00775F150F — Santee City Council, May 14, 2025 (part 1 of 2)

Extra Space Storage Santee Project
Santee, California
Class 32 CEQA Exemption Analysis
3/12/25 (P:\2023\20231146 - Extra Space Storage Santee\Initial Study_CE\Extra Space Santee CE 3.12.25_clean.docx) 1

PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS

1. Project Title:

Extra Space Storage Santee Project

2. Lead Agency Name and Address:

City of Santee
10601 Magnolia Avenue
Santee, CA 92701
(619) 258-4100

3. Contact Person and Phone Number:

Christina Rios, Senior Planner
Planning & Building Department
10601 Magnolia Avenue
Santee, CA 92071
(619) 258-4100, x157
[email protected]

4. Project Location:

The 2.81-acre project site at 10835 Woodside Avenue in Santee, California (Assessor’s Parcel Number [APN] 384-120-46) is currently developed with four self-storage buildings and an undeveloped area that provides at-grade storage for recreational vehicles and boats. The project site is surrounded by a mixture of residential and commercial uses. As shown on Figure 1, Regional Location (all figures are provided in Attachment A), regional access to the project site is provided by State Route 67 (SR-67), adjacent to the project site. Local access to the project site is provided by Woodside Avenue.

5. Project Applicant:

Extra Space Storage
2795 East Cottonwood Parkway, Suite 300
Salt Lake City, UT 84121

6. General Plan Designation:

According to the City of Santee’s (City) General Plan Land Use Element, the project’s land use designation is General Commercial (GC).

7. Zoning:

According to the City’s Zoning Map, the site is zoned GC.

8. Description of Project:

The proposed project would construct an 87,100 square-foot (sq ft) self-storage building consisting of three stories in addition to a basement level, on the undeveloped area of the project site currently used for at-grade recreational vehicle and boat storage. Additionally, 7 parking stalls would be provided adjacent to the proposed building. The proposed project would also demolish small portions of all four existing, one-story self-storage buildings, 3/12/25 (P:\2023\20231146 - Extra Space Storage Santee\Initial Study_CE\Extra Space Santee CE 3.12.25_clean.docx) 2 3,465 sq ft in total, to accommodate the addition of 11 new surface parking spaces. The proposed project would replace the existing office and caretaker’s residence with a new caretaker’s residence in the building. The proposed project would also include on-site utility connections including a new on-site sewer lateral to connect to the existing lateral stub.

Access to the project site would be provided via two driveways along Woodside Avenue including one new driveway and realignment of the existing driveway. See the detailed discussion below in the Project Description.

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:

The project site is located at 10835 Woodside Avenue in an urbanized area of Santee. The proposed project site is immediately bounded to the northwest by Woodside Avenue, to the north by a commercial business, to the east by SR-67, and to the south by residential uses.

10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required (e.g., permits, financial approval, or participation agreements):
a. City of Santee: Approval of the Categorical Exemption (CE) and a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow self-storage facilities in GC zoning designation. b. Federal Aviation Administration: Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation. c. State Water Resources Control Board: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit.
d. Airport Land Use Commission. Determination of consistency with the Gillespie Field Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Existing Project Site
As shown in Figure 1, Regional Location, the project site is located at 10835 Woodside Avenue in Santee, San Diego County, California. The 2.81-acre, 122,244 sq ft project site lies along the southeastern border of Woodside Avenue. The project site consists of APN 384-120-46-00. The existing project site includes a self-storage facility consisting of four one-story buildings with a combined square footage of 30,146 sq ft and a total of 257 units, with zero parking spaces, and an undeveloped area that provides at-grade storage for recreational vehicles and boats. The project site is characterized by a slight change in elevation sloping to the southwest. In the project site’s existing condition, vehicular access is provided via one driveway along Woodside Avenue.

The project site is in an urban area surrounded by a mixture of residential and commercial uses. The proposed project site is immediately bounded to the northwest by Woodside Avenue, to the north by a commercial pet supply business, to the east by SR-67, and to the south by residential uses.

Regional access to the project site is provided by SR-67, which is adjacent the project site. Local access to the project site is provided by Woodside Avenue.

Proposed Project
The proposed project would construct a new, 87,100 sq ft self-storage building on an undeveloped area of the project site that currently provides uncovered storage for recreational vehicles and boats. The proposed building would consist of three stories in addition to a basement level and would contain a total of 622 storage units and 7 adjacent parking stalls. An office space and 24-hour 3/12/25 (P:\2023\20231146 - Extra Space Storage Santee\Initial Study_CE\Extra Space Santee CE 3.12.25_clean.docx) 3 kiosk would be constructed within the southwest corner of the basement level, which would be the main point of entrance for customers. This portion of the basement level would sit at ground level due to the existing grade of the project site. Additionally, a 1,158 sq ft apartment would be constructed for an on-site caretaker on the first floor of the proposed building to replace the existing caretaker residence. The proposed project would also demolish small portions of each of the four existing one-story self-storage buildings, a total of 3,465 sq ft, to accommodate the addition of 11 new surface parking spaces and landscaping, for a total of 18 parking spaces. One new storage unit would be constructed in the northernmost existing building and the remaining portions of the existing buildings would continue to operate in their current configurations. Under postdevelopment conditions, the total building square footage on site (including the existing 26,681 sq ft to remain) would be 113,781 sq ft, with a total of 854 storage units and 18 parking stalls.

Figure 2, Conceptual Site Plan, provides an overview of the proposed site plan, including the locations of the existing buildings to remain, the proposed building, vehicular access, ornamental fencing, parking areas, and a trash enclosure. The trash enclosure would be accessed from the ground floor and is to the southeast corner of the proposed building. The proposed project includes on-site utilities to connect to existing public utility mains and will dedicate a 20-foot-wide sewer easement on the project frontage to Padre Dam Municipal Water District (PDMWD) for future use.

The proposed project also includes one new driveway and relocation of the existing driveway to improve alignment. The hours of operation would remain the same as current conditions: Monday through Friday from 9:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Saturday from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., and closed on Sunday. Storage gate hours would also remain the same: Monday through Sunday, 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.

Zoning and General Plan Land Use Designations
According to the City of Santee zoning map, the project site is currently zoned for General Commercial (GC). Per City Municipal Code Section 13.12.030, with approval of a CUP, operation of self-storage facilities is permitted within the GC zone. With approval of the CUP, the proposed project would be consistent with the GC zoning designation and applicable zoning regulations; the project does not propose deviations from zoning regulations. Additionally, the City of Santee General Plan designates the project site as GC. Table A indicates the proposed project’s consistency with the City’s applicable General Plan policies. As shown in this table, the proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan designation and would not require a General Plan Amendment.

Site Access and Parking
There is currently one access driveway along Woodside Avenue in the northwest corner of the project site. The proposed project would remove and replace the existing driveway and construct a second driveway in the southwest corner of the project site along Woodside Avenue. Therefore, upon completion, the proposed project would provide vehicular access via two driveways along Woodside Avenue, both of which would feature new automatic lift gates. The gates would be open to the public from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. daily. A vehicular speed limit of 5 miles per hour would be posted on both entrance gates and would be maintained throughout the property.

Currently, the property contains zero parking spaces. Pursuant to City Municipal Code Section

13.24.020(A)-(B), off-street parking shall be provided for any addition or enlargement of an existing 3/12/25 (P:\2023\20231146 - Extra Space Storage Santee\Initial Study_CE\Extra Space Santee CE 3.12.25_clean.docx) 4 building or use, provided that the additional parking spaces shall be required only for such addition, enlargement, or change of occupancy or manner of operation and not for the entire building or use.

Table A: General Plan Consistency Analysis
Policies Consistency Analysis
Land Use Element
Objective 3.0: Provide and maintain the highest level of service possible for all community public services and facilities.

Policy 3.6: Development projects shall be reviewed to ensure that all necessary utilities are available to serve the project and that any land use incompatibilities or impacts resulting from public utilities shall be mitigated to the maximum extent possible.

Consistent. All necessary utilities are available to
serve the project as proposed and no land use
incompatibilities or impacts would result from public
utilities. The project site is currently served with
electricity, water, and telephone utilities. The septic system currently serving the project site would be
abandoned and the existing and proposed buildings
would be connected to the public sewer system. The
proposed project includes all necessary infrastructure
within the project site to connect the proposed
project to existing mainlines within Santee, including
a new lateral to connect to an existing sewer lateral
stub at the southwest corner of the site. PDMWD has
indicated that their facilities are available to serve the proposed project, but that adequate water and sewer
facility commitment shall be determined prior to final
project approval/map recordation and shall be
available concurrent with project need. Therefore,
the proposed project would be consistent with Land
Use Element Policy 3.6.

Objective 6.0: Ensure that natural and man-induced hazards are adequately addressed in the location and intensity of development in the City.

Policy 6.2: The City should promote the use of innovative site planning to avoid on-site hazards and minimize risk levels.

Consistent. The proposed project is not on a site that
is included on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5.1 Although there are no known hazards on
site, the proposed project would be designed to avoid
potential on-site hazards. Project design would
include on-site signage and safety equipment, such as
fire extinguishers and a fire alarm system, to minimize risk levels. Therefore, the proposed project would be
consistent with Land Use Element Policy 6.2.

Noise Element
Objective 1.0: Control noise from sources adjacent to residential, institutional and other noise-sensitive receptors.

Policy 1.2: The City shall utilize noise studies and noise contour maps when evaluating development proposals during the
discretionary review process.

Consistent. A noise and vibration analysis technical
memorandum was prepared for the proposed project
and analyzed baseline noise levels at the project site
in comparison with potential noise levels generated
by construction and operations associated with the
proposed project. Potential construction and
operational noise and vibration impacts were
determined to be less than significant. This analysis
was used to provide substantial evidence during the
1 California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). n.d. EnviroStor Database. Website:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?global_id=19970011 (accessed November 15, 2023). 3/12/25 (P:\2023\20231146 - Extra Space Storage Santee\Initial Study_CE\Extra Space Santee CE 3.12.25_clean.docx) 5 Table A: General Plan Consistency Analysis
discretionary review process. Therefore, the
proposed project would be consistent with Noise
Element Policy 1.2.

Safety Element
Objective 4.0: Minimize injuries, loss of life and property damage resulting from fire hazards.

Policy 4.3: The City shall require the installation of fire hydrants and establishment of emergency vehicle access, before
construction with combustible materials can begin on an approved project.

Policy 4.4: The City shall require emergency access routes in all developments to be adequately wide to allow the entry and maneuvering of emergency vehicles.

Consistent. The proposed project’s adherence to
requirements established by the Fire Department
would be confirmed prior to the start of construction.

The proposed project would provide a minimum 26-
foot-wide, paved, “fire lane” access roadway through
the project site. Additionally, the proposed access
gates would be equipped with emergency vehicle
access devices and Knox key switches for gate
override during emergencies. Fire safety equipment
and design elements such as fire hydrants, sprinkler
systems, emergency access/fire lanes, fire
extinguishers, and Knox boxes would be incorporated
into the project design. The proposed project would
satisfy all fire protection standards contained in the
Uniform Fire and Building Codes. Therefore, the
proposed project would be consistent with Safety
Element Policies 4.3 and 4.4.

Community Enhancement Element
Objective 6.0: Improve the appearance and condition of commercial facilities in the City.

Policy 6.1: The City shall ensure that all new commercial developments contribute towards an overall positive and cohesive visual identity.

Policy 6.2: The City shall promote rehabilitation of commercial sites and investigate funding opportunities for
rehabilitation/remodeling of small businesses.

Consistent. The proposed project would rehabilitate
and update an existing public storage facility by
replacing underutilized, at-grade boat and RV storage
with a new storage building providing an additional
61,018 square feet of net rentable space. The
proposed building would feature a sleek, modern
architectural style with a relatively neutral color
palette that would increase the visual identity of the
existing storage facility. Further, expansion of
rentable space would increase the storage facility’s
commercial potential while also rehabilitating and
upgrading the site’s visual appearance. Therefore, the
proposed project would be consistent with
Community Enhancement Element Policies 6.1 and

6.2. Source: Santee General Plan (City of Santee 2020).

City = City of Santee
PDMWD = Padre Dam Municipal Water District
Per City Municipal Code Section 13.24.040, a parking ratio of 1 parking space for every 5,000 sq ft of gross floor area must be maintained for self-storage facilities. As applied to the proposed project consisting of the addition of 87,100 sq ft of self-storage uses, the project requires 17 spaces (17.4 rounds down to 17 per City Municipal Code Section 13.24.020(F)). As shown on Figure 2, the proposed project would include a total of 18 parking spaces (both existing and proposed), 1 of which would be Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant. The proposed 18 parking space supply would provide adequate parking to accommodate the project’s peak parking demand. 3/12/25 (P:\2023\20231146 - Extra Space Storage Santee\Initial Study_CE\Extra Space Santee CE 3.12.25_clean.docx) 6 Building Design
The proposed project would include the development of a new 87,100 sq ft self-storage building, providing an additional 622 storage units to the existing storage capacity of the project site.

Additionally, one new storage unit would be constructed within the northernmost existing building.

Under post-development conditions, the total building square footage on site (including the existing 26,681 sq ft to remain) would be 113,781 sq ft, including a total of 854 storage units resulting in a total building footprint of approximately 40 percent of the total project site (122,244 sq ft). At its tallest point, the proposed new building would be three stories above ground level, reaching an approximate height of 39 feet, in addition to a basement level with a floor-to-floor height of 10 feet, 8 inches. City Municipal Code Section 13.12.040 limits the maximum building height to 25 feet within 50 feet of a residential district. The proposed project would comply with this limitation by setting back the third story so that it would be constructed more than 50 feet away from the adjacent residential uses. By contrast, the two-story portion of the proposed project would reach a maximum height of 21 feet. The proposed building would be located at the bottom of the existing slope between the project site and the adjacent residential buildings to the south. The Applicant would be responsible for maintaining the slope.

The largest storage unit size within the proposed building would be 10 feet by 30 feet, and the smallest storage unit size would be 5 feet by 5 feet. A range of units between these sizes would be available for rent.

The main entrance and on-site ADA-compliant office would be in the southwestern corner of the basement level of the proposed building. Due to the site’s slope conditions, the main entrance and office would be accessed at ground level. The office would be operational throughout construction.

The proposed project, once completed, would not require any additional employees on site compared to existing operations. Elevator access to the upper floors and basement of the proposed building would be provided near the loading area. Stair access would be provided via one of two stairwells at either the southwest edge of the proposed building or the northernmost tip of the proposed building.

Infrastructure Improvements
As part of the project, new electricity, water, telephone, and sewer infrastructure would be constructed within the project site to connect the proposed building to the existing mainlines. The septic system currently serving the project site would be abandoned, and the existing and proposed buildings would be connected to the public sewer system. The proposed project includes the installation of a new sewer lateral to service the project site. The new sewer lateral would connect to the existing sewer lateral stub at the southwest corner of the project site. A 20-foot-wide sewer easement would be dedicated along the Woodside Avenue frontage to accommodate future PDMWD sewer infrastructure.

Construction and Grading
Construction of the proposed project would require partial demolition of the four existing selfstorage buildings on the project site. The existing apartment unit on the west end of the northernmost storage building would be demolished, repaved, and painted to accommodate two parking stalls and landscaping. This demolition area would amount to 774 sq ft. The demolition area of the other three existing storage buildings, moving north to south, would be 896 sq ft, 893 sq ft, 3/12/25 (P:\2023\20231146 - Extra Space Storage Santee\Initial Study_CE\Extra Space Santee CE 3.12.25_clean.docx) 7 and 902 sq ft, respectively, for a total demolition area of 3,465 sq ft. The demolished portions of these three buildings would be repaved and painted to accommodate three parking stalls each and landscaping.

Development of the proposed project would require excavation and grading of the site, delivery of materials, and construction of the building area. Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to commence in the beginning of 2025 and continue for approximately 14 months. It is anticipated that an average of 8 to 10 construction workers would be on site each day.

Based on the preliminary grading plans, the proposed project would require approximately 7,850 cubic yards (cy) of cut and 375 cy of fill, resulting in a total of 7,475 cy to be exported off site. Site preparation, grading, and building activities would involve the use of standard earthmoving equipment such as large excavators, cranes, and other related equipment.

Construction of the proposed project would require a maximum excavation depth of 13 feet.

Discretionary Actions, Permits, and Other Approvals
In accordance with Sections 15050 and 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City is the designated Lead Agency for the proposed project and has principal authority and jurisdiction for CEQA actions and project approval. Responsible agencies are those agencies that have jurisdiction or authority over one or more aspects associated with the development of a proposed project and/or mitigation. Trustee agencies are State agencies that have jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by a proposed project.

The discretionary actions to be considered by the City as a part of the proposed project include:
• Conditional Use Permit Approval
• Application for Environmental Categorical Exemption approval Other actions to be considered by responsible agencies as part of the proposed project include:
• Determination of Consistency (Airport Land Use Commission) • National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (State Water Resources Control Board)

PROJECT CONDITIONS
The following Standard Project Conditions would be required of the proposed project. These measures would be incorporated as Conditions of Approval for the entitlement of the Conditional Use Permit and are typical for projects within the City of Santee. Suchmeasurestaken to comply with building codes or to address common and typical concerns for new projects do not preclude CEQA exemptions (Berkeley Hillside Preservation City of Berkeley (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 943, 960- 961). The following measures are standard conditions for similar development projects entitled in the past by the City of Santee:
3/12/25 (P:\2023\20231146 - Extra Space Storage Santee\Initial Study_CE\Extra Space Santee CE 3.12.25_clean.docx) 8 STANDARD PROJECT CONDITION NO. 1 – AIR QUALITY:

1. The construction contractor shall use construction equipment powered by California Air Resources Board (CARB) certified Tier 4, or newer, engines and haul trucks that conform to current U.S. Environmental Protection Agency truck standards.

2. 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) Rule 55, Fugitive Dust Control.

3. 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.

4. 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. The project shall include the installation of infrastructure to make the proposed project solar-ready.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. The project shall comply with Chapters 9.02 and 9.04 of the Santee Municipal Code that pertain to solid waste management and demolition and construction debris recycling.

8. In conformance with SDAPCD Rule 67.0.1, Architectural Coatings, the project shall use low volatile organic compound (VOC) paints.

9. The project shall not include wood burning stoves or fireplaces.

STANDARD PROJECT CONDITION NO. 2 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES:

1. 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 bird breeding season (between January 15 and September 15). If vegetation disturbance 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 priorto vegetation disturbance. If the planned vegetation disturbance does not occur within 72 hours of the nesting bird survey, then the area shall be resurveyed. If nesting birds are found, the qualified biologistshall establish an adequate buffer zone (on a species-by-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 shall be determined by the biologist based on the amount, intensity, and duration of construction and can be altered based on site conditions. If appropriate, as 3/12/25 (P:\2023\20231146 - Extra Space Storage Santee\Initial Study_CE\Extra Space Santee CE 3.12.25_clean.docx) 9 determined by the biologist, additional monitoring of the nesting birds may be conducted during construction to ensure that nesting activities are not disrupted.

2. All vehicles, equipment, tools, and supplies shall stay within the limits of the impact area.

3. Best management practices (BMP) features (e.g., silt fencing, straw wattles, and gravel bags) shall be installed where necessary to prevent and/or limit off‐site sedimentation runoff in accordance with an approved BMP plan.

4. Any planting stock to be brought onto the project site for landscaping shall be first 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.

STANDARD PROJECT CONDITION NO. 3 – GEOLOGY/SOILS:

The Construction Contractorshall 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.

STANDARD PROJECT CONDITION NO. 4 – NOISE:

1. All construction plans shall include the following notes:
a. Operations shall conform to the City's Municipal Code 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. All residential units located within 500 feet of the construction site shall be sent a notice regarding the construction scheduleA 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.”

3. A “noise disturbance coordinator” shall be established. The disturbance coordinator shall be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinatorshall determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g.,starting too early, bad muffler) and shall be required to implement reasonable measures to reduce noise levels. 3/12/25 (P:\2023\20231146 - Extra Space Storage Santee\Initial Study_CE\Extra Space Santee CE 3.12.25_clean.docx) 10

4. The following shall be incorporated into the project construction plan: “Control of Construction Hours. Construction activities occurring as part of the projectshall 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.”
STANDARD PROJECT CONDITION NO. 5 – TRIBAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL MONITOR:

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.2
The Applicant shall also retain a Native American monitor of Kumeyaay decent.

2. Prior to 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 acknowledgement form. The Applicant shall retain documentation demonstrating attendance.

3. The qualified archaeologist, or an archaeological monitor (working under the direct supervision of the qualified archaeologist), shall observe all initial ground-disturbing 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).

