINTO, MAYOR
ATTEST:
JAMES JEFFRIES, CITY CLERK
RESOLUTION NO. __________
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTEE, CALIFORNIA,
AUTHORIZING AND ADOPTING THE SUBMITTAL OF A PERMENANT LOCAL HOUSING
ALLOCATION PROGRAM (PHLA) GRANT APPLICATION TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT
OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
A necessary majority of the City Council of the City of Santee hereby consents to, adopts and ratifies the following resolution:
WHEREAS, the Department of Housing and Community Development (Department) is authorized to provide up to $296 million under the SB 2 Permanent Local Housing Allocation Program Formula Component from the Building Homes and Jobs Trust Fund for assistance to Cities and Counties (as described in Health and Safety Code section 50470 et seq. (Chapter 364, Statutes of 2017 (SB 2); and
WHEREAS, the State of California (State) Department of Housing and Community Development issued a Notice of Funding Availability (“NOFA”) dated October 15, 2024, under the Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) Program; and WHEREAS, the City of Santee is an eligible local government which has applied for program funds to administer one or more eligible activities, or a Local or Regional Housing Trust Fund to whom an eligible local government delegated its PLHA formula allocation; and WHEREAS, the Department may approve funding allocations for PLHA Program, subject to the terms and conditions of the Guidelines, NOFA, Program requirements, the Standard Agreement, and other contracts between the Department and PLHA grant recipients.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
1. If Applicant receives a grant of PLHA funds from the Department pursuant to the above referenced PLHA NOFA, it represents and certifies that it will use all such funds in a manner consistent and in compliance with all applicable state and federal statutes, rules, regulations, and laws, including without limitation all rules and laws regarding the PLHA Program, as well as any and all contracts Applicant may have with the Department.
2. Applicant is hereby authorized and directed to receive a PLHA grant, in an amount not to exceed the five-year estimate of the PLHA formula allocations, as stated in Appendix B of the current NOFA ($806,244) in accordance with all applicable rules and laws.
3. Applicant hereby agrees to use the PLHA funds for eligible activities as approved by the Department and in accordance with all Program requirements, Guidelines, other rules and laws, as well as in a manner consistent and in compliance with the Standard Agreement and other contracts between the Applicant and the Department.
4. Pursuant to Section 302(c)(4) of the Guidelines, Applicant’s PLHA Plan for the 2019- 2023 Allocations is attached to this resolution, and Applicant hereby adopts this PLHA RESOLUTION NO. __________
Plan and certifies compliance with all public notice, public comment, and public hearing requirements in accordance with the Guidelines.
5. Applicant certifies that it has or will subgrant some or all of its PLHA funds to another entity or entities. Pursuant to Guidelines Section 302(c)(3), “entity” means a housing developer or program operator, but does not mean an administering Local Government to whom a Local Government may delegate its PLHA allocation.
6. Applicant certifies that its selection process of these subgrantees was or will be accessible to the public and avoided or shall avoid any conflicts of interest.
7. Pursuant to Applicant’s certification in this resolution, the PLHA funds will be expended only for eligible Activities and consistent with all program requirements.
8. Applicant shall be subject to the terms and conditions as specified in the Standard Agreement, the PLHA Program Guidelines and any other applicable SB 2 Guidelines published by the Department.
9. The City Manager of the City of Santee is authorized to execute the PLHA Program Application, the PLHA Standard Agreement and any subsequent amendments or modifications thereto, as well as any other documents which are related to the Program or the PLHA grant awarded to Applicant as the Department may deem appropriate ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Santee, California, at a Regular meeting thereof held this 26th day of February 2025, by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
APPROVED:
JOHN W. MINTO, MAYOR
RESOLUTION NO. __________
CERTIFICATE OF THE ATTESTING OFFICER
The undersigned, Officer of City Clerk, James Jeffries, does hereby attest and certify that the ________________________ Resolution is a true, full and correct copy of a resolution duly adopted at a meeting of the City of Santee which was duly convened and held on the date stated thereon, and that said document has not been amended, modified, repealed or rescinded since its date of adoption and is in full force and effect as of the date hereof.