4. 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, is satisfied that treatment of the resource has occurred. In the event that a unique archaeological resource or 2 U.S. Department of the Interior. n.d. Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for archaeology. Website: https://www.doi.gov/pam/asset-management/historic-preservation/PQS (accessed May 23, 2024).
3/12/25 (P:\2023\20231146 - Extra Space Storage Santee\Initial Study_CE\Extra Space Santee CE 3.12.25_clean.docx) 11 tribal cultural resource is discovered, and in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(b)(1), (2), and (4), the resource shall be moved and buried in an open space area identified by the Native American monitor, which will not be subject to further grading activity, erosion, flooding, or any other ground disturbance that has the potential to expose the resource. No identification of the resource shall be made; 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. Disposition of the resources shall be at the discretion of the City of Santee, but in accordance with the foregoing.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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 Public Resources Code (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 Assembly Bill 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 shall ensure that the immediate vicinity where the discovery occurred is not disturbed by further activity and is adequately protected according to generally accepted cultural or archaeological standards or practices. 3/12/25 (P:\2023\20231146 - Extra Space Storage Santee\Initial Study_CE\Extra Space Santee CE 3.12.25_clean.docx) 12 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, SECTION 15332, CLASS 32 INFILL

DEVELOPMENT EXEMPTION
Under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, a project, characterized as infill development, qualifies for a Class 32 CE under CEQA if the project (1) is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and policies and zoning designation and regulations; (2) occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than 5 acres substantially surrounded by urban uses; (3) is located on a site that does not have value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species; (4) would not result in any significant impacts relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and (5) is adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
(1) The proposed project is consistent with the applicable General Plan policies and designation and Zoning designation and regulations.

The project would not require amendments to an adopted planning document for implementation. The City’s General Plan land use designation for the project site is GC, which permits uses consistent with the site’s GC zoning. As previously detailed, Table A shows the proposed project’s consistency with the applicable City’s General Plan policies. As shown in that table, the proposed project would be consistent with the applicable General Plan policies and would not require a General Plan Amendment.

The zoning of the project site is GC. Per City Municipal Code Section 13.12.030, with approval of a CUP, operation of self-storage facilities is permitted within the GC zone. Therefore, the project is consistent with the applicable zoning designation with a CUP. The project does not propose deviations from zoning regulations. The project’s proposed parking is consistent with the City’s parking standards. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation and zoning for the project site.
(2) The proposed project would occur within city limits on a project site of no more than 5 acres and would be substantially surrounded by urban uses.

The project site is 2.81 acres and is located at 10835 Woodside Avenue in Santee. In its existing condition, the project site contains self-storage facilities, an undeveloped area used for RV and boat storage, paved driveways, and perimeter landscaping. The project site is surrounded by existing urban uses, including commercial and residential uses. The project site is immediately bounded to the northwest by Woodside Avenue, to the north by a commercial pet supply business, to the east by SR-67, and to the south by residential uses. Therefore, the proposed project is within City limits on a project site of no more than 5 acres and is substantially surrounded by urban uses.
(3) The proposed project would be located on a site that does not have value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species.

As shown on Figure 2, the project site includes 30,146 sq ft of existing self-storage uses (four one-story buildings), an undeveloped area that provides uncovered storage for recreational vehicles and boats, perimeter landscaping and fencing, and an Extra Space Storage facility tower sign. The project site contains ornamental landscaping and non-native trees along the project boundaries. The site is surrounded on all sides by urban development. 3/12/25 (P:\2023\20231146 - Extra Space Storage Santee\Initial Study_CE\Extra Space Santee CE 3.12.25_clean.docx) 13 The project site is currently developed, aside from the undeveloped area that provides uncovered storage for RVs and boats. However, the undeveloped area on the project site is highly disturbed. No special-status species are expected to occur on the project site in the existing condition because of the lack of suitable habitat. Similarly, the proposed project would not substantially reduce locally common wildlife populations because no suitable habitat exists on site. The proposed project would not significantly affect sensitive biological resources given the amount of previous development that has taken place on the project site and in the vicinity.

Proposed project construction and operation would have no impacts either directly or through habitat modification to any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Therefore, the project site does not have value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species.

The proposed project, like all projects, would be subject to the provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), which prohibits disturbing or destroying active nests, and California Fish and Game Code Section 3503, which protects nests and eggs (Standard Project Condition No. 2). A few trees may require removal to meet current building standards where the driveways would be reconstructed and where the proposed building would be constructed. Should on-site tree removal be necessary, it would be accomplished in a manner that would avoid impacts to active nests during the breeding season. With compliance with existing regulations, potential impacts to nesting birds would be avoided.
(4) The proposed project would not result in any significant impacts relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.

Traffic. A Transportation Analysis Memorandum3 (Attachment B) was prepared to identify the trip generation impacts associated with the proposed project. The trip generation of the proposed project was calculated using trip rates from the ITE Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies in the San Diego Region4 (ITE Guidelines) and the City of Santee5 VMT Analysis Guidelines (April 2022) (City Guidelines). Table B, below, summarizes the proposed project trip generation.
3 LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA). 2024a. Transportation Analysis Memorandum, Santee Self Storage Project. 4 Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) et al. 2019. Guidelines for Transportation Impact Studies in the San Diego Region. Website: http://sntbberry.cityofsanteeca.gov/sites/FanitaRanch/Public/Remainder%20 of%20the%20Record/(2)%20Reference%20Documents%20from%20EIR%20&%20Technical%20Reports/Ta b%20532%20-%202019-05%20-%2021%20ITE%20San%20Diego%20SB%20743%20Guidelines%20Update %20(May%202019).pdf (accessed January 9, 2024). 5 City of Santee. 2022. City of Santee VMT Analysis Guidelines. Website: https://files.ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/ 278328-1/attachment/pwj-6WVT4Tzh8xVei7pgES7y6XS6F1ifk7L5GX9xpwc0OG4CXVFRtA6mo0Z6DReX2 CzpBgLRh4-wX1Wy0 (accessed January 9, 2024).
3/12/25 (P:\2023\20231146 - Extra Space Storage Santee\Initial Study_CE\Extra Space Santee CE 3.12.25_clean.docx) 14 As shown in Table B, the net trip generation of the proposed project is 121 daily trips, including 9 trips (5 inbound and 4 outbound) in the a.m. peak hour and 15 trips (7 inbound and 8 outbound) in the p.m. peak hour. The existing plus project condition would result in 165 daily trips, including 12 trips (7 inbound and 5 outbound) in the a.m. peak hour and 20 trips (9 inbound and 11 outbound) in the p.m. peak hour.

Table B: Project Trip Generation
Land Use Size Unit Daily
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Trip Rates1
Mini-Warehouse (Self-Storage) tsf 1.45 0.06 0.04 0.10 0.08 0.09 0.17 Existing Trip Generation
Mini-Warehouse (Self-Storage) 30.146 tsf 44 2 1 3 2 3 5 Project Trip Generation2
Mini-Warehouse (Self-Storage) 83.635 tsf 121 5 4 9 7 8 15 Total Trip Generation (Existing + Project)
Mini-Warehouse (Self-Storage) 113.781 tsf 165 7 5 12 9 11 20 Source: LSA (2024a). Transportation Analysis Memorandum, Santee Self Storage Project. 1 Trip rates referenced from the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition (2021).

Land Use 151 (Mini-Warehouse) 2 The proposed project includes the demolition of 3.465 tsf and the construction of 87.100 tsf for a net increase of 83.635 tsf. tsf = thousand square feet
Per the ITE Guidelines, a level of service (LOS) based local transportation analysis (LTA) would be required for a proposed land use project if it is expected to generate more than 1,000 daily trips or 110 peak-hour trips. Projects that do not exceed that criterion are considered exempt from these requirements. Because the proposed project would generate fewer than 1,000 daily trips and 110 peak-hour trips, it is exempt from the preparation of an LTA.

The City Guidelines provide VMT screening criteria for projects that are presumed to have less than significant impacts to the local transportation system and would therefore not be required to conduct a VMT analysis. The City defines a “small project” as a project that generates fewer than 500 trips daily. The proposed project is expected to generate a small number of daily trips (net 121 average daily trips [ADT] and total with existing uses of 165 ADT). Because the proposed project would generate fewer than 500 daily vehicle trips, the proposed project meets the criteria for a less than significant VMT impact under the small project screening in the City’s Guidelines. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact, and a project-level VMT quantified analysis is not required under the City’s Guidelines.

Pedestrian and bicycle facilities run along Woodside Avenue. However, the proposed project would not result in a significant increase in daily vehicle trips and would not alter existing bicycle lanes during construction or operation. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the current use of the project site and would not conflict with a plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system.

Access to the proposed project would be provided via two driveways along Woodside Avenue.

Vehicular traffic to and from the project site would use the existing network of regional and local roadways that currently serve the area surrounding the project site. Based on the temporary nature of the construction activities and trips, and the low trip generation for daily 3/12/25 (P:\2023\20231146 - Extra Space Storage Santee\Initial Study_CE\Extra Space Santee CE 3.12.25_clean.docx) 15 operations, project vehicles would not create operational deficiencies or related hazards to the public roadways when accessing the project site.

The proposed project meets the criteria for an LOS-based LTA exemption and the criteria to be screened out from a detailed VMT analysis due to its classification as a small project. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on transportation.

Noise. The Noise and Vibration Technical Memorandum (Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis)6 prepared for the proposed project is provided in Attachment C.

Existing Noise Measurements. The primary existing noise sources in the project area are transportation facilities, including SR-67 and Woodside Avenue.

In order to assess the existing noise conditions in the area, long-term noise measurements were conducted at the project site. Two long-term, 24-hour measurements were taken from November 6, 2023, to November 7, 2023. The locations of the noise measurements are shown on Figure 3, and the results are summarized in Table C.

Aircraft Noise. The project site is approximately 0.9 mile north of Gillespie Field Airport. Based on the Gillespie Field Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, 7 the project site is located outside of
the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour for Gillespie Field. Because the project site is not located within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour, no further analysis associated with aircraft noise impacts is necessary. Additionally, there are no helipads or private airstrips within 2 miles of the project site.

Table C: Existing Noise Level Measurements
Location
Number Location Description
Daytime Noise
Levels1
(dBA Leq)
Nighttime Noise
Levels2
(dBA Leq)
Average
Daily Noise
Levels
(dBA Ldn)
Primary Noise
Sources
LT-1
At 10835 Woodside Avenue,
located southeast of the project
site boundary line on a light pole,
approximately 150 ft from the
SR-67 centerline.

58.5–67.2 53.5–67.0 68.3 Traffic on SR-67
LT-2
At 10835 Woodside Avenue,
located along southwest project
site boundary line on a light pole,
approximately 220 ft from the
Woodside Avenue centerline.

52.0–59.8 46.2–59.6 60.7 Traffic on
Woodside Avenue
Source: Compiled by LSA (December 2023). 1 Daytime Noise Levels = noise levels during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 2 Nighttime Noise Levels = noise levels during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. dBA = A-weighted decibel(s)
ft = foot/feet
Ldn = Day-night average noise level
Leq = equivalent continuous sound level
SR-67 = State Route 67
6 LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA). 2024b. Noise and Vibration Technical Memorandum, Santee Self Storage Project. 7 San Diego County Regional Airport Authority (SDCRAA). 2010. Gillespie Field Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
3/12/25 (P:\2023\20231146 - Extra Space Storage Santee\Initial Study_CE\Extra Space Santee CE 3.12.25_clean.docx) 16 Construction Noise. Project construction would result in short-term noise and vibration.

Maximum construction noise would be short-term, generally intermittent depending on the construction phase, and variable depending on receiver distance from the active construction zone. The duration of various types of construction noise and vibration would vary from 1 day to several weeks, depending on the phase of construction. The following describes the levels and types of impacts that may occur during construction.

The first type of short-term construction noise would result from transport of construction equipment and materials to the project site and construction worker commutes. These transportation activities would incrementally raise noise levels on access roads leading to the site. It is expected that larger trucks used in equipment delivery would generate higher noise impacts than trucks associated with worker commutes. The single-event noise from equipment trucks passing at a distance of 50 feet from a sensitive noise receptor would reach a maximum level of 84 A-weighted decibel maximum instantaneous sound level (dBA Lmax). However, the pieces of heavy equipment for grading and construction activities would be moved on site one time and would remain on site for the duration of all construction phases. This one-time trip, when heavy construction equipment is moved on- and off-site, would not add to the daily traffic noise in the project vicinity. The total number of daily vehicle trips would be minimal compared to existing traffic volumes on the affected streets, and the long-term noise level changes associated with these trips would not be perceptible. Therefore, equipment transport noise and construction-related worker commute impacts would be short-term and would result in a less than significant off-site noise impact.

The second type of short-term noise impact is related to noise generated during demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating on the project site.

Construction is undertaken in discrete steps, each of which has its own mix of equipment and its own noise characteristics. These various sequential phases would change the character of the noise generated on the project site. Therefore, the noise levels vary as construction progresses.

Despite the variety in the type and size of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow construction-related noise ranges to be categorized by work phase. Table D lists the maximum noise levels for typical construction equipment based on a distance of 50 feet between the construction equipment and a noise receptor. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve 1–2 minutes of full power operation followed by 3–4 minutes at lower power settings.

Table E shows the construction phases, the expected duration of each phase, the equipment expected to be used during each phase, the composite noise levels of the equipment at 50 feet, the distance of the nearest residential building from the average location of construction activities (a distance of 130 feet from the center of the project site), and noise levels expected during each phase of construction. These noise level projections do not take into account intervening topography or barriers, which would lower noise levels. 3/12/25 (P:\2023\20231146 - Extra Space Storage Santee\Initial Study_CE\Extra Space Santee CE 3.12.25_clean.docx) 17 Table D: Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels
Equipment Description Acoustical Usage
Factor (%)
Maximum Noise Level
(Lmax) at 50 ft
Compressor 100 81
Concrete Mixer 40 85
Concrete Pump 40 85
Crane 16 83
Dozer 40 80
Forklift 20 75
Front [End] Loader 40 79
Generator 100 78
Grader 8 85
Scraper 40 88
Welder 40 74
Sources: Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances (United States Environmental Protection Agency 1971); Roadway Construction Noise Model (Federal Highway Administration 2006).
ft = foot/feet
Lmax = maximum instantaneous sound level
Table E: Construction Noise Levels by Phase
Phase Duration
(days) Equipment
Composite
Noise Level at
50 ft (dBA Leq)
Distance to
Closest
Sensitive
Receptor (ft)1
Noise Level at
Receptor
(dBA Leq)
Demolition 15 1 concrete/industrial saw,
1 dozer, and 1 tractor
86 130 77
Site Preparation 10 1 grader, 1 scraper, and 1 tractor 85 130 77 Grading 10 1 grader, 1 dozer, and 2 tractors 86 130 78
Building
Construction
255 1 crane, 2 forklift, 1 generator
set, 1 tractor, and 3 welders
84 130 75
Paving 10 1 cement and mortar mixer,
1 paver,1 paving equipment,
2 rollers, and 1 tractor
86 130 77
Architectural
Coating
124 1 air compressor 74 130 66
Source: Compiled by LSA (2023b). Noise and Vibration Technical Memorandum, Santee Self Storage Project. 1 Distances are from the average location of construction activity for each phase, assumed to be the center of the project site.

Multi-family residential buildings to the south are 130 feet from the center of construction activity. Other buildings within the same development are further away and would be exposed to less noise. dBA Leq = average A-weighted hourly noise level
ft = foot/feet
It is expected that average noise levels during construction at the nearest sensitive receptor, the multifamily residential uses to the south, would approach 78 dBA Leq during the grading phase, which would take place for a duration of approximately 10 days. Average noise levels during other construction phases would range from 66 dBA Leq to 78 dBA Leq. Noise levels at the nearest off-site commercial uses to the southwest would reach an average noise level of 71 dBA Leq during the daytime hours. The elevated noise levels would only occur when all construction equipment is operating simultaneously and would cease once project construction is completed. 3/12/25 (P:\2023\20231146 - Extra Space Storage Santee\Initial Study_CE\Extra Space Santee CE 3.12.25_clean.docx) 18 Although the project construction-related short-term noise levels have the potential to be up to 22 dBA higher than the average daytime ambient noise at the closest receptors to the south, construction noise would occur for 10 days or less during the grading phase and would then cease to occur once the project construction is completed and the exposure would be temporary. Furthermore, the construction-related noise levels would be below the 80 dBA Leq and 85 dBA Leq criteria established by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for residential and commercial uses, respectively. The project would be constructed in compliance with the requirements of the City’s Noise Ordinance, which states that construction activities would not take place before 7:00 a.m. or after 7:00 p.m. on Mondays through Saturdays and would not take place any time on Sundays and holidays. Additionally, as required by the Santee Municipal Code Section 5.04.090, a notice would be provided to all owners and occupants within 300 feet of the project site if the construction equipment has a manufacturer’s noise rating of 85 dB or greater and operates at a specific location for 10 consecutive workdays.

In addition to the best business practices for noise reduction discussed above, the proposed project would implement Standard Project Condition No. 4. This Standard Project Condition includes additional best business practices including maintaining equipment mufflers and placing staging areas away from sensitive receptors. With incorporation of best business practices for noise reduction, the overall noise levels generated will be minimized, and construction noise impacts would be less than significant.

Construction Vibration. Vibration standards included in the FTA’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (2018) are used in this analysis for ground-borne vibration impacts on human annoyance.

Table F provides reference PPV values and vibration levels (in terms of vibration velocity in decibels) from typical construction vibration sources at 25 feet. While there is currently limited information regarding vibration source levels specific to the equipment that would be used for the project, to provide a comparison of vibration levels expected for a project of this size, a large bulldozer would generate 0.089 PPV (in/sec) of ground-borne vibration when measured at 25 feet, based on the FTA’s 2008 Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. It would take a minimum of 0.2 PPV (in/sec) to cause any potential building damage to non-engineered timber and masonry buildings.

Table F: Vibration Source Amplitudes for Construction Equipment Equipment Reference PPV/LV at 25 ft
PPV (in/sec) LV (VdB)1
Hoe Ram 0.089 87
Large Bulldozer 0.089 87
Caisson Drilling 0.089 87
Loaded Trucks 0.076 86
Jackhammer 0.035 79
Small Bulldozer 0.003 58
Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA 2018). 1 RMS VdB re 1 µin/sec. µin/sec = micro-inches per second
ft = foot/feet
FTA = Federal Transit Administration
in/sec = inches per second
LV = velocity in decibels
PPV = peak particle velocity
RMS = root-mean-square
VdB = vibration velocity in decibels
3/12/25 (P:\2023\20231146 - Extra Space Storage Santee\Initial Study_CE\Extra Space Santee CE 3.12.25_clean.docx) 19 The distance to the nearest buildings for vibration impact analysis is measured between the nearest off-site buildings and the project construction boundary (assuming the construction equipment would only be used at or near the project setback line).

The closest structures to the external construction activities are the residential uses to the south, which are approximately 20 feet from the project’s southern construction boundary.

Using the reference data from Table F, it is expected that vibration levels from dump trucks and other large equipment at 20 feet from the project boundary would generate ground-borne vibration levels of 0.124 PPV (in/sec) at the closest structures to the project site. This vibration level would not exceed the 0.2 in/sec PPV threshold considered safe for non-engineered timber and masonry buildings. Vibration levels at all other buildings would be lower. Therefore, construction would not result in any vibration damage, and impacts would be less than significant.

Construction Vibration Human Annoyance Potential. The existing residences approximately 130 feet to the south from the center of the project site are the nearest sensitive receptor and would experience vibration levels approaching 66 VdB based on the following equation:

LvdB (D) = LvdB (25 feet) - 30 Log (D/25)
This level of ground-borne vibration is below the threshold of distinctly perceptible, which is approximately 72 VdB for frequent events at uses where people sleep and would not exceed the FTA vibration threshold for human annoyance at the nearest sensitive use, and project construction would not result in vibration levels that would typically result in human annoyance.

Therefore, this level of ground-borne vibration would be less than significant for human annoyance. No mitigation is required.

Operational Noise. According to the Transportation Analysis Memorandum prepared for the proposed project, the proposed project is estimated to generate a net ADT of 121 based on the proposed increase in square footage of the self-storage facilities. Based on the ADT provided by the City of Santee Mobility Element8
, the ADT along Woodside Avenue in the project vicinity is approximately 23,300, based on projections for the year 2013. While the existing volume is likely higher today resulting in higher existing roadway noise levels, the project-related traffic would increase traffic noise along Woodside Avenue by less than 3 dBA. This noise level increase would not be perceptible to the human ear in an outdoor environment. Therefore, traffic noise impacts from project-related traffic on off-site sensitive receptors would be less than significant.

Long-term noise would be associated with new stationary sources proposed on the project site; the project’s heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system and trucks would be the new sources of stationary noise. Based on previous measurements that LSA has conducted, the HVAC equipment would generate noise levels of 66.6 dBA Leq at 5 feet per HVAC unit. Two banks 8 City of Santee. 2017. General Plan Mobility Element. Website: http://sntbberry.cityofsanteeca.gov/sites/ FanitaRanch/Public/Remainder%20of%20the%20Record/(10)%20Planning%20Documents%20Adopted%2 0by%20City%20of%20Santee/Tab%2006%20-%202017-10-25%20General%20Plan%20Mobility%20 Element%202017.pdf (accessed December 17, 2023).
3/12/25 (P:\2023\20231146 - Extra Space Storage Santee\Initial Study_CE\Extra Space Santee CE 3.12.25_clean.docx) 20 of HVAC units are assumed to be installed (four units per bank) and would generate noise levels of 72.6 dBA Leq at 5 feet.

Noise levels generated by delivery trucks would be similar to noise readings from truck loading and unloading activities, which generate a noise level of 75 dBA Leq at 20 feet based on measurements taken by LSA. Delivery trucks would arrive on site and maneuver their trailers so that trailers would be parked within the loading areas. During this process, noise levels are associated with the truck engine noise, air brakes, and back-up alarms while the truck is backing into the loading area. These noise levels would occur for a shorter period of time (less than 5 minutes). At a distance of 75 feet and incorporating the shorter duration of operations, a reference noise level of 64.2 dBA Leq at 75 feet is utilized in this analysis.