ATTEST: _________________________
James Jeffries, City Clerk
Exhibit A – PHLA Plan for the 2021-2023 Allocations
City of Santee
Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PHLA)
Funding Allocation Plan
For Public Review
In September 2017, the California Legislature approved Senate Bill 2 (SB 2), known as the Building Homes and Jobs Act (Act), which established a $75 recording fee on real estate documents to increase the supply of affordable housing. The Act establishes the Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) program administered by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The PLHA provides a permanent source of funding to cities and counties to help meet the unmet need for affordable housing and increase the supply of affordable housing units. HCD released its first Notice of Funding Availability for these funds on February 26, 2020.
Under the PLHA, funding is provided through formula grants to entitlement jurisdictions based on the formula prescribed under federal law for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program over a five-year funding period, as well as through a competitive grant program to non-entitlement jurisdictions. The City of Santee is an entitlement jurisdiction and is eligible to receive funding annually. Funding for each year for the PLHA is generated through a fee on real estate transactions, which may fluctuate from year to year. According to HCD, the City is currently eligible for $433,336, which is the portion of the City’s total allocation remaining for the last three funding periods of the five-year allocation. Specifically, $229,843 in PLHA funding is available for Fiscal Year 2025/26.
The State requires entitlement jurisdictions to use PLHA funds to increase the supply of affordable housing. In order to receive PLHA funds, the City is required to submit a PLHA Plan detailing the manner in which allocated funds will be used; a description of the way the City will prioritize investments that increase the supply of housing for households at or below 60 percent of AMI; a description of how the Plan is consistent with the programs set forth in the City’s Housing Element; and evidence that the Plan was authorized and adopted by resolution by the City Council and that the public had an adequate opportunity to review and comment on its content.
The City intends to utilize fifty-five percent of the program funding under the direction of eligible Activity (a)(6) assisting persons who are experiencing or at risk of homelessness, including but not limited, providing, rapid rehousing, supportive/case management services that allow people to obtain and retain housing, and operating costs for navigation centers and emergency shelters. In compliance with the PHLA’s Affordable OwnerOccupied Workforce Housing Requirements, forty percent of the allocation will be for Activity (a)(6) accessibility modifications in lower-income owner-occupied housing, including manufactured or mobile homes and the remaining five percent will be toward administration of the PLHA program.
The Santee City Council will consider approving a Resolution on February 26, 2025, authorizing the City to apply, submit and receive grant funds for the PLHA program. The deadline to submit the approved Resolution and PLHA application is February 28, 2025. §301(a)(6) Assisting persons who are experiencing or At risk of homelessness, including, but not limited to, providing rapid rehousing, rental assistance, supportive/case management services that allow people to obtain and retain housing, operating and capital costs for navigation centers and emergency shelters, and the new construction, rehabilitation, and preservation of permanent and transitional housing. §302(c)(4)(C) Provide a description of how the Plan is consistent with the programs set forth in the Local Government’s Housing Element.
Policy 4.2 of the City of Santee's Housing Sixth Cycle Housing Element provides that the City shall, "coordinate with local social service providers to address the needs of the City's homeless population. Provide funding to groups providing shelter and other services to the homeless." Upon notice of award of funding, the City will issue a request for qualifications to select a non-profit homeless services provider to conduct street outreach, providing supportive/case management services and temporary housing as part of an effort to secure more permanent housing for persons experiencing homelessness in Santee. §302(c)(4)(A) Describe the manner in which allocated funds will be used for eligible activities.