Table G presents the noise levels from on-site operations at the nearest noise-sensitive locations. The combined noise level of projected operations at 53.2 dBA Leq and average existing ambient nighttime noise levels at 52.9 dBA (based on nighttime noise levels for LT-2 shown in Table C above) would be 56.1 dBA Leq, resulting in an increase of 3.2 dBA for nighttime conditions. Therefore, noise from HVAC units would not exceed a 5 dBA Leq increase over ambient noise levels at the property line of the closest properties to the project site. In addition, the perimeter parapet walls shown in the project plans would further reduce the noise levels from the HVAC unit. Therefore, noise associated with the on-site operations would be less than significant.

Table G: Summary of Operational Noise Levels
Off-Site Land Use Direction Source Distance from
Source (ft)1
Reference Noise
Level (dBA Leq)
Distance
Attenuation
(dBA)
Average Noise
Level (dBA Leq)
Residence South HVAC 135 72.62 28.6 44.0
Trucks 75 64.2 11.5 52.7
Combined: 53.2
Source: Compiled by LSA (2023). 1 Distances are measured from the property line of the receiving land use to the closest source of noise. 2 Reference noise levels are associated with an assumption of 4 HVAC units. dBA = A-weighted decibels
ft = foot/feet
HVAC = heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
Leq = equivalent continuous sound level
Operational Vibration. Because the rubber tires and suspension systems of buses and other on-road vehicles provide vibration isolation and reduce noise, it is unusual for on-road vehicles to cause ground-borne noise or vibration. When on-road vehicles cause such effects as the rattling of windows, the source is almost always airborne noise. Most problems with on-road vehicle-related noise and vibration can be directly related to a pothole, bump, expansion joint, or other discontinuity in the road surface. Smoothing the bump or filling the pothole will usually solve the problem. Based on a reference vibration level of 0.076 in/sec PPV, structures more than 20 feet from the roadways that contain project trips would experience vibration levels below the most conservative standard of 0.12 in/sec PPV; therefore, vibration levels generated from project-related traffic on the adjacent roadways would be less than significant. 3/12/25 (P:\2023\20231146 - Extra Space Storage Santee\Initial Study_CE\Extra Space Santee CE 3.12.25_clean.docx) 21 Air Quality. The Air Quality Technical Memorandum (Air Quality Analysis)9 prepared for the proposed project is provided in Attachment D.

The project site is in the San Diego Air Basin. Air quality in the Basin is under the jurisdiction of the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD). LSA used the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) to calculate emissions from construction and operation of the proposed project.

Project construction activities would include demolition, grading, site preparation, building construction, architectural coating, and paving activities. Construction-related effects on air quality from the proposed project would be greatest during the site preparation phase due to the disturbance of soils. If not properly controlled, these activities would temporarily generate particulate emissions. Sources of fugitive dust would include disturbed soils at the construction site. Unless properly controlled, vehicles leaving the site would deposit dirt and mud on local streets, which could be an additional source of airborne dust after it dries. PM10 emissions would vary from day to day, depending on the nature and magnitude of construction activity and local weather conditions. PM10 emissions would depend on soil moisture, silt content of soil, wind speed, and amount of operating equipment. Larger dust particles would settle near the source, whereas fine particles would be dispersed over greater distances from the construction site.

Water or other soil stabilizers can be used to control dust, resulting in emission reductions of 50 percent or more. The SDAPCD has established Rule 55, Fugitive Dust Control, which would require the Applicant to implement measures that would reduce the amount of particulate matter generated during the construction period.10
In addition to dust-related PM10 emissions, heavy trucks and construction equipment powered by gasoline and diesel engines would generate CO, sulfur oxides (SOX), NOX, VOCs, and some soot particulate (PM2.5 and PM10) in exhaust emissions. If construction activities were to increase traffic congestion in the area, CO and other emissions from traffic would increase slightly while those vehicles idled in traffic. These emissions would be temporary in nature and limited to the immediate area surrounding the construction site. Table H summarizes the construction emissions estimated for the project using CalEEMod.
9 LSA Associates, Inc. 2024c. Air Quality Technical Memorandum, Santee Self Storage Project. 10 San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD). 2009. Rule 55: Fugitive Dust Control. Website:
www.sdapcd.org/content/dam/sdc/apcd/PDF/Rules_and_Regulations/Prohibitions/APCD_R55.pdf (accessed November 2023).
3/12/25 (P:\2023\20231146 - Extra Space Storage Santee\Initial Study_CE\Extra Space Santee CE 3.12.25_clean.docx) 22 As shown in Table H, construction emissions associated with the project would not exceed the daily San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) thresholds for VOCs, NOX, CO, sulfur oxides (SOX), PM2.5, or PM10 emissions. As described under Project Conditions, the proposed project would implement Standard Project Condition No. 1 during construction. This Standard Project Condition would include implementation of the following: use of, at minimum, Tier 4 construction equipment, best management practices to reduce fugitive dust emissions, California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) Sustainable (Green) Building Program Measures, high efficiency equipment and fixtures consistent with California Green Building Standards Code and Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, electric vehicle parking infrastructure, bike parking, City Municipal Code requirements related to landscaping and waste, and low volatile organic compound (VOC) paints. Additionally, the proposed project would not include wood burning stoves or fireplaces. .

Therefore, construction of the proposed project would not result in emissions that would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard (AAQS).

Table H: Short-Term Regional Construction Emissions
Construction Phase
Maximum Daily Regional Pollutant Emissions (lbs/day)
VOCs NOX CO SOX
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
Demolition 0.6 19.8 15.0 <0.1 0.3 0.7 0.1 0.6
Site Preparation 0.6 20.3 15.4 <0.1 0.7 0.6 0.1 0.5
Grading 0.7 28.5 18.2 0.1 4.7 0.7 1.9 0.6
Building Construction 0.6 16.9 13.4 <0.1 0.1 0.7 <0.1 0.6 Architectural Coating 3.4 1.1 1.3 <0.1 0.1 0.1 <0.1 0.1 Paving 0.6 10.4 8.7 <0.1 0.1 0.4 <0.1 0.4
Peak Daily Emissions 4.0 28.5 18.2 0.1 5.4 2.5
SDAPCD Threshold 75.0 250.0 550.0 250.0 100.0 55.0
Significant? No No No No No No
Source: Compiled by LSA (August 2024).

Note: Maximum emissions of VOCs and CO occurred during the overlapping building construction and architectural coating phases.

CO = carbon monoxide
lbs/day = pounds per day
NOX = nitrogen oxides
PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size
SDAPCD = San Diego Air Pollution Control District
SOX = sulfur oxides
VOCs = volatile organic compounds
Operational Impacts. Long-term air pollutant emissions associated with operation of the proposed project include emissions from area, energy, and mobile sources. Area-source emissions consist of direct sources of air emissions at the project site, including architectural coatings, consumer products, and use of landscape maintenance equipment. Energy-source emissions result from activities in buildings that use natural gas. As discussed above, the proposed project would be all electric and would not include any natural gas; therefore, the proposed project would not result in energy-source emissions. Mobile-source emissions are from vehicle trips associated with operation of the project.

PM10 emissions result from running exhaust, tire and brake wear, and the entrainment of dust into the atmosphere from vehicles traveling on paved roadways. Entrainment of PM10 occurs when vehicle tires pulverize small rocks and pavement, and the vehicle wakes generate airborne 3/12/25 (P:\2023\20231146 - Extra Space Storage Santee\Initial Study_CE\Extra Space Santee CE 3.12.25_clean.docx) 23 dust. The contribution of tire and brake wear is small compared to the other particulate matter emissions processes. Gasoline-powered engines have small rates of particulate matter emissions compared with diesel-powered vehicles.

Long-term operational emissions associated with the proposed project were calculated using CalEEMod. Table I provides the estimated existing emissions and the proposed project’s estimated operational emissions.

The results shown in Table I indicate the proposed project would not exceed the significance criteria for daily VOCs, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10, or PM2.5 emissions. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or State AAQS.

Table I: Project Operational Emissions
Emission Type Pollutant Emissions
VOCs NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Lbs/day
Mobile Sources 0.5 0.4 3.4 <0.1 0.7 0.2
Area Sources 2.6 <0.1 3.8 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Energy Sources 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Project Emissions 3.1 0.4 7.2 <0.1 0.7 0.2
SDAPCD Threshold 55.0 55.0 550.0 150.0 150.0 55.0
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
Tons/year
Mobile Sources 0.1 0.1 0.6 <0.1 0.1 <0.1
Area Sources 0.4 <0.1 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Energy Sources 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Project Emissions 0.5 0.1 0.9 <0.1 0.1 <0.1
SDAPCD Threshold 13.7 40.0 100.0 40.0 15.0 10.0
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
Source: Compiled by LSA (August 2024).

Note: Some values may not appear to add correctly due to rounding.

CO = carbon monoxide
lbs/day = pounds per day
NOX = nitrogen oxides
PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size
SDAPCD = San Diego Air Pollution Control District
SOX = sulfur oxides
VOCs = volatile organic compounds
As discussed in the Air Quality Analysis, the SDAPCD is responsible for developing and implementing the clean air plans for attainment and maintenance of the AAQS in the SDAPCD, specifically the State Implementation Plan (SIP) and the San Diego Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS). If a project proposes development that is greater than that anticipated by the General Plan and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) growth projections, the project might be in conflict with the RAQS and SIP and might have a potentially significant impact on air quality.

The project site is currently operating as a self-storage facility and would continue to operate as a self-storage facility but construct an additional 87,100 sq ft self-storage building (approximately 622 storage units). The proposed project would not require any additional employees on site compared to existing operations. As such, the proposed project would not 3/12/25 (P:\2023\20231146 - Extra Space Storage Santee\Initial Study_CE\Extra Space Santee CE 3.12.25_clean.docx) 24 result in development in excess of that anticipated in the City’s General Plan or increases in population/housing growth beyond those contemplated by SANDAG. As such, the proposed project would not increase the population, vehicle trips, or vehicle miles traveled beyond what is anticipated in the RAQS and SIP. Because the proposed project activities and associated vehicle trips are anticipated in local air quality plans, the proposed project would be consistent at a regional level with the underlying growth forecasts in the RAQS and SIP.

Long-Term Microscale (CO Hot-Spot) Analysis. Vehicular trips associated with the proposed project could contribute to congestion at intersections and along roadway segments in the vicinity of the proposed project site. Localized air quality impacts would occur when emissions from vehicular traffic increase as a result of the proposed project. The primary mobile-source pollutant of local concern is CO, a direct function of vehicle idling time and, thus, of traffic flow conditions.

CO transport is extremely limited; under normal meteorological conditions, it disperses rapidly with distance from the source. However, under certain extreme meteorological conditions, CO concentrations near a congested roadway or intersection may reach unhealthful levels, affecting local sensitive receptors (e.g., residents, schoolchildren, the elderly, and hospital patients).

Typically, high CO concentrations are associated with roadways or intersections operating at unacceptable LOS or with extremely high traffic volumes. In areas with high ambient background CO concentrations, modeling is recommended to determine a project’s effect on local CO levels.

An assessment of project-related impacts on localized ambient air quality requires that future ambient air quality levels be projected. Existing CO concentrations in the immediate project vicinity are not available. Ambient CO levels monitored at the El Cajon Monitoring Station at 533 First Street (the closest station to the project site monitoring CO) showed a highest recorded 1-hour concentration of 1.5 parts per million (ppm) (the State standard is 20 ppm) and a highest 8-hour concentration of 1.4 ppm (the State standard is 9 ppm) from 2020 to 2022. The highest CO concentrations would normally occur during peak traffic hours; hence, CO impacts calculated under peak traffic conditions represent a worst-case analysis. Reduced speeds and vehicular congestion at intersections result in increased CO emissions.

Sensitive Receptors. Sensitive receptors are defined as people who have an increased sensitivity to air pollution or environmental contaminants. Sensitive receptor locations include schools, parks and playgrounds, daycare centers, nursing homes, hospitals, and residential dwelling units. The project site is surrounded by commercial and residential uses. The closest sensitive receptors to the project site include the single-family homes approximately 20 feet south of the project site boundary.
3/12/25 (P:\2023\20231146 - Extra Space Storage Santee\Initial Study_CE\Extra Space Santee CE 3.12.25_clean.docx) 25 Construction activities associated with the proposed project would generate airborne particulates and fugitive dust, as well as a small quantity of pollutants associated with the use of construction equipment (e.g., diesel-fueled vehicles and equipment) on a short-term basis.

However, construction contractors would be required to implement measures to reduce or eliminate emissions by following SDAPCD Rule 55, Fugitive Dust Control, which would require the Applicant to implement measures that would reduce the amount of particulate matter generated during the construction period. The proposed project would also implement Project Condition No. 1, which includes measures to reduce air quality impacts during construction. In addition, project construction emissions would be well below SDAPCD significance thresholds.

Once the project is constructed, the project would not be a source of substantial pollutant emissions. Therefore, sensitive receptors are not expected to be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations during project construction and operation.

Based on the analysis presented above, construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in the generation of criteria air pollutants that would exceed SDAPCD thresholds of significance, and therefore, the project’s impacts are less than significant.

Odors. SDAPCD Rules 50, 51, and 55 require the project Applicant to include implementation of standard control measures for fugitive dust and diesel equipment emissions. Additionally, operators of off-road vehicles (i.e., self-propelled diesel-fueled vehicles 25 horsepower and up that were not designed to be driven on road) are required to limit vehicle idling to 5 minutes or less; register and label vehicles in accordance with the California Air Resources Board’s Diesel Off-Road Online Reporting System; restrict the inclusion of older vehicles into fleets; and retire, replace, or repower older engines or install verified diesel emission control strategies (e.g., exhaust retrofits).

Additionally, SDAPCD Rule 55 regarding nuisances states “A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause injury or damage to business or property.”During project construction, some odors may be present due to diesel exhaust. However, these odors would be temporary and limited to the construction period. In addition, the proposed project would be required to comply with SDAPCD nuisance and odor rules. The proposed project would not include any activities or operations that would generate objectionable odors, and once operational, the project would not be a source of odors. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.

Water Quality.

Construction Impacts. Construction activities would involve disturbance, grading, and excavation of soil, which could result in temporary erosion and movement of sediments into the storm drain system, particularly during precipitation events. However, the proposed project would comply with all applicable National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements to reduce impacts to water quality. Projects that disturb greater than 1 acre of soil are subject to the requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Storm Water Runoff Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order WQ 2022-0057-DWQ NPDES No.

CAS000002) (Construction General Permit). Because the proposed project would disturb more 3/12/25 (P:\2023\20231146 - Extra Space Storage Santee\Initial Study_CE\Extra Space Santee CE 3.12.25_clean.docx) 26 than 1 acre, the Applicant would be required to obtain coverage under the Construction General Permit, which requires the preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and best management practices (BMPs) including, but not limited to, Erosion Control and Sediment Control BMPs designed to minimize erosion and retain sediment on site and Good Housekeeping BMPs to prevent spills, leaks, and discharge of construction debris and waste into receiving waters. Additionally, the proposed project would comply with City Municipal Code Title 9 Section 9.06, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control, 11 which
requires all new development to comply with local ordinances, California Stormwater Quality Association standards, Caltrans standards, the City’s current BMP Design Manual, and the preparation of a Stormwater Quality Management Plan (SWQMP). Further, the proposed project would implement Project Condition No. 2, which requires all construction vehicles and equipment to stay within the limits of the project area and BMP features to prevent off-site sedimentation. Compliance with the standard requirements of the Construction General Permit, the City’s Municipal Code, and Standard Project Condition No. 2 would ensure that construction impacts related to surface water quality would be less than significant.

According to the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation (Attachment E) prepared for the proposed project, groundwater was not encountered during exploratory borings at depths at

18.5 feet below ground surface (bgs). It is anticipated that groundwater is approximately 20 feet or greater bgs. Excavation during construction would be to a maximum depth of 13 feet bgs.

Due to the depth of groundwater and the proposed depth of excavation, groundwater is not anticipated to be encountered during construction; therefore, groundwater dewatering would not be required during construction and construction-related impacts to groundwater would be less than significant. Similarly, professional removal of the existing septic system would not impact groundwater on the site.

Operational Impacts. The proposed project would redevelop a 2.81-acre site with existing selfstorage facilities and would result in the increase of 1.10 acre of impervious surface area.

Proposed project operation has the potential to result in pollutants of concern and, therefore, would be subject to the requirements of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region, Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges from the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) Draining the Watersheds within the San Diego Region, Order No.

R9-2013-0001, NPDES No. CAS0109266, as amended by Order No. R9-2015-0001 and R9-205- 0100. In compliance with the San Diego Region MS4 Permit, a SWQMP (Attachment F) was prepared for the proposed project. The SWQMP provides details regarding the proposed project’s stormwater management program, including proposed BMPs to reduce or eliminate pollutants of concerns in stormwater runoff. Stormwater runoff from the site currently flows via concrete swales towards Woodside Avenue until it connects to the City’s storm drain system.

The proposed project would not substantially alter existing drainage patterns of the project site, and, under post-project conditions, stormwater runoff would continue to drain to the City’s storm drain system. Furthermore, the proposed project would implement an underground detention system and two biofiltration systems (modular wetlands), located just north of the northern driveway and just south of the southern driveway, to capture and treat stormwater during project operation in compliance with the applicable NPDES permit requirements. 11 City of Santee. n.d. Municipal Code Chapter 9.06. Website: http://library.qcode.us/lib/santee_ca/pub/ municipal_code/item/title_9-chapter_9_06-article_1-9_06_120 (accessed December 5, 2023). 3/12/25 (P:\2023\20231146 - Extra Space Storage Santee\Initial Study_CE\Extra Space Santee CE 3.12.25_clean.docx) 27 Because the proposed project would implement the requirements of the applicable NPDES permit and associated BMPs, impacts to surface water quality would be less than significant.

In its existing condition, the project site is approximately 60 percent (1.7 acre) impervious surface. According to the SWQMP, development of the proposed project would increase and/or replace 65 percent (1.10 acre) of impervious surface area on the project site. Impervious surfaces preclude groundwater infiltration and thereby interfere with groundwater recharge.

The project site is within the boundaries of the San Diego River Valley Groundwater Basin.12 However, the majority of on-site soils are characterized by a low infiltration rate. Therefore, the project would not decrease groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge.

According to Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map No. 06073C1654G (May 2012), the project site is not within a 100‐year floodplain. Specifically, the project site is within Zone X, an area of minimal flood hazard (outside the 500‐year floodplain).

According to the California Department of Conservation, 13 the project site is not within a
tsunami hazard zone. Therefore, no project-related impacts associated with flood flows or release of pollutants from inundation would occur.

The proposed project would comply with the Construction General Permit, the City’s Municipal Code, and San Diego Region MS4 Permit, which include implementation of BMPs to address the volume and velocity of stormwater and treat pollutants of concern. Therefore, the proposed project would not require groundwater dewatering, interfere with groundwater recharge, or conflict with sustainable groundwater management plans. The Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Region (The Basin Plan) designates beneficial uses for water bodies in the San Diego Region and establishes water quality objectives and implementation plans to protect those beneficial uses.
14 Implementation actions outlined in The Basin Plan include compliance with NPDES permit requirements. Because the proposed project would comply with NPDES permit requirements including compliance with the Construction General Permit, the City’s Municipal Code, the San Diego Region MS4 Permit, and associated BMPs, the proposed project would be consistent with The Basin Plan.

Overall, the proposed project would not result in impacts associated with hydrology and water quality.
(5) The project site is adequately served by all required utilities and services.

The project site is served by all utilities and public services in the existing condition. Table J lists the specific utilities and public service providers serving the project site. 12 California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2016. Groundwater Basin Boundary Assessment Tool.

Website: https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/bbat/ (accessed December 19, 2023). 13 California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2021. San Diego County Tsunami Hazard Areas. Website:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps/san-diego (accessed December 18, 2023). 14 Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), San Diego Region. 1994. Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (9). Website: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sandiego/water_issues/ programs/basin_plan/ (accessed April 19, 2024).
3/12/25 (P:\2023\20231146 - Extra Space Storage Santee\Initial Study_CE\Extra Space Santee CE 3.12.25_clean.docx) 28 Table J: Utility Agencies Serving the Project Site
Water Padre Dam Municipal Water District
Wastewater Padre Dam Municipal Water District
Fire Santee Fire Department
Police San Diego County Sheriff’s Department
Schools Santee Unified School District and Grossmont Union High School District Landfill USA Waste of California, Inc
Electricity San Diego Gas and Electric
Natural Gas San Diego Gas and Electric
Source: Compiled by LSA (2023).

The project site is currently developed for qualified urban uses as defined by Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21072. The proposed project would continue the existing self-storage use on the project site. As such, the project site is served by all utilities and service providers in the existing condition.

PDMWD is the water provider for the project site. The PDMWD maintains and operates the sewer collection system, including storm drains, catch basins, and sewer lines. Water usage for operation of the proposed additions to the self-storage uses on site would be limited to irrigation for the existing landscaping, fire suppression systems, and the proposed apartment for the on-site caretaker. Because the new self-storage building would require minimal water use, project operation would require water usage on the project site similar to existing conditions.

Additionally, the proposed caretaker residence would not substantially increase water usage as the existing site already contains a caretaker residence that would be demolished and replaced.

Wastewater would only be generated from the office use, proposed caretaker residence, and fire suppression systems in the unlikely event of a fire. The existing septic system would be abandoned, and the existing and proposed buildings would be connected to the public sewer system. The proposed project would use the existing on-site water systems to serve the new building. The on-site systems would be constructed in compliance with the City’s building and plumbing codes in its Municipal Code. The proposed on-site distribution systems would connect to the existing water facilities within the project site and wastewater facilities off site. The existing public sewer system that the proposed project would connect to is located within Woodside Avenue, directly adjacent to the project site. Additionally, PDMWD has indicated that their facilities are available to serve the proposed project and their facility plans have been designed to accommodate development along Woodside Avenue, which includes the proposed project. Therefore, extension of the water infrastructure from the existing system within the project site and connection of the wastewater system to the public sewer system would be a routine part of the construction process and is included in the project description and analysis as discussed herein. The water facility improvements would be limited to the project site, and connection points would remain as they exist now. As described above, PDMWD has indicated that their facilities are available to serve the proposed project, but adequate water and sewer facility commitment shall be determined prior to final project approval/map recordation and shall be available concurrent with project need.

Pursuant to California Education Code Section 17620(a)(1), the governing board of any school district is authorized to levy a fee, charge, dedication, or other requirement against any construction within the boundaries of the district for the purpose of funding the construction or 3/12/25 (P:\2023\20231146 - Extra Space Storage Santee\Initial Study_CE\Extra Space Santee CE 3.12.25_clean.docx) 29 reconstruction of school facilities. Applicants/developers for all projects would be required to pay such fees to reduce any impacts associated with new commercial development on school services.

CEQA EXCEPTIONS TO QUALIFICATION FOR A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION State CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 provides exceptions to categorical exemptions that apply to specific types of projects. The exceptions to the CEs pursuant to Section 15300.2 of the State CEQA Guidelines are:
(a) Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located—a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply in all instances, except where the project may impact an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies.

The proposed project does not rely on the specific classes of exemptions (3, 4, 5, 6, and 11) called out at the beginning of exception 15300.2(a). This exception does not apply to the proposed project.

The project site is at 10835 Woodside Avenue. The project site is characterized by pavement, an undeveloped area, storage facilities, and landscaping associated with the existing on-site use.

The project site is surrounded on all sides by urban development and is zoned and designated GC. Therefore, the site is not particularly sensitive in terms of environmental resources, and there are no mapped environmentally sensitive habitat areas within or near the project site. In addition, the proposed project, like all projects, would be subject to the provisions of the MBTA, which prohibits disturbing or destroying active nests, and California Fish and Game Code Section 3503, which protects nests and eggs.
(b) Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place over time is significant.

The proposed project is an infill development project in an urban area. According to the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, the term “infill development” refers to building within unused and underutilized lands within existing development patterns, typically, but not exclusively, in urban areas.15 The project site and surrounding areas are currently developed for qualified urban uses as defined by PRC Section 21072. “Cumulative impacts” as defined in CEQA refer to the “change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related present and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects.” A categorical exemption may be inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant. Because the site and surrounding area is built-out, there are no reasonably foreseeable cumulative impacts relating to successive projects of the same type in the same place. 15 Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. n.d. Infill Development. Website: https://opr.ca.gov/ planning/land-use/infill-development/ (accessed November 6, 2023). 3/12/25 (P:\2023\20231146 - Extra Space Storage Santee\Initial Study_CE\Extra Space Santee CE 3.12.25_clean.docx) 30 Moreover, the proposed project does not have incremental impacts contributory to any foreseeable cumulative impact, as addressed below:

Land Use, Aesthetics. The proposed project would be consistent with existing land use and visual patterns typical of an urban built environment. No amendments to an adopted planning document would be required for implementation of the proposed project, nor would the project divide an established community. Therefore, the proposed project would not contribute to a significant cumulative land use impact.

Agriculture, Farmland, Biological Resources, Mineral Resources. Neither the project site nor any other site in Santee is currently used for agricultural or farmland production. Neither the project site nor the local area is particularly sensitive in terms of biological resources, and there are no mapped environmentally sensitive habitat areas within or near the project site.

Additionally, the proposed project would not result in the loss of known mineral resources or a locally important mineral resource recovery site. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in impacts related to agricultural, biological, or mineral resources and would not contribute to a significant cumulative impact.

Air Quality. The proposed project would contribute criteria pollutants to the area during project construction. As discussed above, because the project site and surrounding area is built-out, there are no reasonably foreseeable cumulative impacts relating to successive projects of the same type in the same place, individual projects in the area may be under construction simultaneously with the proposed project. Depending on construction schedules and actual implementation of projects in the area, generation of fugitive dust and pollutant emissions during construction could result in substantial short-term increases in air pollutants. However, each project would be required to comply with SCAQMD’s standard construction measures. The proposed project’s short-term construction CO, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions would not exceed the localized significance thresholds. Therefore, construction of the proposed project would have a less than significant impact with regard to regional and localized emissions and would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts.

Energy. Energy usage on the project site during construction would be temporary in nature. In addition, energy usage associated with operation of the proposed project would be relatively small in comparison to the State’s available energy sources, and energy impacts would be negligible at the regional level. Because California’s energy conservation planning actions are conducted at a regional level, and because the proposed project’s total impact to regional energy supplies would be minor, the proposed project would not conflict with California’s energy conservation plans as described by California Energy Commission. 16,17 In addition, the
proposed project would comply with Title 24 and the California Green Building Standards Code standards, consistent with the City’s General Plan. Thus, the proposed project would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy. Impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
16 California Energy Commission (CEC). 2022. Final 2021 Integrated Energy Policy Report. 17 California Energy Commission (CEC). 2023. 2022 Integrated Energy Policy Report Update Highlights. 3/12/25 (P:\2023\20231146 - Extra Space Storage Santee\Initial Study_CE\Extra Space Santee CE 3.12.25_clean.docx) 31 Geology, Paleontological Resources. The project site was previously disturbed and is currently developed with existing storage structures. The proposed project consists of the addition of selfstorage facilities and parking. As such, ground-disturbing activities associated with project construction activities are not likely to directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or a unique geological feature due to the previously disturbed nature of the project site and the limited depth of excavation (13 feet bgs). Thus, the proposed project would not have incremental impacts contributory to any reasonably foreseeable significant cumulative impact.

The project site, like all of Southern California, would be subject to seismic ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. The proposed project would be required to comply with the California Building Code in effect at the time of construction and would not exacerbate an existing geologic or seismic hazard. Thus, the proposed project would not have incremental impacts contributory to any reasonably foreseeable significant cumulative impact.

Hazards. The proposed project site is 0.8 mile northeast of Gillespie Field and within Review Area 1 of the Gillespie Field Airport Influence Area.
18 An Airport Influence Area is defined as “the
area in which current or future airport-related noise, overflight, safety, or airspace protection factors may significantly affect land use or necessitate restrictions on those uses”.19 However, the proposed project would not change the existing self-storage land use on site and operation of the facility would remain the same. A Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation letter was requested from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on December 7, 2023. On January 17, 2024, the FAA determined that the proposed project would not exceed obstruction standards and would not be a hazard to air navigation as long as FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, be e-filed any time the project is abandoned or within 5 days after the construction reaches its greatest height. Additionally, the FAA determined that marking and lighting are not necessary for aviation safety. The Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation Letter is included as Attachment G. The proposed project would not interfere with Gillespie Field or its operation. Thus, the proposed project would not have incremental impacts contributory to any reasonably foreseeable significant cumulative impact.

Due to the nature of this project (i.e., self-storage), it would not contribute to the creation of a hazard to the public or the environment involving the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. As described in the leasing agreements required for customers of the storage facilities, storage of hazardous materials is not permitted. The hazardous materials used during operations would be stored off-site and would be handled and disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations. Thus, the proposed project would not have incremental impacts contributory to any reasonably foreseeable significant cumulative impact. 18 San Diego County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). 2010. Gillespie Field Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Website: http://sntbberry.cityofsanteeca.gov/sites/FanitaRanch/ Public/Remainder %20of%20the%20Record/(2)%20Reference%20Documents%20from%20EIR%20&%20 Technical% 20Reports/Tab%20302%20-%202010-12-20%20SDCRAA%202010_Gillespie%20Field%20 Airport% 20Land%20Use%20Compatibility%20Plan.pdf (accessed November 15, 2023). 19 Ibid. 3/12/25 (P:\2023\20231146 - Extra Space Storage Santee\Initial Study_CE\Extra Space Santee CE 3.12.25_clean.docx) 32 Hydrology, Water Quality. As discussed above, with compliance with the applicable NPDES permit requirements and implementation of BMPs, project impacts to hydrology and water quality would be less than significant. As discussed above, because the project site and surrounding area is built-out, there are no reasonably foreseeable cumulative impacts relating to successive projects of the same type in the same place, individual projects in the area may be under construction simultaneously with the proposed project. However, it is assumed for the purposes of this analysis that the other projects would also comply with applicable NPDES permit requirements in accordance with applicable law and would also result in less than significant impacts related to hydrology and water quality. Thus, the proposed project would not have incremental impacts contributory to any reasonably foreseeable significant cumulative impact.

Noise. Construction of the proposed project would result in short term noise and vibration.

However, construction noise and vibration would be temporary, and the proposed project would be constructed in compliance with the requirements of the City’s Noise Ordinance and would implement Standard Project Condition No. 4. As discussed above, because the project site and surrounding area is built-out, there are no reasonably foreseeable cumulative impacts relating to successive projects of the same type in the same place. Individual projects in the area may be under construction simultaneously with the proposed project. Depending on construction schedules and actual implementation of projects in the area, construction could result in substantial short-term increases in noise and vibration levels. However, each project would be required to comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance and implement Standard Project Condition No. 4. The proposed project’s short-term construction noise and vibration levels would not exceed the vibration threshold considered safe for non-engineered timber and masonry buildings or the FTA’s noise criteria. Therefore, construction of the proposed project would have a less than significant impact with regard to noise and vibration and would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts.

Population, Housing. Because the project site is currently developed with self-storage facilities and the proposed project would not change the land use on the project site, the proposed project would not induce substantial population growth or displace housing or substantial numbers of people. The proposed project would not provide new housing opportunities or extend roads or other infrastructure to areas not previously served. The proposed project would include the demolition of a small part of the existing self-storage buildings and construction of a larger self-storage facility. However, the proposed building additions would not represent a net increase in businesses or jobs because the project site would continue to operate as a selfstorage facility, similar to existing conditions, and no additional employees are required for operations. Therefore, no impacts to population growth would occur because it is unlikely the project would create new jobs in the area. Similarly, because the proposed project would not increase population in Santee, construction and operation of the self-storage facility would not be anticipated to increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of such facilities would occur or would accelerate. Thus, the proposed project would not have incremental impacts contributory to any reasonably foreseeable significant cumulative impact.

Public Services. Upon completion of construction, the project site would operate in a nearly identical manner as its current operation and would not create any new or significant increase in 3/12/25 (P:\2023\20231146 - Extra Space Storage Santee\Initial Study_CE\Extra Space Santee CE 3.12.25_clean.docx) 33 the need for fire or police services. Because the project site is currently developed with selfstorage facilities and the proposed project would not change the land use on the project site, the proposed project would not alter cumulative regional demand for fire protection services and would have a less than significant impact. The proposed project also would not decrease the officer-to-resident ratio in Santee or trigger the need for new or physically altered police facilities. Thus, the proposed project would not have incremental impacts contributory to any reasonable foreseeable significant cumulative impact.

Recreation. Because the project site is currently developed with self-storage facilities and the proposed project would not change the land use on the project site, the proposed project would not increase the City’s population or demand for parks or other recreation facilities. The proposed project does not propose, and would not create a need for, new or physically altered recreational facilities. Due to the nature of the proposed self-storage uses, the proposed project would not be expected to result in or contribute to a significant cumulative impact related to recreation.

Utilities. As stated above, the project site and the surrounding areas are currently developed for qualified urban uses as defined by PRC Section 21072. As such, the site is served by all utilities in the existing condition. PDMWD is the water provider for the project site and maintains and operates the sewer collection system, including storm drains and sewer systems.

The existing septic system would be abandoned, and the existing and proposed buildings would be connected to the public sewer system. Installation of water and sewer facilities sufficient to serve a proposed project is a standard condition for development projects. The proposed project would also pay any required water and sewer connection fees. The project site and other regional projects in Santee would be provided waste disposal from private waste haulers and existing landfills. Due to the nature of the proposed self-storage uses, the proposed project would not be expected to result in or contribute to a significant impact related to waste disposal.

Tribal Cultural Resources. As discussed in Section (f), below, the project site is not listed in the City General Plan as a historic resource and the recorded historic resources are not in the vicinity of the project site. The proposed project would implement Standard Project Condition No. 5, which includes tribal/archaeological measures. This Standard Project Condition requires archaeological and Native American monitoring during ground-disturbing activities and procedures for discovery of archaeological/historic resources or human remains. Due to the nature of the project site and with implementation of Standard Project Condition No. 5, the proposed project would not be expected to result in or contribute to a significant impact related to tribal cultural resources.

Wildfire. The project site is not within any level of fire hazard severity zone. 20 Although the
project site sits on a slight slope, it would not pose a significant risk, and the topography of the areas directly adjacent to the project site is relatively flat. According to the City’s General Plan Safety Element, the project site is not susceptible to landslides or other slope instabilities. 20 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2022. Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) Viewer. Website: https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/ (accessed November 9, 2023). 3/12/25 (P:\2023\20231146 - Extra Space Storage Santee\Initial Study_CE\Extra Space Santee CE 3.12.25_clean.docx) 34 Therefore, the proposed project is not subject to substantial wildfire risk and would not cumulatively contribute to the exacerbation of fire hazards.

In summary, the proposed project is an infill development project in an urban area. The proposed project would rely on and can be accommodated by the existing road system, public services, and utilities. Impacts of the proposed project would not be cumulatively considerable in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, or the effects of probable future projects.
(c) Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.

The Air Quality Analysis and the Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis for the proposed project conclude that the proposed project would not result in a significant impact related to these topics. In addition, the transportation and parking impacts associated with the proposed project would not cause significant effects. No amendments to an adopted land use or planning document would be required for implementation of the proposed project, and the proposed project would be consistent with the City’s Municipal Code requirements. The proposed project would continue the existing self-storage use on-site and would operate in a nearly identical manner as its current operation. Given the urban nature of the project site and the compatibility of the proposed project with the character of the surrounding uses, there is no evidence to indicate that the proposed project would have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.
(d) Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified Environmental Impact Report.

There are no Designated Scenic Highways in the vicinity of the project site. 21 The nearest eligible
State-designated scenic highway to the project site is State Route 52, which is 0.6 mile southwest of the project site. Therefore, the proposed project does not have the potential to damage resources within a State-designated scenic highway. The project site is developed with a self-storage facility; none of the existing structures on the project site are more than 50 years old; therefore, they are not eligible for listing as historic resources. (e) Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, the Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List (Cortese List) has been compiled by the California Environmental Protection Agency Hazardous Materials Data Management Program. The California Department of Toxic Substances Control 21 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2021. California State Scenic Highway System Map.

Website: https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e 8057116f1aacaa (accessed October 27, 2023).
3/12/25 (P:\2023\20231146 - Extra Space Storage Santee\Initial Study_CE\Extra Space Santee CE 3.12.25_clean.docx) 35 (DTSC) compiles information from subsets of the following databases to make up the Cortese List:

1. The DTSC list of contaminated or potentially contaminated hazardous waste sites listed in the California Sites database (formerly known as ASPIS);

2. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) listing of leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs); and

3. The California Integrated Waste Management Board list of sanitary landfills that have evidence of groundwater contamination or known migration of hazardous materials (formerly WB-LF; now Assembly Bill 3750).

The proposed project is not on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.
22 Three sites were identified within 1
mile of the project site including Santee Army Camp, 0.2 mile southwest of the project site, Dave’s Auto Service, 0.4 mile southwest of the project site, and Ketema Process Equipment Co.,

0.6 mile northeast of the project site. Due to the distances of the sites from the proposed project, limited excavation depths, and regulated nature, none were found to represent an environmental concern to the project. Review of the SWRCB GeoTracker database confirms that the project site is not on a LUST cleanup site.23 There are 12 LUST sites within 0.5 mile of the project site. Of the 12 LUST database sites, only 4 sites are at elevations higher than the subject site. All four of these sites have their LUST case status listed as “Completed-Case Closed” and therefore would not represent an environmental concern to the project site. (f) Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.

The buildings on the project site were constructed in approximately 1975. The City’s General Plan lists five recorded historic sites and one historic structure that is listed on the National Register of Historic Places within Santee. The project site is not listed in the City General Plan as a historic resource. Additionally, the recorded historic resources are not in the vicinity of the project site. As discussed under Project Conditions, the proposed project would implement Standard Project Condition No. 5, which includes tribal/archaeological measures. This Standard Project Condition requires archaeological and Native American monitoring during grounddisturbing activities and procedures for discovery of archaeological/historic resources or human remains. Further, as the existing buildings on the project site are not 50 years old, they are not old enough to be considered historical resources and are not eligible for listing at the federal, State, or local levels. Because of the age of the existing buildings, they do not need to be evaluated as historical resources pursuant to CEQA. As such, project construction and operation would have no impacts to “historical resources” pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.
22 California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). n.d. EnviroStor Database. Website:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?global_id=19970011 (accessed November 15, 2023). 23 State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). n.d. GeoTracker database. Website: https://geotracker. waterboards.ca.gov/map/ (accessed November 15, 2023).
3/12/25 (P:\2023\20231146 - Extra Space Storage Santee\Initial Study_CE\Extra Space Santee CE 3.12.25_clean.docx) 36

CONCLUSION
In summary, the proposed project will not result in any specific or general exceptions to the use of a CE as detailed under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332. The proposed project would not cause any significant impacts to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. The project site does not have value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species. The proposed project would not result in damage to a scenic resource within a highway officially designated as a State Scenic Highway.

The project site is not on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.

Furthermore, no unusual circumstances or potential cumulative impacts would occur that may reasonably create an environmental impact. Therefore, the proposed project qualifies for a Class 32 CE and does not meet any of the exceptions for exemptions as specified by the State CEQA Guidelines and identified above.

Attachments: A: Figures 1 and 2
B: Transportation Analysis Memorandum
C. Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis Memorandum
D: Air Quality Technical Memorandum
E: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation
F: Storm Water Quality Management Plan
G: Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation Letter
H: References
CLASS 32 C ATEGORICAL E XEMPTION
MARCH 2025

E XTRA S PACE S TORAGE S ANTEE P ROJECT

S ANTEE , C ALIFORNIA
P:\2023\20231146 - Extra Space Storage Santee\Initial Study_CE\Extra Space Santee CE 3.12.25_clean.docx (03/12/25)

ATTACHMENT A
FIGURES 1 AND 2
Cambury Dr
Lutheran Way
Cuyamaca St
Swallow Dr
Gillespie
Way
Cuyamaca
St
orge Rd
Carreta Dr
El Nopal
N Magnol
Cuyama
Woodpark Dr
Northcote Rd
Beck Dr
Bilteer Dr
Jeremy St
Riverside Dr
Susie Pl
2nd St
Riverford Rd
N
Ma
gnol
ia Ave
Mast Blvd
Sa
Town Center n Vicente Fwy
Park
Santana High
Cotton
wood
Ave
N Magnolia Ave
Buena Vista Ave
Prospect Ave
Railroad Ave
Shirley
Ln
Kenney St
Sevilla St
W Bradley Ave
E Bradley Ave
Airport Dr Wing Ave
N
Magnolia Ave
Pepper Dr
Cuyamaca
St
San Vicente Fwy
Sa
n Vicente Fw
y
Santee Trolley
Square Town
Center
Gillespie Field
SOURCE: Esri World Street Map (2023)
J:\20231146\GIS\Pro\Santee Self-Storage Project\Santee Self-Storage Project.aprx (10/2/2023) FIGURE 1
Santee Self-Storage Project

S A N D I E G O

C O U N T Y
Ã274
Ã54
Ã75
Ã78
Ã Ã125
163
Ã56
Ã52
Ã67
Ã94
§¨¦15
§¨¦5
§¨¦805 §¨¦8
Project Vicinity
0 1000 2000
FEET
Project Location
Regional Location
Project Location
Project Location
Woodside Ave
WM

LOADING ZONE
UP
1 A41
2 A41
3 A41

EXISTING BUILDING TO REMAIN

WOODSIDE AVENUE
3 STORY BUILDING W/

BASEMENT
87,100 SF
EXIST. RESIDENTIAL

BUILDING
9 15
18 5
6 7
4 12
TYP.
9'-0" 19'-0" TYP.

TYP.
25'-0" TYP.
9'-0"
9'-0" 8'-0" 9'-0"
19'-0"

FIRE LANE
26'-0"
30'-0" DRIVE WAY 30'-0" DRIVE WAY

FIRE LANE
26'-0"

FIRE LANE
26'-0"
EXIST. RESIDENTIAL

BUILDING
EXIST. RESIDENTIAL

BUILDING

SEWER EASMENT
20'-0"

PROPOSED

FEED STORE- YARD,
BARNS AND STORE.