The City of Santee (City) plans on utilizing the allocated PLHA funds for the following two activities: Activity 6: Fifty-five percent of allocation towards assisting persons who are experiencing or at risk of homelessness, including but not limited to, providing rapid rehousing, supportive/case management services that allow people to obtain and retain housing, and operating costs for navigation centers and emergency centers. Activity 7: In compliance with the Affordable Owner-Occupied Works Housing Requirements, forty percent of the allocation will be used for accessibility modifications in lower-income owner occupied housing, including manufactured or mobile homes. The remaining five percent of funding will be used of administrative costs. §302(c)(4)(B) Provide a description of the way the Local government will prioritize investments that increase the supply of housing for households with incomes at or below 60 percent of Area Median Income (AMI).
The City of Santee's use of PLHA funds for Activity 6 will focus on households and individuals experiencing homelessneess with income at or below 30% of Area Median Income. The City's PHLA funds for Activity 7 (accessibilty modifications) will be directed towards household and individuals earning 60% or less of Area Median Income.
Activities Detail (Activities Detail (Must make a selection on Formula Allocation Application worksheet under Eligible Activities, §301)) The City of Santee intends to use PLHA funds for a non-profit homeless services provider that conduct street outreach to assist persons experiencing homeless to access permenant housing. While the City has experience working with a non-profit homeless services provider doing this type of work, the City's PLHA funded service provider will be selected through a request for qualifications\proposal process. It is further anticipated that the PLHA funded street outreach will also encompass services such as case management, temporary housing, and housing navigation services.
Complete the table below for each proposed Activity to be funded with 2021-2023 PLHA allocations. If a single Activity will be assisting households at more than one level of Area Median Income, please list the highest AMI to be served. §302(c)(4)(E)(i) Percentage of Funds Allocated for
the Proposed Activity 55% 55% 55%
Funding Allocation Year 2021 2022 2023
Street
Outreach
TOTAL §302(c)(4)(E)(ii) Area Median Income Level
Served 30% 30%
Upon the City's receipt of a standard agreement for the use of PLHA funds, the City will release a request for proposal\qualification to select and contract with a capable non-profit service provider. The street outreach program will begin shortly after contract execution which will on or shortly after July 1, 2025. The projected number of households served is based on the the City's Funding Year PLHA allocation and the City's prior experience providing similar homeless outreach services. §302(c)(4)(E)(i) Provide a detailed and complete description of how allocated funds will be used for the proposed Activity. §302(c)(4)(E)(ii) Unmet share of the RHNA at the
AMI Level
Note: complete for years 2021, 2022, 2023 only
203 203
30%
Type of Affordable Housing Activity Street Outreach Street Outreach
362
§302(c)(4)(E)(iv) Period of Affordability for the
Proposed Activity (55 years required for rental
housing projects)
N\A N\A N\A
§302(c)(4)(E)(ii) Projected Number of Households
Served 192 96 74
§302(c)(4)(E)(iii) A description of major steps/actions and a proposed schedule for the implementation and completion of the Activity. §302(c)(4) Plan Rev.10/28/2024
PLHA Page 1 302(c)(4) Plan
Type of Affordable Housing Activity
Accessibility
modifications in
Lower-income
OwnerOccupied
Housing
Accessibility
modifications
in Lowerincome OwnerOccupied
Housing
Accessibility
modifications
in Lowerincome OwnerOccupied
Housing
§302(c)(4)(E)(i) Provide a detailed and complete description of how allocated funds will be used for the proposed Activity.
Total Percentage of Funds Allocated Calculator (2021 - 2023) Funds Allocated 95%
Total Percentage of Funds
Allocated for 2022 100%
Admin
Funds Allocated
Total Percentage of Funds
Allocated for 2021
5%
95%
100%
2021 Allocation
Funds Allocated 95%
Total Percentage of Funds
Allocated for 2023 100%
End of Document
2022 Allocation
Admin 5%
2023 Allocation
Admin 5%
What Percentage of the Percentage Above Will
be Used for Ownership Housing? 100% 100% 100%
§301(a)(7) Accessibility modifications in Lower-income Owner-occupied housing.