SLOPED BANK

ADJACENT TO
HIGHWAY 67
100'-0"
100'-0"

HIGHWAY
67 298'HYDRANT DISTANCE
298'HYDRANT DISTANCE
25'-0"
4 A42
3RD FLOOR SETBACK
50'-0"

EASMENT
SEWER
20'-0"
101
101
102
R 50'-0"
R 24'-0"
R 50'-0"
R 24'-0"
R 50'-0"
R 24'-0"
103
101
101 101
103
105
100'-0"
100'-0"
EXIST. RESIDENTIAL

MOBLEHOME PARK
EXIST. RESIDENTIAL

MOBLEHOME PARK
106
A80
1 A80
2 8'-0"

SETBACK
10'-0"
107
108
109
101 101 101 101
R 300'-0" HOSE PULL
R 300'-0" HOSE PULL
13'-0"
102
110
111 111
111
112
112 SETBACK
5'-0"

SETBACK
5'-0"

SETBACK
20'-0"

SETBACK
10'-0"
R-14 ZONE
R-2 ZONE

GC ZONE
44'-9 123/128"
326'-9 77/128"
239'-4 41/128"
611'-4 205/256"
392'-5 195/256"
113
113
113
PL
PL
PL
PL
PL PL
PL PL
PL
115
114
114
116
116
116
116

EXISTING BUILDING TO REMAIN

EXISTING BUILDING TO REMAIN
5 A42
EXISTING 7,082 SF
PROPOSED 6,308 SF
EXISTING 7,973 SF
PROPOSED 7,077 SF
EXISTING 7,685 SF
PROPOSED 6,792 SF
EXISTING 7,406 SF
PROPOSED 6,504 SF

EASTMENT LINE
PROPERTY LINE.

PATH OF TRAVEL

EXISTING CHAINLINK FENCE

EXISTING BARBWIRE FENCE
JOB NO.:

DRAWN BY.

PA/PM:


SITE PLAN
A

EXTRA SPACE STORAGE SANTEE
SCALE: 1" = 30'-0" 1 SITE PLAN

DATE REMARKS
N
    

LEGEND KEYNOTES:
101 PLANTED PER LANDSCAPE PLAN
102 FIRE HYDRANT WITH 3'-0" CLEAR RADIOUS INDICATED
103 PIVOT GATE
105 FIRE LANE
106 CMU TRASH ENCLOSURE
107 PATH OF TRAVEL
108 FDC
109 CARETAKER GARAGE (2) @ 10'X20'
110 BACKFLOW PER CIVIL PLAN
111 DASHED LINE INDICATES FIRE LANE RED CURB WITH "NO PARKING FIRE LANE" STENCIL EVERY 30'
112 KNOX BOX
113 PROPERTY LINE
114 EXISTING CHAINLINK FENCE
115 EXISTING BARBWIRE FENCE
116 EXISTING BUILDING PROPOSED LINE OF DEMOLITION
EXIST
B
EXIST
B
EXIST
BB

EASTMENT LINE
PROPERTY LINE.

PATH OF TRAVEL

EXISTING CHAINLINK FENCE

EXISTING BARBWIRE FENCE
JOB NO.:

DRAWN BY.:

PA/PM:

SHEET
 7/31/2024 2:27:45 PM
Approver
Author
SDG23-4007-00

SITE PLAN
A10
10/27/2023 - SD SET
SCALE: 1" = 30'-0" 1 SITE PLAN

E XTRA S PACE S TORAGE S ANTEE P ROJECT

S ANTEE , C ALIFORNIA
P:\2023\20231146 - Extra Space Storage Santee\Initial Study_CE\Extra Space Santee CE 3.12.25_clean.docx (03/12/25)

ATTACHMENT B

TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS MEMORANDUM

CARLSBAD
CLOVIS
IRVINE

LOS ANGELES

PALM SPRINGS

POINT RICHMOND

RIVERSIDE

ROSEVILLE

SAN LUIS OBISPO
3210 El Camino Real, Suite 100, Irvine, California 92602 949.553.0666 www.lsa.net

MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 1, 2024
TO: Clint Kleppe, Extra Space Development
FROM: Dean Arizabal, LSA
SUBJECT: Transportation Analysis for the Extra Space Storage Facility at 10835 Woodside Avenue in Santee, California (LSA Project No. 20231146) This transportation analysis determines the potential transportation impacts of a proposed increase of self-storage use at an existing Extra Space Storage facility (project) at 10835 Woodside Avenue in Santee, California.

The purpose of this analysis is to evaluate the need for a Local Transportation Analysis (LTA) and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies in the San Diego Region (May 2019) (ITE Guidelines) and the City of Santee (City) VMT Analysis Guidelines (April 2022) (City Guidelines).

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project is an expansion of the existing Extra Space Storage facility at 10835 Woodside Avenue in Santee, California. The site currently has four one-story, self-storage buildings, totaling 30,146 square feet (sf). The proposed project would demolish 3,465 sf of the existing structures (with 26,681 sf of the existing structures to remain) and construct a new 87,100 sf, three-story building with basement on an undeveloped area currently used for recreational vehicle and boat storage (for a net increase of 83,635 sf). At project completion, a total of 113,781 sf of self-storage use would be provided on site. Access to both the existing and new storage areas will continue to be provided via Woodside Avenue. The project site plan is provided as Attachment A.

TRIP GENERATION
LSA calculated the trip generation potential of the proposed project using trip generation rates from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition (2021) for Land Use 151 (Mini-Warehouse). Table A summarizes the project trip generation, including the trips for the existing self-storage use, the proposed expansion, and the resulting total.

As shown in Table A, the existing self-storage facility (30,146 sf) generates approximately 44 daily trips, including 3 trips in the a.m. peak hour (2 inbound and 1 outbound) and 5 trips in the p.m. peak hour (2 inbound and 3 outbound). At project completion (113,781 total sf), the site is estimated to generate 165 daily trips, including 12 trips (7 inbound and 5 outbound) in the a.m. peak hour and 20 trips (9 inbound and 11 outbound) in the p.m. peak hour.
8/5/24 (P:\20231146 - Extra Space Storage Santee\Technical Analyses\VMT Trip Gen\doc\Transportation Memo2.docx) 2 Table A: Project Trip Generation
Land Use Size Unit Daily
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Trip Rates1
Mini-Warehouse (Self-Storage) tsf 1.45 0.06 0.04 0.10 0.08 0.09 0.17 Existing Trip Generation
Mini-Warehouse (Self-Storage) 30.146 tsf 44 2 1 3 2 3 5 Project Trip Generation2
Mini-Warehouse (Self-Storage) 83.635 tsf 121 5 4 9 7 8 15 Total Trip Generation (Existing + Project)
Mini-Warehouse (Self-Storage) 113.781 tsf 165 7 5 12 9 11 20 1Trip rates referenced from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition (2021).

Land Use 151 (Mini-Warehouse)
2The proposed project includes the demolition of 3.465 tsf and the construction of 87.100 tsf for a net increase of 83.365 tsf. tsf = thousand square feet
The net trip generation of the proposed project (83,635 sf expansion) is 121 daily trips, including 9 trips (5 inbound and 4 outbound) in the a.m. peak hour and 15 trips (7 inbound and 8 outbound) in the p.m. peak hour.

INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS GUIDELINES
Local Transportation Analysis
Per the ITE Guidelines, a level of service (LOS)-based LTA would be required for a proposed land use project if it is expected to generate more than 1,000 daily trips or 110 peak-hour trips. Projects that do not exceed that criteria are considered exempt from these requirements.

As shown on Table A, the proposed project is anticipated to generate 121 net new daily trips, including 9 a.m. and 15 p.m. peak-hour trips. Because the proposed project would generate less than 1,000 daily trips and 110 peak-hour trips, it is exempt from an LTA.

Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
The ITE Guidelines provide alternative conditions for VMT analysis exemption that can be used to identify when a proposed land use project is anticipated to result in a less than significant transportation impact. Based on the ITE Guidelines, projects can be presumed to be less than significant if it meets specific screening criteria.

Alternative 1 – Minimum Project Size Based on Previous Traffic Impact Study Guidelines This alternative suggests that if a project is consistent with the General Plan or Community Plan and generates 1,000 daily trips or fewer, no VMT analysis is needed. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and generates fewer than 1,000 daily trips. Therefore, it is screened from a VMT analysis and is presumed to have a less than significant impact. 8/5/24 (P:\20231146 - Extra Space Storage Santee\Technical Analyses\VMT Trip Gen\doc\Transportation Memo2.docx) 3 Alternative 2 – Minimum Project Size Based on Statewide Guidance This alternative suggests that if a project is expected to generate less than 200 daily trips, a VMT analysis is not required, and the project's VMT impacts are presumed to be less than significant. The proposed project is expected to generate fewer than 200 daily trips. Therefore, it is screened from a VMT analysis and is presumed to have a less than significant impact.

CITY OF SANTEE GUIDELINES
Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
The City Guidelines provide VMT screening criteria for projects that are presumed to have less than significant impacts to the local transportation system and therefore would not be required to conduct a VMT analysis. Based on the City Guidelines, projects can be presumed to be less than significant if it meets specific screening criteria.

Small Projects
The proposed project qualifies as a “small project,” which the City defines as a project that generates less than 500 daily trips. The proposed project is estimated to generate 121 net new daily trips and meets the criteria for small projects. Therefore, the proposed project is screened from a VMT analysis and is presumed to have a less than significant impact. The City of Santee Traffic Analysis Intake Form is provided in Attachment B.

CONCLUSION
In accordance with the ITE Guidelines and the City Guidelines, LSA evaluated whether the proposed project warrants an LOS-based analysis (LTA) or VMT analysis. The proposed project is expected to generate 121 net new daily trips, including 9 a.m. and 15 p.m. peak-hour trips. As such, the proposed project would not exceed the daily or peak-hour trip thresholds for an LOS-based analysis or a VMT analysis. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant transportation impact.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (949) 553-0666 or [email protected].

Attachment: A – Site Plan
B – City of Santee Traffic Analysis Intake Form

T RANSPORTATION A NALYSIS
A UGUST 2024

E XTRA S PACE S TORAGE

S ANTEE , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20231146 - Extra Space Storage Santee\Technical Analyses\VMT Trip Gen\doc\Transportation Memo2.docx (08/05/24)

ATTACHMENT A

SITE PLAN
WM

LOADING ZONE
UP
1 A41
2 A41
3 A41

EXISTING BUILDING TO REMAIN

WOODSIDE AVENUE
3 STORY BUILDING W/

BASEMENT
87,100 SF
EXIST. RESIDENTIAL

BUILDING
9 15
18 5
6 7
4 12
TYP.
9'-0" 19'-0" TYP.

TYP.
25'-0" TYP.
9'-0"
9'-0" 8'-0" 9'-0"
19'-0"

FIRE LANE
26'-0"
30'-0" DRIVE WAY 30'-0" DRIVE WAY

FIRE LANE
26'-0"

FIRE LANE
26'-0"
EXIST. RESIDENTIAL

BUILDING
EXIST. RESIDENTIAL

BUILDING

SEWER EASMENT
20'-0"

PROPOSED

FEED STORE- YARD,
BARNS AND STORE.

SLOPED BANK

ADJACENT TO
HIGHWAY 67
100'-0"
100'-0"

HIGHWAY
67 298'HYDRANT DISTANCE
298'HYDRANT DISTANCE
25'-0"
4 A42
3RD FLOOR SETBACK
50'-0"

EASMENT
SEWER
20'-0"
101
101
102
R 50'-0"
R 24'-0"
R 50'-0"
R 24'-0"
R 50'-0"
R 24'-0"
103
101
101 101
103
105
100'-0"
100'-0"
EXIST. RESIDENTIAL

MOBLEHOME PARK
EXIST. RESIDENTIAL

MOBLEHOME PARK
106
A80
1 A80
2 8'-0"

SETBACK
10'-0"
107
108
109
101 101 101 101
R 300'-0" HOSE PULL
R 300'-0" HOSE PULL
13'-0"
102
110
111 111
111
112
112 SETBACK
5'-0"

SETBACK
5'-0"

SETBACK
20'-0"

SETBACK
10'-0"
R-14 ZONE
R-2 ZONE

GC ZONE
44'-9 123/128"
326'-9 77/128"
239'-4 41/128"
611'-4 205/256"
392'-5 195/256"
113
113
113
PL
PL
PL
PL
PL PL
PL PL
PL
115
114
114
116
116
116
116

EXISTING BUILDING TO REMAIN

EXISTING BUILDING TO REMAIN
5 A42
EXISTING 7,082 SF
PROPOSED 6,308 SF
EXISTING 7,973 SF
PROPOSED 7,077 SF
EXISTING 7,685 SF
PROPOSED 6,792 SF
EXISTING 7,406 SF
PROPOSED 6,504 SF

EASTMENT LINE
PROPERTY LINE.

PATH OF TRAVEL

EXISTING CHAINLINK FENCE

EXISTING BARBWIRE FENCE
JOB NO.:

DRAWN BY.

SITE PLAN
A

EXTRA SPACE STORAGE SANTEE
SCALE: 1" = 30'-0" 1 SITE PLAN

EASTMENT LINE
PROPERTY LINE.

PATH OF TRAVEL

EXISTING CHAINLINK FENCE

EXISTING BARBWIRE FENCE
JOB NO.:

DRAWN BY.:

PA/PM:

SITE PLAN
A10
10/27/2023 - SD SET
SCALE: 1" = 30'-0" 1 SITE PLAN

T RANSPORTATION A NALYSIS
A UGUST 2024

E XTRA S PACE S TORAGE

S ANTEE , C ALIFORNIA
P:\20231146 - Extra Space Storage Santee\Technical Analyses\VMT Trip Gen\doc\Transportation Memo2.docx (08/05/24)

ATTACHMENT B

CITY OF SANTEE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS INTAKE FORM
S:\TRAFFIC\Development Review\Traffic Analyss Intake Form.docx Page 1 or 3

TRAFFIC ANALYSIS INTAKE FORM
The traffic analysis intake form shall be submitted with all new development projects to help determine what traffic analysis will be required. These guidelines apply to most development projects. However, the City reserves the right to request both Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Level of Service (LOS) analysis depending on the specifics of the project. All questions regarding this intake form should be directed to the City of Santee Traffic Engineering division.

1. Project Information
Applicant Name
Project Address or
Street/Cross Streets
APN
Project No.

2. Project Description

3. Certification
Application Certification: I certify that this intake form has been completed to the best of my ability and accurately reflects the project being proposed. I understand that this intake form is for guidance only and that the City may require additional information or studies.

Date:

Signature of Applicant:

Printed Name:

Extra Space Storage
10835 Woodside Avenue
384-120-46
The proposed project would construct an 87,100 square-foot (sq ft) self-storage building consisting of three stories in addition to a basement level, on the undeveloped area of the project site currently used for at grade recreational vehicle and boat storage.

Additionally, 7 parking stalls would be developed adjacent to the proposed building. The proposed project would also demolish small portions of all four existing, one-story, self-storage buildings, 3,465 sq ft in total, to accommodate the addition of 11 new surface parking spaces. The proposed project would replace the existing office and caretaker's residence with a new caretaker's residence in the building. The proposed project would also include on-site utility connections including a new on-site sewer lateral to connect to the existing lateral stub. Access to the project site would be provided via two driveways along Woodside Avenue including one new driveway and realignment of the existing driveway.
08-05-2024
Clint Kleppe
S:\TRAFFIC\Development Review\Traffic Analyss Intake Form.docx Page 2 or 3

4. Trip Generation Information
4A: Total Project Site Trips After Fully Constructed
Fill out the table below to show the total trips for the project site for the completed project. The information in this table should include both existing facilities that will still be in use once the project is complete and new facilities that will be constructed. Use separate rows for each different type of land use.
# Land Use Description New or
Existing
Size (Number of
dwelling units or
square feet)
Trip Generation Rate Data Source
(Subject to City Staff approval)
Trip
Generation
Rate
Total
Daily Trips
1  SANDAG 2002 Trip Generation Rate
 Other:________________________________
2  SANDAG 2002 Trip Generation Rate
 Other:________________________________
3  SANDAG 2002 Trip Generation Rate
 Other:________________________________
4  SANDAG 2002 Trip Generation Rate
 Other:________________________________
5  SANDAG 2002 Trip Generation Rate
 Other:________________________________
Projected Total Average Daily Trips (ADT) for the site:______________________________ 4B: Total Existing Trips
Fill out the table below to show the total existing trips for the project site. Use separate rows for each different type of land use.
# Land Use Description
Size (Number of
dwelling units or
square feet)
Trip Generation Rate Data Source
(Subject to City Staff approval)
Trip Generation
Rate
Total
Daily Trips
1  SANDAG 2002 Trip Generation Rate
 Actual counts collected*
 Other:________________________________
2  SANDAG 2002 Trip Generation Rate
 Actual counts collected*
 Other:________________________________
3  SANDAG 2002 Trip Generation Rate
 Actual counts collected*
 Other:________________________________
4  SANDAG 2002 Trip Generation Rate
 Actual counts collected*
 Other:________________________________
* Note: If site counts are collected, they should be for a minimum of two full midweek days representing typical days when schools are in session.

Total Existing Average Daily Trips (ADT) for the site:______________________________ General Commercial (GC) 83,635 sf ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition (2021) 1.45 121 165
General Commercial (GC) 30,146 sf
ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition (2021) 1.45 44 44 S:\TRAFFIC\Development Review\Traffic Analyss Intake Form.docx Page 3 or 3

5. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis
Projects that are projected to generate more than 500 total Average Daily Trips (ADT) may be required to submit a full VMT analysis. The total trips are all trips from the project site (new and/or existing) from the project site once fully constructed from Table 4A. If a VMT analysis is required, applicant shall refer to the City of Santee VMT Analysis guidelines.

Total number of project site trips (Section 4A): ______________________ Is the proposed project projected to have more than 500 ADT?  NO VMT analysis is not required for this project
 YES VMT analysis prepared may be required

6. Traffic Study Level of Service (LOS) Analysis
Projects that are projected to generate more than 1,000 new Average Daily Trips (ADT) may be required to submit a traffic study that evaluates traffic impact and performs a LOS analysis.

The new trips are determined by subtracting the existing number of trips (4B) from the total trips for the project site after buildout (4A). If a traffic study with LOS analysis is required, applicant shall refer to the San Diego ITE’s Guidelines for Transportation Impact Studies in the San Diego Region, May 2019.

Total new trips (Section 4A minus Section 4B): ______________________ Is the proposed project projected to have more than 1,000 ADT?  NO A traffic study is not required for this project
 YES A traffic study LOS analysis may be required
Is the proposed project projected to have more than 2,500 ADT?  NO A SANDAG model run is not required.
 YES A SANDAG model run may be required.

7. Technical Memorandum
If the total ADT is within 10% of any of the limits listed above, at the City’s discretion, a technical memorandum prepared by a registered traffic engineer may be required to verify calculations.

Is the proposed project projected Average Daily Trips over 450 VMT or 900 LOS?  NO A traffic memorandum is not required.
 YES A traffic memorandum prepared by a registered traffic engineer detailing if a VMT or Traffic Study LOS analysis may be required.
165
121
CLASS 32 C ATEGORICAL E XEMPTION
MARCH 2025

E XTRA S PACE S TORAGE S ANTEE P ROJECT

S ANTEE , C ALIFORNIA
P:\2023\20231146 - Extra Space Storage Santee\Initial Study_CE\Extra Space Santee CE 3.12.25_clean.docx (03/12/25)

ATTACHMENT C

NOISE AND VIBRATION IMPACT ANALYSIS MEMORANDUM

CARLSBAD
CLOVIS
IRVINE

LOS ANGELES

PALM SPRINGS

POINT RICHMOND

RIVERSIDE

ROSEVILLE

SAN LUIS OBISPO
3210 El Camino Real, Suite 100, Irvine, California 92602 949.553.0666 www.lsa.net

MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 5, 2024
TO: Clint Kleppe, Extra Space Development
FROM: J.T. Stephens, Principal
Moe Abushanab, Noise Engineer
SUBJECT: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis: Proposed Santee Self-Storage Project in Santee, California

INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This noise and vibration impact analysis has been prepared to evaluate the potential impacts associated with the proposed Santee Self Storage Project (project) in Santee, California. This report is intended to satisfy the City of Santee’s (City) requirement for a project-specific noise and vibration impact analysis and examines the impacts of the proposed project to the existing noise-sensitive uses adjacent to the project site. To properly account for the impacts associated with the proposed project, existing noise levels are assessed based on noise measurement data gathered in the vicinity of the project site (from November 6 to November 7, 2023) and project-related noise and vibration levels generated are based on estimated construction equipment. Traffic volumes from the Transportation Analysis for the Santee Self Storage Project 1 and additional stationary sources on the project site were also evaluated.

Location and Description
The 2.81-acre project site is located on 10835 Woodside Avenue in Santee, San Diego County, California. The project site consists of Assessor’s Parcel Number 384-120-46-00. The existing project site includes a self-storage facility consisting of four one-story buildings, a combined square footage of 30,146 and a total of 257 units, and an undeveloped area that provides at grade storage for recreational vehicles (RVs) and boats. The project site is surrounded by a mixture of residential and commercial uses. Regional access to the project site is provided by State Route 67 (SR-67), which is adjacent the project site. Local access to the project site is provided by Woodside Avenue. Figure 1 shows the project location, and Figure 2 provides an overview of the proposed site plan (all figures are provided in Attachment A).

The proposed project would construct an 87,100 sq ft self-storage building on an undeveloped area of the project site that currently provides at-grade storage for RVs and boats. The proposed building would consist of three stories and a basement level, which would contain a total of 622 storage units. An office space and 24-hour kiosk would be constructed within the southwest corner of the 1 LSA. 2023. Transportation Analysis for Santee Self Storage Project, Santee, California. November 15.

P:\2023\20231146 - Extra Space Storage Santee\Technical Analyses\Noise\Product\Noise and Vibration Memo_20240805 - Rev1.docx «01/23/25» basement level, which would be the main point of entrance for customers. This portion of the basement level would sit at ground level due to the existing grade of the project site. Additionally, a 1,158 sq ft apartment would be constructed for an on-site caretaker on the first floor of the proposed building. The proposed project would demolish small portions of three of the existing onestory self-storage buildings, a total of 3,465 sq ft, to accommodate the addition of 11 new surface parking spaces. One new storage unit would be constructed in the northernmost existing building and the remaining portions of the existing buildings would continue to operate in their current configurations. Under post-development conditions, the total building square footage on site (including the existing 26,681 sq ft to remain) would be 113,781 sq ft, with a total of 854 storage units and 18 parking stalls.

Once operational, the proposed project would generate approximately 121 average daily trips. The proposed project would be all-electric and would not operate on natural gas. Hours of operation would remain the same: Monday through Friday from 9:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Saturday from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., and closed on Sunday. Storage gate hours would also remain the same: Monday through Sunday, 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. In addition, the proposed project would not require any additional employees on site compared to existing operations.

Construction activities would include demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating activities. Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to commence in the beginning of 2025 and continue for approximately 14 months. The proposed project would require the net export of approximately 7,475 cubic yards of soil. In addition, it is anticipated that approximately 8-10 construction workers would be on-site each day during the construction period. Site preparation, grading, and building activities would involve the use of standard earthmoving equipment such as large excavators, cranes, and other related equipment.

METHODOLOGY
The evaluation of noise impacts associated with the proposed project includes the following:
• A determination of the short-term construction noise and vibration levels at off-site noisesensitive uses and comparison to the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code Ordinance requirements;
• A determination of the long-term noise levels at off-site noise-sensitive uses and comparison of those levels to the City’s pertinent noise standards; and • If necessary, a determination of required mitigation measures, such as noise barriers, to reduce long-term noise impacts from all sources.

P:\2023\20231146 - Extra Space Storage Santee\Technical Analyses\Noise\Product\Noise and Vibration Memo_20240805 - Rev1.docx «01/23/25»

CHARACTERISTICS OF SOUND
Noise is usually defined as unwanted sound. Noise consists of any sound that may produce physiological or psychological damage and/or interfere with communication, work, rest, recreation, and sleep.

To the human ear, sound has two significant characteristics: pitch and loudness. Pitch is generally an annoyance, while loudness can affect the ability to hear. Pitch is the number of complete vibrations, or cycles per second, of a wave, resulting in the tone’s range from high to low. Loudness is the strength of a sound that describes a noisy or quiet environment and is measured by the amplitude of the sound wave. Loudness is determined by the intensity of the sound waves combined with the reception characteristics of the human ear. Sound intensity refers to how hard the sound wave strikes an object, which in turn produces the sound’s effect. This characteristic of sound can be precisely measured with instruments. The analysis of a project defines the noise environment of the project area in terms of sound intensity and its effect on adjacent sensitive land uses.

Measurement of Sound
Sound intensity is measured through the A-weighted scale to correct for the relative frequency response of the human ear. That is, an A-weighted noise level de-emphasizes low and very high frequencies of sound similar to the human ear’s de-emphasis of these frequencies. Unlike linear units (e.g., inches or pounds), decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale representing points on a sharply rising curve.

For example, 10 decibels (dB) is 10 times more intense than 1 dB, 20 dB is 100 times more intense than 1 dB, and 30 dB is 1,000 times more intense than 1 dB. Thirty decibels (30 dB) represent 1,000 times as much acoustic energy as 1 dB. The decibel scale increases as the square of the change, representing the sound pressure energy. A sound as soft as human breathing is about 10 times greater than 0 dB. The decibel system of measuring sound gives a rough connection between the physical intensity of sound and its perceived loudness to the human ear. A 10 dB increase in sound level is perceived by the human ear as only a doubling of the loudness of the sound. Ambient sounds generally range from 30 dB (very quiet) to 100 dB (very loud).

Sound levels are generated from a source, and their decibel level decreases as the distance from that source increases. Sound dissipates exponentially with distance from the noise source. For a single-point source, sound levels decrease approximately 6 dB for each doubling of distance from the source. This drop-off rate is appropriate for noise generated by stationary equipment. If noise is produced by a line source (e.g., highway traffic or railroad operations), the sound decreases 3 dB for each doubling of distance in a hard site environment. Similarly, line sources with intervening absorptive vegetation or line sources that are located at a great distance to the receptor would decrease 4.5 dB for each doubling of distance.

There are many ways to rate noise for various time periods, but an appropriate rating of ambient noise affecting humans also accounts for the annoying effects of sound. The equivalent continuous sound level (Leq) is the total sound energy of time-varying noise over a sample period. However, the predominant rating scales for human communities in the State of California are the Leq and Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) or the day-night average noise level (Ldn) based on P:\2023\20231146 - Extra Space Storage Santee\Technical Analyses\Noise\Product\Noise and Vibration Memo_20240805 - Rev1.docx «01/23/25» A-weighted decibels (dBA). CNEL is the time-varying noise over a 24-hour period, with a 5 dBA weighting factor applied to the hourly Leq for noises occurring from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. (defined as relaxation hours) and a 10 dBA weighting factor applied to noises occurring from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (defined as sleeping hours). Ldn is similar to the CNEL scale but without the adjustment for events occurring during the evening hours. CNEL and Ldn are within 1 dBA of each other and are normally interchangeable. The City uses the CNEL noise scale for long-term noise impact assessment.

Other noise rating scales of importance when assessing the annoyance factor include the maximum instantaneous noise level (Lmax), which is the highest exponential time-averaged sound level that occurs during a stated time period. The noise environments discussed in this analysis for short-term noise impacts are specified in terms of maximum levels denoted by Lmax, which reflects peak operating conditions and addresses the annoying aspects of intermittent noise. Lmax is often used together with another noise scale or noise standards in terms of percentile noise levels in noise ordinances for enforcement purposes. For example, the L10 noise level represents the noise level exceeded 10 percent of the time during a stated period. The L50 noise level represents the median noise level (i.e., half the time the noise level exceeds this level, and half the time it is less than this level). The L90 noise level represents the noise level exceeded 90 percent of the time and is considered the background noise level during a monitoring period. For a relatively constant noise source, the Leq and L50 are approximately the same.

Noise impacts can be described in three categories. The first category is audible impacts, which refers to increases in noise levels noticeable to humans. Audible increases in noise levels generally refer to a change of 3 dB or greater because this level has been found to be barely perceptible in exterior environments. The second category, potentially audible, refers to a change in the noise level between 1 and 3 dB. This range of noise levels has been found to be noticeable only in laboratory environments. The last category is changes in noise levels of less than 1 dB, which are inaudible to the human ear. Only audible changes in existing ambient or background noise levels are considered potentially significant.

Physiological Effects of Noise
Physical damage to human hearing begins at prolonged exposure to noise levels higher than 85 dBA.

Exposure to high noise levels affects the entire system, with prolonged noise exposure in excess of 75 dBA increasing body tensions, thereby affecting blood pressure and functions of the heart and the nervous system. In comparison, extended periods of noise exposure above 90 dBA would result in permanent cell damage. When the noise level reaches 120 dBA, a tickling sensation occurs in the human ear even with short-term exposure. This level of noise is called the threshold of feeling.

As the sound reaches 140 dBA, the tickling sensation is replaced by the feeling of pain in the ear.

This is called the threshold of pain. A sound level of 160–165 dBA will result in dizziness or loss of equilibrium. The ambient or background noise problem is widespread and generally more concentrated in urban areas than in outlying, less developed areas.

Table A lists full definitions of acoustical terms, and Table B shows common sound levels and their sources.

P:\2023\20231146 - Extra Space Storage Santee\Technical Analyses\Noise\Product\Noise and Vibration Memo_20240805 - Rev1.docx «01/23/25» Table A: Definitions of Acoustical Terms
Term Definitions
Decibel, dB A unit of level that denotes the ratio between two quantities proportional to power; the number of decibels is 10 times the logarithm (to the base 10) of this ratio.

Frequency, Hz Of a function periodic in time, the number of times that the quantity repeats itself in 1 second (i.e., number of cycles per second).

A-Weighted Sound
Level, dBA
The sound level obtained by use of A-weighting. The A-weighting filter deemphasizes the very low and very high frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the frequency response of the human ear and correlates well with subjective reactions to noise. All sound levels in this assessment are A-weighted, unless reported otherwise.

L01, L10, L50, L90 The fast A-weighted noise levels equaled or exceeded by a fluctuating sound level for 1 percent, 10 percent, 50 percent, and 90 percent of a stated time period.

Equivalent Continuous
Noise Level, Leq
The level of a steady sound that, in a stated time period and at a stated location, has the same A-weighted sound energy as the time varying sound.

Community Noise
Equivalent Level, CNEL
The 24-hour A-weighted average sound level from midnight to midnight, obtained after the addition of 5 dB to sound levels occurring in the evening from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and after the addition of 10 dB to sound levels occurring in the night between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.

Day/Night Noise Level,
Ldn
The 24-hour A-weighted average sound level from midnight to midnight, obtained after the addition of 10 dB to sound levels occurring in the night between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.

Lmax, Lmin The maximum and minimum A-weighted sound levels measured on a sound level meter, during a designated time interval, using fast time averaging.

Ambient Noise Level The all-encompassing noise associated with a given environment at a specified time, usually a composite of sound from many sources at many directions, near and far; no particular sound is dominant.

Source 1: Technical Noise Supplement (Caltrans 2013)
Source 2: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA 2018).

Caltrans = California Department of Transportation
FTA = Federal Transit Administration
P:\2023\20231146 - Extra Space Storage Santee\Technical Analyses\Noise\Product\Noise and Vibration Memo_20240805 - Rev1.docx «01/23/25» Table B: Common Sound Levels and Noise Sources
Source: LSA (2016).

CHARACTERISTICS OF VIBRATION
Vibration refers to ground-borne noise and perceptible motion. Ground-borne vibration is almost exclusively a concern inside buildings and is rarely perceived as a problem outdoors, where the motion may not be discernible. Typically, there is more adverse reaction to effects associated with the shaking of a building. Vibration energy propagates from a source through intervening soil and rock layers to the foundations of nearby buildings. The vibration then propagates from the foundation throughout the remainder of the structure. Building vibration may be perceived by occupants as the motion of building surfaces, the rattling of items on shelves or hanging on walls, or a low-frequency rumbling noise. The rumbling noise is caused by the vibration of walls, floors, and ceilings that radiate sound waves.

Typical sources of ground-borne vibration are construction activities (e.g., blasting, pile driving, and operating heavy-duty earthmoving equipment), steel-wheeled trains, and occasional traffic on rough P:\2023\20231146 - Extra Space Storage Santee\Technical Analyses\Noise\Product\Noise and Vibration Memo_20240805 - Rev1.docx «01/23/25» roads. Problems with both ground-borne vibration and noise from these sources are usually localized to areas within approximately 100 feet (ft) of the vibration source, although there are examples of ground-borne vibration causing interference out to distances greater than 200 ft (FTA 2018).
2 When roadways are smooth, vibration from traffic, even heavy trucks, is rarely perceptible.

It is assumed for most projects that the roadway surface will be smooth enough that ground-borne vibration from street traffic will not exceed the impact criteria; however, the construction of the project could result in ground-borne vibration that may be perceptible.

Ground-borne vibration has the potential to damage buildings. Although it is very rare for typical construction activities to cause even cosmetic building damage, it is not uncommon for construction processes such as blasting and pile driving to cause vibration of sufficient amplitudes to damage nearby buildings (FTA 2018).
1 Ground-borne vibration that may resulting in damage is usually measured in terms of peak particle velocity (PPV).

APPLICABLE NOISE STANDARDS
The applicable noise standards governing the project site include the criteria in the California Code of Regulations, the City’s Noise Element of the General Plan (Noise Element), the Santee Municipal Code, and the County of San Diego Noise Ordinance.

City of Santee
Noise Element of the General Plan
The goals, objectives, and policies in the City’s General Plan Noise Element2 are designed to provide noise compatible land use relationships by establishing noise standards utilized for design and siting purposes and minimize noise impacts from significant noise generators. The following goals and policies are applicable to the proposed project:

Objective 1.0. Control noise from sources adjacent to residential, institutional, and other noisesensitive receptors. • Policy 1.1: The City shall support a coordinated program to protect and improve the acoustical environment of the City including development review for new public and private development and code compliance for existing development.
• Policy 1.2: The City shall utilize noise studies and noise contour maps when evaluating development proposals during the discretionary review process. • Policy 1.4: The City shall promote alternative sound attenuation measures rather than traditional wall barrier wherever feasible; these may include glass or polycarbonate walls, 1 Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual – FTA Report No. .0123. September. 2
City of Santee. 2003. General Plan Noise Element. August 27.

P:\2023\20231146 - Extra Space Storage Santee\Technical Analyses\Noise\Product\Noise and Vibration Memo_20240805 - Rev1.docx «01/23/25» berms, landscaping, and the siting of noise-sensitive uses on a parcel away from the roadway or other noise source.
• Policy 1.5: The City shall review future projects with particular scrutiny regarding the reduction of unnecessary noise near noise-sensitive areas such as hospitals, schools, parks, etc.

Objective 2.0. Ensure that future developments will be constructed to minimize interior and exterior noise levels.
• Policy 2.1: The City shall adhere to planning guidelines and building codes which include noise control for the exterior and interior living space of all new residential developments within noise impacted areas.
• Policy 2.2: The City should require new development to mitigate noise impacts to existing uses resulting from new development when: 1) such development adds traffic to existing City streets that necessitates the widening of the street; and 2) the additional traffic generated by new development causes the noise standard or significance thresholds to be exceeded. • Policy 2.3: The City should not require new development to mitigate noise impacts to existing uses when new development only adds traffic already anticipated by the City’s General Plan to an existing street, but does not necessitate widening of that street.

Section 8.1 of the City’s Noise Element discusses threshold for CEQA impact determination. The California Environmental Quality Act encourages jurisdictions to establish local thresholds for determining whether a particular impact is significant If, as a direct result of the proposed development, noise levels which already exceed the levels considered compatible for that use are increased by 3 or more decibels.

Development standards should be applied to future projects during the discretionary review process and should include the following:

1. Whenever it appears that new development will result in any existing or future noise sensitive uses being subjected to noise levels of 65 dB(A) Ldn, or greater, as depicted in Table C, an acoustical study will be required.

For residential uses, noise sensitive areas shall include rear yard areas on single family residences and ground floor common areas and private patio areas for multiple family residences. For other noise sensitive uses such as libraries, schools or hospitals, noise sensitive areas shall be those areas that serve a significant function for the use that could be adversely affected by noise. Examples include resting or patient recovery areas at hospitals, outdoor service areas for churches (excluding areas used for short-term social gatherings) or outdoor teaching or discussion areas at schools (does not include playgrounds or other active outdoor areas).

2. If the acoustical study shows that the noise levels at any noise sensitive area will exceed 65 dB(A) Ldn, the development should not be approved unless the following findings are made:

P:\2023\20231146 - Extra Space Storage Santee\Technical Analyses\Noise\Product\Noise and Vibration Memo_20240805 - Rev1.docx «01/23/25» a. Modifications to the development have been, or will be made, which will reduce the exterior noise level in noise sensitive areas to 65 dBA Ldn or less, or b. If, with current noise abatement technology, it is not feasible to reduce the exterior noise level to 65 dBA Ldn or less, then modifications to the development will have been, or will be made which reduce the exterior noise level to the maximum extent feasible and the interior noise level to 45 dBA Ldn or less. Particular attention shall be given to noise sensitive spaces such as bedrooms.

Table C presents the Noise Element guidelines for determining acceptable and unacceptable community noise exposure limits for various land use categories.

Table C: Santee General Plan Land Use Compatibility Guidelines (Ldn) Land Use Category Normally
Acceptable
Conditionally
Acceptable
Normally
Unacceptable
Clearly
Unacceptable
Residential – Low Density,
Single-Family, Duplex, Mobile
Homes 50 – 65 65 – 70 70 – 75 75 – 85
Residential – Multiple family 50 – 65 65 – 70 70 – 75 75 – 85 Transient Lodging – Motel,
Hotels 50 – 65 65 – 70 70 – 80 80 – 85
Schools, Libraries, Churches,
Hospitals, Nursing Homes1 50 – 65 65 – 70 70 – 80 80 – 85 Auditoriums, Concert Halls,
Amphitheaters 50 – 60 60 – 70 NA 70 – 85
Sports Arenas, Outdoor
Spectator Sports 50 – 65 65 – 75 NA 75 – 85
Playgrounds, Neighborhood
Parks 50 – 70 NA 70 – 75 75 – 85
Golf Courses, Riding Stables,
Water Recreation, Cemeteries 50 – 75 NA 75 – 80 80 – 85 Office Buildings, Business
Commercial, and Professional 50 – 70 70 – 75 75 – 85 NA Industrial, Manufacturing,
Utilities, Agriculture 50 – 75 75 – 80 80 – 85 NA
Source: City of Santee 2003.

Notes: Ldn = day-night Noise Level; NA = not applicable 1 Applies to noise-sensitive areas which serve a significant function for the use which could be adversely affected by noise such as outside areas used primarily for instruction, meditation areas, rest and relaxation areas, and other areas where general peace and quiet are important.

Normally Acceptable: Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements.

Conditionally Acceptable: New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features have been included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning, will normally suffice.

Normally Unacceptable: New construction or development should be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features must be included in the design.

Clearly Unacceptable: New construction or development should generally not be undertaken.

P:\2023\20231146 - Extra Space Storage Santee\Technical Analyses\Noise\Product\Noise and Vibration Memo_20240805 - Rev1.docx «01/23/25» City of Santee Municipal Code
The City of Santee addresses noise impacts in Chapter 5.04 of the City’s Municipal Code3 . Section

5.04.040, which establishes the City’s noise regulation, generally prohibits nuisance noise and states that it is unlawful for any person to make, continue, or cause to be made or continued within the City limits any disturbing, excessive, or offensive noise that causes discomfort or annoyance to reasonable persons of normal sensitivity residing in the area. This section details several specific sources of nuisance noise and outlines how it may be determined that the noise is in violation of the code. Specific sources of nuisance noise include, but are not limited to, devices for producing or reproducing sound, drums and other musical instruments, yelling, and animals.

Section 5.04.040 also provides the following requirements for HVAC units:

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

Section 5.04.090, which specifically pertains to construction equipment, makes operation of any construction equipment outside the hours of 7:00 a.m. through 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, except holidays, unlawful unless the operation is expressly approved by the Director of Development Services. Construction equipment with a manufacturer’s noise rating of 85 dBA Lmax or greater may only operate at a specific location for 10 consecutive workdays. If work involving such equipment would involve more than 10 consecutive workdays, a notice must be provided to all property owners and residents within 300 feet of the site no later than 10 days before the start of construction. The notice must be approved by the City and describe the proposed project and the expected duration of work and provide a point of contact to resolve noise complaints. 3 City of Santee. 2023. Municipal Code. July
Table C: Santee General Plan Land Use Compatibility Guidelines (Ldn) Land Use Category Normally
Acceptable
Conditionally
Acceptable
Normally
Unacceptable
Clearly
Unacceptable
Residential – Low Density,
Single-Family, Duplex, Mobile
Homes 50 – 65 65 – 70 70 – 75 75 – 85
P:\2023\20231146 - Extra Space Storage Santee\Technical Analyses\Noise\Product\Noise and Vibration Memo_20240805 - Rev1.docx «01/23/25» State of California Green Building Standards Code
The State of California’s Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) contains mandatory measures for nonresidential building construction in Section 5.507 on Environmental Comfort. These noise standards are applied to new construction in California for controlling interior noise levels resulting from exterior noise sources. The regulations specify that acoustical studies must be prepared when nonresidential structures are developed in areas where the exterior noise levels exceed 65 dBA CNEL, such as within a noise contour of an airport, freeway, railroad, or other noise source. If the development falls within an airport or freeway 65 dBA CNEL noise contour, buildings shall be constructed to provide an interior noise level environment attributable to exterior sources that does not exceed an hourly equivalent level of 50 dBA Leq in occupied areas during any hour of operation.

APPLICABLE VIBRATION STANDARDS
The following information provides standards to which potential vibration impacts will be compared.

Federal Transit Administration
Vibration standards included in the FTA Manual (2018) are used in this analysis for ground-borne vibration impacts on surrounding buildings. Table D provides the criteria for assessing the potential for interference or annoyance from vibration levels in a building.

Table D: Criteria for Potential Vibration Annoyance
Land Use Max Lv (VdB)1 Description of Use
Workshop 90 Distinctly feelable vibration. Appropriate to workshops and non-sensitive areas.

Office 84 Feelable vibration. Appropriate to offices and non-sensitive areas.