Funding Allocation Year 2021
The City of Santee plans to use PLHA funds for a non-profit services provider that will assist with the selection, screening and completion of accessility modifications (e.g. wheel chair ramps, handrails, grab bars, flooring repairs to remove trip hazards) for low-income owner occupied housing, including mobile homes. The City will select the PLHA funded accessibiltity improvements provider through a request for qualifications\proposal process which will begin after the City receives a standard agreement for PLHA funds.
Complete the table below for each proposed Activity to be funded with 2021-2023 PLHA allocations. If a single Activity will be assisting households at more than one level of Area Median Income, please list the highest AMI to be served. §302(c)(4)(E)(ii) Area Median Income Level
Served 60% 60% 60% TOTAL
§302(c)(4)(E)(i) Percentage of Funds Allocated for
the Proposed Activity 40% 40% 40%
2022 2023
406
§302(c)(4)(E)(ii) Projected Number of Households
Served 12 6 5 23
§302(c)(4)(E)(ii) Unmet share of the RHNA at the
AMI Level
Note: complete for years 2021, 2022, 2023 only
406
§302(c)(4)(E)(iii) A description of major steps/actions and a proposed schedule for the implementation and completion of the Activity.
Upon the City's receipt of a standard agreement for the use of PLHA funds, the City will release a request for proposal\qualification to select and contract with a capable non-profit accessibility improvements service provider. The accessibilty improvements for low-income owneroccupied housing program will begin shortly after contract execution which will on or close to July 1, 2025. The projected number of households served is based on the the City's Funding Year PLHA allocation amount and the projected numbers served of another jurisdiction operating an accessiblity improvement program similar to what the City of Santee hopes to implement. §302(c)(4)(E)(iv) Period of Affordability for the
Proposed Activity N\A N\A N\A
File Name: Plan Adoption Reso §302(c)(4)(D) Evidence that the Plan was authorized and adopted by resolution by the Local jurisdiction and that the public had an adequate opportunity to review and comment on its content. Uploaded to HCD? Yes PLHA Page 2 302(c)(4) Plan
RESOLUTION NO.
1 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTEE, CALIFORNIA
AWARDING THE DESIGN-BUILD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE TEMPORARY FIRE STATION APPARATUS BAY (CIP 2024-36B) PROJECT TO HORIZONS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY INTERNATIONAL, INC., AND
APPROPRIATING AN ADDITIONAL $424,721 FROM THE GEENRAL FUND TO THE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET,AND FINDING THE PROJECT EXEMPT FROM
THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA), PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTIONS 15301, 15303, AND 15304
WHEREAS, an additional fire station in the southern area of the City was identified as a needed facility to improve response times in the Community Risk Assessment LongRange Master Plan prepared in March 2023 by AP Triton, LLC; and WHEREAS, in response to the recommendations made by AP Triton, LLC, on December 29, 2023, the City of Santee issued two requests for proposals (RFP) for Design-Build services to construct temporary Fire Station Living Quarters (CIP 2024-36A) and an Apparatus Bay (CIP 2024-36B) at the City Operations Center located at 9534 Via Zapador; and
WHEREAS, only one proposal for each project was received in response to the RFP’s; the proposal for the Temporary Living Quarters totaled $1,030,367.67, and the proposal for the Apparatus Bay totaled $1,227,230.38. The proposals exceeded the total $1,000,000 appropriated in the adopted FY 2024-2028 Capital Improvement Program budget for both projects, and the proposals were rejected by staff; and WHEREAS, an additional appropriation of $567,000 was approved as part of the FY 23/24 Mid-Year budget adjustments, increasing the appropriated amount for the Temporary Fire Station Living Quarters and Apparatus Bay Projects to $1,567,000; and WHEREAS, an additional general fund amount of $424,721 was identified by the City Council at the November 12, 2024 City Council meeting as available for completion of the temporary fire station following the transfer of American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds into to the general fund; and
WHEREAS, the Temporary Fire Station Living Quarters (CIP 2024-36A) construction contract was awarded to Horizons Construction Company International Inc. for a total not to exceed $704,126 by the City Council on June 12, 2024; and WHEREAS, Santee Municipal Code (SMC) Section 3.24.130 authorizes the City to join with other public jurisdictions in cooperative purchasing plans or programs as determined by the purchasing agent to be in the City’s best interest to do so; and WHEREAS, as an alternative to the formal RFP process for Design-Build contracts, The Gordian Group (Gordian) was solicited to provide a Temporary Fire Station Apparatus Bay Construction proposal under the conditions of Sourcewell EZIQC Contract No CA-R9GB-101723-HRZ; and
RESOLUTION NO.