Residential Day 78 Feelable vibration. Appropriate for computer equipment and low-power optical microscopes (up to 20X).

Residential Night and
Operating Rooms 72
Vibration not feelable, but ground-borne noise may be audible inside quiet rooms. Suitable for medium-power microscopes (100X) and other equipment of low sensitivity.

Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA 2018). 1 As measured in 1/3-octave bands of frequency over the frequency range 8 to 80 Hz.

FTA = Federal Transit Administration
Hz = hertz
LV = velocity in decibels
Max = maximum
VdB = vibration velocity decibels
The criteria for environmental impacts resulting from ground-borne vibration are based on the maximum levels for a single event. The City’s Municipal Code does not include specific criteria for assessing vibration impacts associated with damage. Therefore, for the purpose of determining the significance of vibration impacts experienced at sensitive uses surrounding the project site, the guidelines within the FTA Manual have been used to determine vibration impacts (refer to Table E, below).

P:\2023\20231146 - Extra Space Storage Santee\Technical Analyses\Noise\Product\Noise and Vibration Memo_20240805 - Rev1.docx «01/23/25» Table E: Construction Vibration Damage Criteria
Building Category PPV (in/sec)
Reinforced concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster) 0.50 Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.30
Non-engineered timber and masonry buildings 0.20
Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA 2018). in/sec = inches per second PPV = peak particle velocity The FTA Manual guidelines show that a vibration level of up to 0.2 inches per second (in/sec) in PPV is considered safe for non-engineered timber and masonry buildings, which are the types of buildings located on properties adjacent to the project site. Accordingly, the 0.2 in/sec PPV threshold was used to evaluate vibration impacts at the nearest structures to the site.

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Based on Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Appendix G, Public Resources Code, Sections 15000–15387, a project will normally have a significant effect on the environment related to noise if it will substantially increase the ambient noise levels for adjoining areas or conflict with adopted environmental plans and the goals of the community in which it is located.

The State CEQA Guidelines indicate that a project would have a significant impact on noise if it would result in:
• Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies;
• Generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels; or • For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.

OVERVIEW OF THE EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT
The primary existing noise sources in the project area are transportation facilities, including SR-67 and Woodside Avenue.

P:\2023\20231146 - Extra Space Storage Santee\Technical Analyses\Noise\Product\Noise and Vibration Memo_20240805 - Rev1.docx «01/23/25» Table F: Existing Noise Level Measurements
Location
Number Location Description
Daytime Noise
Levels1
(dBA Leq)
Nighttime Noise
Levels2
(dBA Leq)
Average
Daily Noise
Levels
(dBA Ldn)
Primary Noise
Sources
LT-1
At 10835 Woodside Avenue,
located southeast of the project
site boundary line on a light pole,
approximately 150 ft from the
SR-67 centerline.

58.5–67.2 53.5-67.0 68.3 Traffic SR-67
LT-2
At 10835 Woodside Avenue,
located along southwest project
site boundary line on a light pole,
approximately 220 ft from the
Woodside Avenue centerline.

Ldn = Day-night average noise level
dBA = A-weighted decibel(s)
ft = foot/feet
Leq = equivalent continuous sound level

AIRCRAFT NOISE
The project site is approximately 0.9 miles north of is Gillespie Field Airport. Based on the Gillespie Field Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan4 the project is located outside of the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour for Gillespie Field. Because the project site is not located within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour, no further analysis associated with aircraft noise impacts is necessary. Additionally, there are no helipads or private airstrips within 2 miles from the project area.

Sensitive Land Uses in the Project Vicinity
Certain land uses are considered more sensitive to noise than others are. Examples of these include residential areas, educational facilities, hospitals, childcare facilities, and senior housing. Land uses adjacent to the project site include the following:
• North: Existing commercial business
• Northwest: Existing single-family residential uses opposite Woodside Avenue • East: State Route 67 (SR-67)
• South: Existing multi-family residential uses
The nearest sensitive receptors are:
• South: Existing multi-family residential uses located at approximately 20 feet from the project site boundary.
4 SDCRAA (San Diego County Regional Airport Authority). 2010. Gillespie Field Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.

P:\2023\20231146 - Extra Space Storage Santee\Technical Analyses\Noise\Product\Noise and Vibration Memo_20240805 - Rev1.docx «01/23/25»

PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS
The proposed project would result in short-term construction noise and vibration impacts and longterm mobile-source noise and vibration impacts as described below.

Short-Term Construction-Related Impact Analysis
Project construction would result in short-term noise and vibration. Maximum construction noise would be short-term, generally intermittent depending on the construction phase, and variable depending on receiver distance from the active construction zone. The duration of various types of construction noise and vibration would vary from one day to several weeks, depending on the phase of construction. The levels and types of impacts that may occur during construction are described below.

Construction Noise Analysis
Two types of short-term noise would occur during project construction, including: (1) equipment delivery and construction worker commutes; and (2) project construction operations.

The first type of short-term construction noise would result from the transport of construction equipment and materials to the project site and construction worker commutes. These transportation activities would incrementally raise noise levels on access roads leading to the site. It is expected that larger trucks used in equipment delivery would generate higher noise impacts than trucks associated with worker commutes. The single-event noise from equipment trucks passing at a distance of 50 ft from a sensitive noise receptor would reach a maximum level of 84 dBA Lmax.

However, the pieces of heavy equipment for construction activities would be moved on site just once and would remain on site for the duration of each construction phase. This one-time trip, when heavy construction equipment is moved on and off site, would not add to the daily traffic noise in the project vicinity. The total number of daily vehicle trips would be minimal when compared to existing traffic volumes on the affected streets, and the long-term noise level changes associated with these trips would not be perceptible. Therefore, equipment transport noise and constructionrelated worker commute impacts would be short term and would not result in a significant off-site noise impact. No mitigation is required.

The second type of short-term noise impact is related to noise generated during demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, architectural coating, and paving on the project site.

Construction is undertaken in discrete steps, each of which has its own mix of equipment and, consequently, its own noise characteristics. These various sequential phases would change the character of the noise generated on the project site. Therefore, the noise levels would vary as construction progresses. Despite the variety in the type and size of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow construction-related noise ranges to be categorized by work phase. Table G lists the maximum noise levels recommended for noise impact assessments for typical construction equipment based on a distance of 50 ft between the construction equipment and a noise receptor. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve 1–2 minutes of full-power operation followed by 3–4 minutes at lower power settings.

P:\2023\20231146 - Extra Space Storage Santee\Technical Analyses\Noise\Product\Noise and Vibration Memo_20240805 - Rev1.docx «01/23/25» Table G: Typical Construction Equipment Noise
Levels
Equipment Description Acoustical Usage
Factor (%)
Maximum Noise Level
(Lmax) at 50 ft
Compressor 100 81
Concrete Mixer 40 85
Concrete Pump 40 85
Crane 16 83
Dozer 40 80
Forklift 20 75
Front [End] Loader 40 79
Generator 100 78
Grader 8 85
Scraper 40 88
Welder 40 74
Sources: Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances (USEPA 1971); Roadway Construction Noise Model (FHWA 2006).

Ft = foot/feet
Lmax = maximum instantaneous sound level
In addition to the reference maximum noise level, the usage factor provided in Table G is utilized to calculate the hourly noise level impact for each piece of equipment based on the following equation:


 

 += − 50 log20.).log(10..)( D
eq FULEequipL
where: Leq (equip) = Leq at a receiver resulting from the operation of a single piece of equipment over a specified time period
E.L. = Noise emission level of the particular piece of equipment at a reference distance of 50 ft
U.F. = Usage factor that accounts for the fraction of time that the equipment is in use over the specified period of time
D = Distance from the receiver to the piece of equipment Each piece of construction equipment operates as an individual point source. Utilizing the following equation, a composite noise level can be calculated when multiple sources of noise operate simultaneously:

𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 (𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 ) = 10 ∗ log10 ��10
𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿
10 1
�
Table H shows the composite noise levels of one piece of equipment type for each construction phase at a distance of 50 ft from the construction area. Once composite noise levels are calculated, reference noise levels can then be adjusted for distance using the following equation:

P:\2023\20231146 - Extra Space Storage Santee\Technical Analyses\Noise\Product\Noise and Vibration Memo_20240805 - Rev1.docx «01/23/25» 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 (𝑎𝑎 𝑑𝑑 𝑑𝑑 𝑋𝑋) = 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 (𝑎𝑎 50 𝑓𝑓 ) − 20 ∗ lo g10 � 𝑋𝑋
50�
In general, this equation shows that doubling the distance would decrease noise levels by 6 dBA, while halving the distance would increase noise levels by 6 dBA.

As presented below, Table H shows the construction phases, the expected duration of each phase, the equipment expected to be used during each phase, the composite noise levels of the equipment at 50 ft, the distance of the nearest sensitive receptor from the average location of construction activities (a distance of 130 ft from the center of the project site), and noise levels expected during each phase of construction. These noise level projections do not take into account intervening topography or barriers. Attachment C provides construction noise calculations.

Table H: Construction Noise Levels by Phase
Phase Duration
(days) Equipment
Composite
Noise Level at
50 ft (dBA Leq)
Distance to
Closest
Sensitive
Receptor (ft)1
Noise Level at
Receptor
(dBA Leq)
Demolition 15 1 concrete/industrial saw,
1 dozer, and 1 tractor
86 130 77
Site Preparation 10 1 grader, 1 scraper, and 1 tractor 85 130 77 Grading 10 1 grader, 1 dozer, and 2 tractors 86 130 78
Building
Construction
255 1 crane, 2 forklift, 1 generator
set, 1 tractor, and 3 welders
84 130 75
Paving 10 1 cement and mortar mixer,
1 paver,1 paving equipment,
2 rollers, and 1 tractor
86 130 77
Architectural
Coating
124 1 air compressor 74 130 66
Source: Compiled by LSA (2023). 1 Distances are from the average location of construction activity for each phase, assumed to be the center of the project site. Multifamily residential buildings to the south are 130 feet from the center of construction activity. Other buildings within the same development are further away and would be exposed to less noise. dBA Leq = average A-weighted hourly noise level
ft = foot/feet
It is expected that average noise levels during construction at the nearest sensitive receptor, the multifamily residential uses to the south, would approach 78 dBA Leq during the grading phase, which would occur for a duration of approximately 10 days. Average noise levels during other construction phases would range from 66 dBA Leq to 78 dBA Leq. Noise levels at the nearest off-site commercial uses to the southwest would reach an average noise level of 71 dBA Leq during the daytime hours. These predicted noise levels would only occur when all construction equipment is operating simultaneously; therefore, these noise levels are assumed to be conservative in nature.

Although the project construction-related short-term noise levels have the potential to be up to 22 dBA higher than the average daytime ambient noise at the closest receptors to the south, P:\2023\20231146 - Extra Space Storage Santee\Technical Analyses\Noise\Product\Noise and Vibration Memo_20240805 - Rev1.docx «01/23/25» construction noise would occur for 10 days or less during the grading phase and would then cease to occur once the project construction is completed and the exposure would be temporary. In accordance with Santee Municipal Code Section 5.04.090, construction activities would not occur before 7:00 a.m. or after 7:00 p.m. on Mondays through Saturdays and would not occur any time on Sundays and holidays. Additionally, as required by the Santee Municipal Code, a notice would be provided to all owners and occupants within 300 feet of the project site if the construction equipment has a manufacturer’s noise rating of 85 dB and operates at a specific location for ten consecutive workdays. Although construction noise levels would exceed the existing ambient noise environment, construction noise impacts would be less than significant because construction activities would occur during the hours specified in the Santee Municipal Code and notice would be provided to nearby occupants. With incorporation of standard best business practices for noise reduction, the overall noise levels generated will be minimized, and construction noise impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Construction Best Business Practices:the project contractor implement the following measures during construction of the project:
• Equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturers’ standards.
• Place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the active project site.
• Locate equipment staging in areas that would create the greatest possible distance between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the active project site during all project construction.
• Ensure that all construction related activities are restricted to the hours 7:00 a.m. through 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, with no construction on holidays. • Designate a "disturbance coordinator" at the City of Santee who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator would determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler) and would determine and implement reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem.

Construction Vibration Building Damage Potential
Table I provides reference PPV values and vibration levels (in terms of VdB) from typical construction vibration sources at 25 ft. While there is currently limited information regarding vibration source levels specific to the equipment that would be used for the project, to provide a comparison of vibration levels expected for a project of this size, a large bulldozer would generate

0.089 PPV (in/sec) of ground-borne vibration when measured at 25 ft, based on the FTA Manual. As shown previously in Table E, it would take a minimum of 0.2 PPV (in/sec) to cause any potential building damage to non-engineered timber and masonry buildings.

P:\2023\20231146 - Extra Space Storage Santee\Technical Analyses\Noise\Product\Noise and Vibration Memo_20240805 - Rev1.docx «01/23/25» Table I: Vibration Source Amplitudes for Construction
Equipment
Equipment Reference PPV/LV at 25 ft
PPV (in/sec) LV (VdB)1
Hoe Ram 0.089 87
Large Bulldozer 0.089 87
Caisson Drilling 0.089 87
Loaded Trucks 0.076 86
Jackhammer 0.035 79
Small Bulldozer 0.003 58
Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA 2018). 1 RMS VdB re 1 µin/sec. µin/sec = micro-inches per second
ft = foot/feet
FTA = Federal Transit Administration
in/sec = inches per second
LV = velocity in decibels
PPV = peak particle velocity
RMS = root-mean-square
VdB = vibration velocity in decibels
The distance to the nearest buildings for vibration impact analysis is measured between the nearest off-site buildings and the project construction boundary (assuming the construction equipment would only be used at or near the project setback line). The formula for vibration transmission is provided below:

PPVequip = PPVref x (25/D)1.5
The closest structures to the external construction activities are the residential uses to the south, which are approximately 20 ft from the project’s southern construction boundary. Using the reference data from Table H and the equation above, it is expected that vibration levels generated by dump trucks and other large equipment at 20 ft of the project boundary would generate groundborne vibration levels of 0.124 PPV (in/sec) at the closest structures to the project site. This vibration level would not exceed the 0.2 in/sec PPV threshold considered safe for non-engineered timber and masonry buildings. Vibration levels at all other buildings would be lower. Therefore, construction would not result in any vibration damage, and impacts would be less than significant.

Construction Vibration Human Annoyance Potential
As stated above, the existing residences, located approximately 130 feet to the south from the center of the project site, is the nearest sensitive receptor and would experience vibration levels approaching 66 VdB based on the following equation:

LvdB (D) = LvdB (25 feet) - 30 Log (D/25)
Based on the standards provided in Table D, this level of ground-borne vibration is below the threshold of distinctly perceptible, which is approximately 72 VdB for frequent events at uses where people sleep and would not exceed the FTA vibration threshold for human annoyance at the nearest sensitive use, and project construction would not result in vibration levels that would typically result in human annoyance. Therefore, this level of ground-borne vibration would be less than significant for human annoyance. No mitigation is required.

P:\2023\20231146 - Extra Space Storage Santee\Technical Analyses\Noise\Product\Noise and Vibration Memo_20240805 - Rev1.docx «01/23/25» Long-Term Off-Site Traffic Noise Impact Analysis
In order to assess the potential traffic impacts related to the proposed project, LSA estimates that the proposed project would result in a net increase of 121 ADT based on the proposed increase in square footage. Based on the ADTs provided by the City of Santee Mobility Element5 , the ADT along
Woodside Avenue in the project vicinity is approximately 23,300 based on projections for the year 2013. While the existing ADT is likely higher, using 23,300 ADT as the existing count would be a conservative approach. The following equation was used to determine the potential impacts of the project:

Change in CNEL = 10 log10 [Ve+p/Vexisting]
Where: Vexisting = the existing daily volume
Ve+p = existing daily volumes plus project
Change in CNEL = the increase in noise level due to the project The results of the calculations show that an increase of less than 0.03 dBA CNEL is expected along Woodside Avenue. A noise level increase of less than 3 dBA would not be perceptible to the human ear; therefore, the traffic noise increase along Woodside Avenue resulting from the proposed project would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Long-Term Operational Noise Impact Analysis
The project site currently operates as a storage site for various vehicles; therefore, the existing parking lot activities are expected to remain generally the same. Additional long-term noise would be associated with new stationary sources proposed on the project site. Therefore, new operational noise associated with the project’s heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system would be the only new source of noise.

Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning Equipment
The project would include rooftop HVAC units. The HVAC equipment could operate 24 hours per day. Rooftop HVAC equipment would generate noise levels of 66.6 dBA Leq at 5 feet per HVAC unit based on previous measurements conducted by LSA. Table I presents the noise levels from HVAC equipment at the nearest noise-sensitive locations. The closest off-site sensitive uses to the proposed location of an on-site HVAC unit would be located approximately 135 feet away, assuming the HVAC units are located in the center of the rooftop. Two banks of HVAC units are assumed to be installed (4 units per bank) and would generate noise levels of 72.6 dBA Leq at 5 feet. After distance attenuation, noise generated from the on-site HVAC equipment would be up to 44.0 dBA Leq at the nearest sensitive use.

Truck Deliveries and Truck Loading and Unloading Activities Noise levels generated by delivery trucks would be similar to noise readings from truck loading and unloading activities, which generate a noise level of 75 dBA Leq at 20 ft based on measurements taken by LSA (Operational Noise Impact Analysis for Richmond Wholesale Meat Distribution Center 5 City of Santee. 2017. Mobility Element. October 25.

P:\2023\20231146 - Extra Space Storage Santee\Technical Analyses\Noise\Product\Noise and Vibration Memo_20240805 - Rev1.docx «01/23/25» [LSA 2016]). Delivery trucks would arrive on site and maneuver their trailers so that trailers would be parked within the loading area. During this process, noise levels are associated with the truck engine noise, air brakes, and back-up alarms while the truck is backing into the loading area. These noise levels would occur for a shorter period of time (less than 5 minutes). At a distance of 75 feet and incorporating the shorter duration of operations, a reference noise level of 64.2 dBA Leq at 75 feet is utilized in this analysis.

Cumulative Operations Noise Assessment
The combined noise level of projected operations and existing ambient noise levels would be 56.1 dBA Leq, resulting in an increase of 3.2 dBA above 52.9 dBA Leq, the average ambient nighttime conditions. Therefore, noise from HVAC units would not exceed a 5 dBA Leq increase over ambient noise levels at the property line of the closest properties to the project site. In addition, the perimeter parapet walls shown in the project plans would further reduce the noise levels from the HVAC unit. Therefore, noise associated with the on-site operations would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Table J: Summary of Operational Noise Levels
Off-Site Land Use Direction Source Distance from
Source (ft)1
Reference Noise
Level (dBA Leq)
Distance
Attenuation
(dBA)
Average Noise
Level (dBA Leq)
Residence South HVAC 135 72.62 28.6 44.0
Trucks 75 64.2 11.5 52.7
Combined: 53.2
Source: Compiled by LSA (2023). 1 Distances are measured from the property line of the receiving land use to the closest source of noise. 2 Reference noise levels are associated with an assumption of 4 HVAC units. dBA = A-weighted decibels
ft = foot/feet
HVAC = heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
Leq = equivalent continuous sound level
Long-Term Ground-Borne Noise and Vibration from Vehicular Traffic The proposed project would not generate vibration levels related to on-site operations. In addition, vibration levels generated from project-related traffic on the adjacent roadways are unusual for on-road vehicles because the rubber tires and suspension systems of on-road vehicles provide vibration isolation. Based on a reference vibration level of 0.076 in/sec PPV, structures more than 20 ft from the roadways that contain project trips would experience vibration levels below the most conservative standard of 0.12 in/sec PPV; therefore, vibration levels generated from project-related traffic on the adjacent roadways would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Attachments: A: Figures
B: Noise Measurement Data
C: Construction Noise Calculations

ATTACHMENT A

FIGURES
Cambury Dr
Lutheran Way
Cuyamaca St
Swallow Dr
Gillespie
Way
orge Rd
Carreta Dr
El Nopal
Woodpark Dr
Bilteer Dr
Northcote Rd
Cuyama
Mast Blvd
Beck Dr
N Magnol
Susie Pl
2nd St
Riverside Dr
Riverford Rd
Mast Blvd
N
M
a
gnolia
Ave
San Vicente
Fwy
Town Center
Park
Santana High
Prospect Ave
Buena Vista Ave Cottonwood Ave
N Magnolia Ave
Sevilla St
Railroad Ave
Shirley
Ln
Kenney St
N
Mollison Ave
Wing Ave
W Bradley Ave
Airport Dr
E Bradley Ave
N
Magnolia
Ave
Pepper Dr
Cuyamaca St
San Vicente Fwy
San Vic
ente Fw
y
Santee Trolley
Square Town
Center
Gillespie Field
SOURCE: Esri World Street Map (2023)
J:\20231146\GIS\Pro\Santee Self-Storage Project\Santee Self-Storage Project.aprx (11/29/2023) FIGURE 1
Santee Self-Storage Project

S A N D I E G O

C O U N T Y
Ã54
Ã163
Ã56
Ã52
Ã67
Ã125
Ã94
§¨¦15
§¨¦805
§¨¦8
Project Vicinity
0 1000 2000
FEET
Project Location
Regional Location
Woodside Ave
WM

LOADING ZONE
UP
1 A41
2 A41
3 A41

EXISTING BUILDING TO REMAIN

WOODSIDE AVENUE
3 STORY BUILDING W/

BASEMENT
87,100 SF
EXIST. RESIDENTIAL

BUILDING
9 15
18 5
6 7
4 12
TYP.
9'-0" 19'-0" TYP.