2 WHEREAS, Horizon Construction Company International, Inc. was awarded Sourcewell Contract CA-R9-GB-101723-HRZ for General Contractor for Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity Construction Contracts (IDIQ) with Gordian providing administration of the program for CA Region 9 on 12/01/23 thru 12/24/24, with option of five (1) one-year extensions; and
WHEREAS, Sourcewell modified Contract No CA-R9-GB-101723-HRZ on December 6, 2024 to renew it for the first of five (5) 12-month periods, ending December 5, 2025; and
WHEREAS, the design-build proposal submitted by Horizon Construction Company International, Inc., and the oversight contract management provided by Gordian, meets the City of Santee’s purchasing requirements for the project; and WHEREAS, the project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Class 1 (Existing Facilities); Section 15303, Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures); and Section 15304, Class 4 (Minor Alternations to Land).; and WHEREAS, none of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions found in the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply to the project; and WHEREAS, Staff recommends utilizing the Sourcewell EZIQC Contract No CAR9-GB-101723-HRZ and awarding the Design-Build Construction contract to Horizon Construction Company International, Inc. to construct the Temporary Fire Station Apparatus Bay at the City of Santee Operations Yard at 9534 Via Zapador.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santee, California, that the City Council hereby:
1. Authorizes the award of the Design-Build construction contract to implement the Temporary Fire Station Apparatus Bay (CIP 2024-36B) Project to Horizon Construction Company International., Inc. for a total amount of $1,007,367.44; and
2. Authorizes the appropriation of an additional $424,721 from the general fund to the Capital Improvement Program budget for the construction of a Temporary Fire Station living quarters and apparatus bay; and
3. Authorizes the Fire Chief to approve change orders in a total amount not to exceed $151,105; and
4. Finds the project exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Sections 15301, 15303, and Section 15304 of the CEQA Guidelines and authorizes the filing of a Notice of Exemption; and
5. Authorizes the City Manager to execute all necessary documents.
RESOLUTION NO.
3 ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Santee, California, at a Regular Meeting thereof held this 26th day of February 2025, by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
APPROVED:
JOHN W. MINTO, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_______________________________________________
JAMES JEFFRIES, CITY CLERK
Work Order Signature Document
EZIQC Contract No.: CA-R9-GB-101723-HRZ
Santee - Apparatus Bay Project
New Work Order
138078.00
Modify an Existing Work Order
Work Order Title:
Work Order Number.: Work Order Date:
X
02/07/2025
Contractor Name:
Contact:
Phone:
Contact:
Phone:
Kinan Kotrash
(714) 626-0000
Owner Name: City of Santee
Jan Sherar
619-258-4100 x212
Horizons Construction Co. Int'l, Inc.
Work to be Performed
Work to be performed as per the Final Detailed Scope of Work Attached and as per the terms and conditions of Sourcewell EZIQC Contract No CA-R9-GB-101723-HRZ.
Brief Work Order Description:
Liquidated Damages Will apply: X Will not apply:
Estimated Completion Date:
Time of Performance Estimated Start Date:
Work Order Firm Fixed Price: $1,007,367.44
Owner Purchase Order Number:
Approvals
City of Santee Date Horizons Construction Co. Int'l, Inc. Date
2.00