TYP.
25'-0" TYP.
9'-0"
9'-0" 8'-0" 9'-0"
19'-0"

FIRE LANE
26'-0"
30'-0" DRIVE WAY 30'-0" DRIVE WAY

FIRE LANE
26'-0"

FIRE LANE
26'-0"
EXIST. RESIDENTIAL

BUILDING
EXIST. RESIDENTIAL

BUILDING

SEWER EASMENT
20'-0"

PROPOSED

FEED STORE- YARD,
BARNS AND STORE.

SLOPED BANK

ADJACENT TO
HIGHWAY 67
100'-0"
100'-0"

HIGHWAY
67 298'HYDRANT DISTANCE
298'HYDRANT DISTANCE
25'-0"
4 A42
3RD FLOOR SETBACK
50'-0"

EASMENT
SEWER
20'-0"
101
101
102
R 50'-0"
R 24'-0"
R 50'-0"
R 24'-0"
R 50'-0"
R 24'-0"
103
101
101 101
103
105
100'-0"
100'-0"
EXIST. RESIDENTIAL

MOBLEHOME PARK
EXIST. RESIDENTIAL

MOBLEHOME PARK
106
A80
1 A80
2 8'-0"

SETBACK
10'-0"
107
108
109
101 101 101 101
R 300'-0" HOSE PULL
R 300'-0" HOSE PULL
13'-0"
102
110
111 111
111
112
112 SETBACK
5'-0"

SETBACK
5'-0"

SETBACK
20'-0"

SETBACK
10'-0"
R-14 ZONE
R-2 ZONE

GC ZONE
44'-9 123/128"
326'-9 77/128"
239'-4 41/128"
611'-4 205/256"
392'-5 195/256"
113
113
113
PL
PL
PL
PL
PL PL
PL PL
PL
115
114
114
116
116
116
116

EXISTING BUILDING TO REMAIN

EXISTING BUILDING TO REMAIN
5 A42
EXISTING 7,082 SF
PROPOSED 6,308 SF
EXISTING 7,973 SF
PROPOSED 7,077 SF
EXISTING 7,685 SF
PROPOSED 6,792 SF
EXISTING 7,406 SF
PROPOSED 6,504 SF

EASTMENT LINE
PROPERTY LINE.

PATH OF TRAVEL

EXISTING CHAINLINK FENCE

EXISTING BARBWIRE FENCE
JOB NO.:

DRAWN BY.

SITE PLAN
A

EXTRA SPACE STORAGE SANTEE
SCALE: 1" = 30'-0" 1 SITE PLAN

EASTMENT LINE
PROPERTY LINE.

PATH OF TRAVEL

EXISTING CHAINLINK FENCE

EXISTING BARBWIRE FENCE
JOB NO.:

DRAWN BY.:

PA/PM:

SITE PLAN
A10
10/27/2023 - SD SET
SCALE: 1" = 30'-0" 1 SITE PLAN

DATE REMARKS
1 Date 1 Revision 1
N

LEGEND KEYNOTES:
101 PLANTED PER LANDSCAPE PLAN
102 FIRE HYDRANT WITH 3'-0" CLEAR RADIOUS INDICATED
103 PIVOT GATE
105 FIRE LANE
106 CMU TRASH ENCLOSURE
107 PATH OF TRAVEL
108 FDC
109 CARETAKER GARAGE (2) @ 10'X20'
110 BACKFLOW PER CIVIL PLAN
111 DASHED LINE INDICATES FIRE LANE RED CURB WITH "NO PARKING FIRE LANE" STENCIL EVERY 30'
112 KNOX BOX
113 PROPERTY LINE
114 EXISTING CHAINLINK FENCE
115 EXISTING BARBWIRE FENCE
116 EXISTING BUILDING PROPOSED LINE OF DEMOLITION
SOURCE: Ware Malcomb
FEET
0 50 100
FIGURE 2
I:\20231146\G\Site_Plan.ai (8/1/2024)
Santee Self-Storage Project
Conceptual Site Plan
Trash Enclosure
LEGEND
SOURCE: Google Earth 2023
FEET
0 100 200
FIGURE 3
Noise Monitoring Locations
I:\20231146\G\Noise_Locs.ai (11/29/2023)
The Santee Self-Storage
LEGEND
Project Site Boundary
LT-1 Long-term Noise Monitoring LocaƟon
Woodside Ave Woodside Ave
67 Woodside Ave
LT-2 LT-1
P:\2023\20231146 - Extra Space Storage Santee\Technical Analyses\Noise\Product\Noise and Vibration Memo_20240805 - Rev1.docx «01/23/25»

ATTACHMENT B

NOISE MEASUREMENT DATA
Noise Measurement Survey – 24 HR
Project Number: 20231146 Test Personnel: Kevin Nguyendo Project Name: Santee Extra Storage Equipment: Spark 706RC (SN:907) Site Number: LT-1 Date: 11/6//23 Time: From 1:00 p.m. To 1:00 p.m.

Site Location: 10835 Woodside Ave, Santee, CA 92071. Located along the southeast project site boundary line on a light pole.

Primary Noise Sources: Traffic on highway 67.

Comments:

Photo:

Long-Term (24-Hour) Noise Level Measurement Results at LT-1 Start Time Date Noise Level (dBA)
Leq Lmax Lmin
1:00 PM 11/6/23 61.7 76.5 48.7
2:00 PM 11/6/23 62.1 80.1 48.4
3:00 PM 11/6/23 62.7 75.3 51.3
4:00 PM 11/6/23 64.1 84.1 50.7
5:00 PM 11/6/23 63.0 75.3 50.0
6:00 PM 11/6/23 62.6 75.0 47.7
7:00 PM 11/6/23 61.0 84.0 45.5
8:00 PM 11/6/23 59.7 73.2 43.9
9:00 PM 11/6/23 58.5 73.0 42.4
10:00 PM 11/6/23 57.7 73.7 38.3
11:00 PM 11/6/23 56.0 67.3 37.9
12:00 AM 11/7/23 56.3 81.0 35.1
1:00 AM 11/7/23 53.5 72.0 34.9
2:00 AM 11/7/23 54.7 70.9 34.6
3:00 AM 11/7/23 57.6 73.1 35.2
4:00 AM 11/7/23 62.0 74.7 41.2
5:00 AM 11/7/23 65.7 83.3 47.9
6:00 AM 11/7/23 67.0 79.2 53.8
7:00 AM 11/7/23 67.2 78.7 55.0
8:00 AM 11/7/23 66.3 85.5 52.4
9:00 AM 11/7/23 64.3 80.6 49.2
10:00 AM 11/7/23 63.5 77.8 49.4
11:00 AM 11/7/23 63.8 79.8 49.4
12:00 PM 11/7/23 62.0 74.6 49.1
Source: Compiled by LSA Associates, Inc. (2023).
dBA = A-weighted decibel
Leq = equivalent continuous sound level
Lmax = maximum instantaneous noise level
Lmin = minimum measured sound level
Noise Measurement Survey – 24 HR
Project Number: 20231146 Test Personnel: Kevin Nguyendo Project Name: Santee Extra Storage Equipment: Spark 706RC (SN:119) Site Number: LT-2 Date: 11/6//23 Time: From 1:00 p.m. To 1:00 p.m.

Site Location: 10835 Woodside Ave, Santee, CA 92071. Located along the southwest project site boundary line on a light pole.

Primary Noise Sources: Traffic on Woodside Avenue.

Comments:

Photo:

Long-Term (24-Hour) Noise Level Measurement Results at LT-2 Start Time Date Noise Level (dBA)
Leq Lmax Lmin
1:00 PM 11/6/23 56.4 73.0 48.2
2:00 PM 11/6/23 56.5 70.6 48.0
3:00 PM 11/6/23 56.9 76.7 50.3
4:00 PM 11/6/23 57.7 74.0 50.6
5:00 PM 11/6/23 56.2 69.5 50.5
6:00 PM 11/6/23 55.4 69.5 46.4
7:00 PM 11/6/23 53.9 74.5 44.5
8:00 PM 11/6/23 52.5 65.1 44.3
9:00 PM 11/6/23 52.0 69.6 42.1
10:00 PM 11/6/23 50.6 64.1 40.9
11:00 PM 11/6/23 49.6 62.9 41.4
12:00 AM 11/7/23 48.9 65.6 39.3
1:00 AM 11/7/23 46.2 60.3 38.9
2:00 AM 11/7/23 47.1 60.7 38.7
3:00 AM 11/7/23 50.0 64.0 39.2
4:00 AM 11/7/23 53.4 63.0 40.4
5:00 AM 11/7/23 57.1 73.2 47.7
6:00 AM 11/7/23 59.6 74.2 51.8
7:00 AM 11/7/23 59.8 73.0 52.2
8:00 AM 11/7/23 59.1 74.5 51.3
9:00 AM 11/7/23 57.1 72.2 47.8
10:00 AM 11/7/23 56.2 69.7 49.9
11:00 AM 11/7/23 59.1 76.9 46.8
12:00 PM 11/7/23 56.2 70.9 48.4
Source: Compiled by LSA Associates, Inc. (2023).
dBA = A-weighted decibel
Leq = equivalent continuous sound level
Lmax = maximum instantaneous noise level
Lmin = minimum measured sound level
P:\2023\20231146 - Extra Space Storage Santee\Technical Analyses\Noise\Product\Noise and Vibration Memo_20240805 - Rev1.docx «01/23/25»

ATTACHMENT C

CONSTRUCTION NOISE CALCULATIONS
Phase: Demolition
Lmax Leq
Concrete Saw 1 90 20 50 0.5 90 83
Dozer 1 82 40 50 0.5 82 78
Tractor 1 84 40 50 0.5 84 80
Combined at 50 feet 91 86
Combined at Receptor 130 feet 83 77
Phase: Site Preparation
Lmax Leq
Grader 1 85 40 50 0.5 85 81
Scraper 1 84 40 50 0.5 84 80
Tractor 1 84 40 50 0.5 84 80
Combined at 50 feet 89 85
Combined at Receptor 130 feet 81 77
Phase: Grading
Lmax Leq
Grader 1 85 40 50 0.5 85 81
Dozer 1 82 40 50 0.5 82 78
Tractor 2 84 40 50 0.5 84 83
Combined at 50 feet 89 86
Combined at Receptor 130 feet 80 78
Phase:Building Construstion
Lmax Leq
Crane 1 81 16 50 0.5 81 73
Man Lift 2 75 20 50 0.5 75 71
Generator 1 81 50 50 0.5 81 78
Tractor 1 84 40 50 0.5 84 80
Welder / Torch 3 74 40 50 0.5 74 75
Combined at 50 feet 87 84
Combined at Receptor 130 feet 79 75
Phase:Paving
Lmax Leq
Drum Mixer 1 80 50 50 0.5 80 77
Paver 1 77 50 50 0.5 77 74
All Other Equipment > 5 HP 1 85 50 50 0.5 85 82
Tractor 1 84 40 50 0.5 84 80
Roller 2 80 20 50 0.5 80 76
Combined at 50 feet 89 86
Combined at Receptor 130 feet 81 77
Phase:Architectural Coating
Lmax Leq
Compressor (air) 1 78 40 50 0.5 78 74
Combined at 50 feet 78 74
Combined at Receptor 130 feet 70 66
Sources: RCNM
1 - Percentage of time that a piece of equipment is operating at full power. dBA – A-weighted Decibels
Lmax- Maximum Level
Leq- Equivalent Level
Construction Calculations
Equipment Quantity Reference (dBA)
50 ft Lmax
Usage
Factor1
Distance to
Receptor (ft)
Ground
Effects
Noise Level (dBA)
Noise Level (dBA)
Equipment Quantity Reference (dBA)
50 ft Lmax
Usage
Factor1
Distance to
Receptor (ft)
Ground
Effects
Noise Level (dBA)
Equipment Quantity Reference (dBA)
50 ft Lmax
Usage
Factor1
Distance to
Receptor (ft)
Ground
Effects
Noise Level (dBA)
Equipment Quantity Reference (dBA)
50 ft Lmax
Usage
Factor1
Distance to
Receptor (ft)
Ground
Effects
Noise Level (dBA)
Equipment Quantity Reference (dBA)
50 ft Lmax
Usage
Factor1
Distance to
Receptor (ft)
Ground
Effects
Noise Level (dBA)
Equipment Quantity Reference (dBA)
50 ft Lmax
Usage
Factor1
Distance to
Receptor (ft)
Ground
Effects
CLASS 32 C ATEGORICAL E XEMPTION
MARCH 2025

E XTRA S PACE S TORAGE S ANTEE P ROJECT

S ANTEE , C ALIFORNIA
P:\2023\20231146 - Extra Space Storage Santee\Initial Study_CE\Extra Space Santee CE 3.12.25_clean.docx (03/12/25)

ATTACHMENT D

AIR QUALITY TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

CARLSBAD
CLOVIS
IRVINE

LOS ANGELES

PALM SPRINGS

POINT RICHMOND

RIVERSIDE

ROSEVILLE

SAN LUIS OBISPO
3210 El Camino Real, Suite 100, Irvine, California 92602 949.553.0666 www.lsa.net

MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 9, 2024
TO: Clint Kleppe, Extra Space Development
FROM: Cara Cunningham, Associate
Bianca Martinez, Air Quality Specialist
SUBJECT: Air Quality Technical Analysis for the Santee Self-Storage Project in Santee, California

INTRODUCTION
LSA has prepared this Air Quality Technical Memorandum to evaluate the impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed Santee Self Storage Project (project) located in Santee, California. This analysis follows the methodology identified by the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD).
1 This analysis includes an assessment of criteria pollutant emissions, an assessment of carbon monoxide (CO) hot-spot impacts, and an assessment of the project’s impact on sensitive receptors.

PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The 2.8-acre project site is located at 10835 Woodside Avenue in Santee, San Diego County, California. The project site consists of Assessor’s Parcel Number 384-120-46-00. The existing project site includes a self-storage facility consisting of four one-story buildings, a combined square footage of 30,146 and a total of 257 units, and an undeveloped area that provides at-grade storage for recreational vehicles (RVs) and boats. The project site is surrounded by a mixture of residential and commercial uses. Regional access to the project site is provided by State Route 67 (SR-67), which is adjacent to the project site. Local access to the project site is provided by Woodside Avenue. Figure 1 shows the project location, and Figure 2 provides an overview of the proposed site plan (all figures are provided in Attachment A).

The proposed project would construct an 87,100-square-foot (sq ft) self-storage building on an undeveloped area of the project site that currently provides at-grade storage for RVs and boats. The proposed building would consist of three stories and a basement level, which would contain a total of 622 storage units. An office space and a 24-hour kiosk would be constructed within the southwest corner of the basement level, which would be the main point of entrance for customers. This 1 San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD). CEQA. Website: https://www.sdapcd.org/ content/sdapcd/planning/ceqa.html (accessed November 2023). 8/9/24 «P:\20231146 - Extra Space Storage Santee\Technical Analyses\AQ GHG\Santee Self-Storage AQ Only Memo_0809.docx» 2 portion of the basement level would sit at ground level due to the existing grade of the project site.

Additionally, a 1,158 sq ft apartment would be constructed for an on-site caretaker on the first floor of the proposed building. The proposed project would demolish small portions of three of the existing one-story self-storage buildings (3,465 sq ft) to accommodate the addition of 11 new surface parking spaces. In addition, the proposed project would include approximately 13,092 sq ft of landscape area. The remaining portions of the existing self-storage buildings, consisting of 26,681 sq ft , would continue to operate in their current configurations. Under post-development conditions, the total self‐storage square footage on site (including the existing 26,681 sq ft to remain) would be 113,781 sq ft, including a total of 854 storage units and 18 parking stalls.

Once operational, the proposed project would generate approximately 121 average daily trips. The proposed project would be all-electric and would not operate on natural gas. Hours of operation would remain the same as the existing conditions. In addition, the proposed project would not require any additional employees on site compared to existing operations.

Construction activities would include demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating activities. Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to commence in the beginning of 2025 and continue for approximately 14 months. The proposed project would require the net export of approximately 7,900 cubic yards of soil. In addition, it is anticipated that approximately 8 to 10 construction workers would be on site each day during the construction period. Site preparation, grading, and building activities would involve the use of standard earthmoving equipment such as large excavators, cranes, and other related equipment.

EXISTING LAND USES IN THE PROJECT AREA
For the purpose of this analysis, sensitive receptors are areas of the population that have an increased sensitivity to air pollution or environmental contaminants. Sensitive receptor locations include residences, schools, daycare centers, hospitals, parks, and similar uses that are sensitive to air quality. Impacts on sensitive receptors are of particular concern because those receptors are the population most vulnerable to the effects of air pollution. The project site is surrounded by a mixture of residential and commercial uses. The proposed project site is immediately bounded to the northwest by Woodside Avenue, to the north by a commercial business, to the east by SR-67, and to the south by residential uses. The closest sensitive receptors to the project site include the single-family homes approximately 20 feet south of the project site.

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Air quality is primarily a function of both local climate and local sources of air pollution and regional pollution transport. The amount of a given pollutant in the atmosphere is determined by the amount of the pollutant released and the atmosphere’s ability to transport and dilute the pollutant.

The major determinants of transport and dilution are wind, atmospheric stability, and terrain, and for photochemical pollutants, sunshine.

A region’s topographic features have a direct correlation with air pollution flow and, therefore, are used to determine the boundary of air basins. The proposed project is located in Santee, within the jurisdiction of the SDAPCD, which regulates air quality in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB). 8/9/24 «P:\20231146 - Extra Space Storage Santee\Technical Analyses\AQ GHG\Santee Self-Storage AQ Only Memo_0809.docx» 3 The SDAB experiences a persistent temperature inversion (increasing temperature with increasing altitude) as a result of the Pacific high. This inversion limits the vertical dispersion of air contaminants, holding them relatively near the ground. As the sun warms the ground and the lower air layer, the temperature of the lower air layer approaches the temperature of the base of the inversion (upper) layer until the inversion layer finally breaks, allowing vertical mixing with the lower layer. This phenomenon is observed in mid- to late afternoon on hot summer days, when the air appears to clear up suddenly. Winter inversions frequently break by mid-morning.

Winds in the project area blow predominantly from the south-southwest, with relatively low velocities. Wind speeds in the project area average about 5 miles per hour. Summer wind speeds average slightly higher than winter wind speeds. Low average wind speeds, together with a persistent temperature inversion, limit the vertical dispersion of air pollutants throughout the SDAB. Strong, dry, north or northeasterly winds, known as Santa Ana winds, occur during the fall and winter months, dispersing air contaminants. The Santa Ana conditions tend to last for several days at a time.

The combination of stagnant wind conditions and low inversions produces the greatest pollutant concentrations. On days of no inversion or high wind speeds, ambient air pollutant concentrations are the lowest. During periods of low inversions and low wind speeds, air pollutants generated in urbanized areas are transported predominantly onshore into Riverside and San Bernardino counties.

In the winter, the greatest pollution problems are CO and nitrogen oxides (NOX) because of extremely low inversions and air stagnation during the night and early morning hours. In the summer, the longer daylight hours and brighter sunshine combine to cause a reaction between hydrocarbons and NOX to form photochemical smog. Smog is a general term for naturally occurring fog that has become mixed with smoke or pollution. In this context, it is better described as a form of air pollution produced by the photochemical reaction of sunlight with pollutants that have been released into the atmosphere, especially by automotive emissions.

Attainment Status
Both the State of California (State) and the federal government have established health-based ambient air quality standards (AAQS) for six criteria air pollutants: CO, ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), lead (Pb), and suspended particulate matter (particulate matter less than

2.5 microns in diameter and less than 10 microns in diameter [PM2.5 and PM10, respectively]). The SDAB is designated as nonattainment for O3 for federal standards and nonattainment for O3, PM10, and PM2.5 for State standards.

Air quality monitoring stations are located throughout the nation and maintained by the local air districts and State air quality regulating agencies. Data collected at permanent monitoring stations are used by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to identify regions as “attainment” or “nonattainment” depending on whether the regions meet the requirements stated in the applicable National Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Nonattainment areas are imposed with additional restrictions as required by the USEPA. In addition, different classifications of attainment, such as marginal, moderate, serious, severe, and extreme, are used to classify each air basin in the State on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis. The classifications are used as a foundation to create air quality management strategies to improve air quality and comply with the NAAQS. Attainment statuses for each of the criteria pollutants for San Diego County are listed in Table A. 8/9/24 «P:\20231146 - Extra Space Storage Santee\Technical Analyses\AQ GHG\Santee Self-Storage AQ Only Memo_0809.docx» 4 Table A: Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in San Diego County Pollutant Federal State
O3 1 hour Nonattainment Nonattainment
O3 8 hour Attainment1 Nonattainment
CO Attainment Attainment
PM10 Unclassifiable2 Nonattainment
PM2.5 Attainment Nonattainment
NO2 Attainment Attainment
SO2 Attainment Attainment
Pb Attainment Attainment
Sulfates No Federal Standard Attainment
Hydrogen Sulfide No Federal Standard Unclassified
Visibility No Federal Standard Unclassified
Source: Attainment Status (San Diego County Air Pollution Control District 2021). 1 The federal 1-hour standard of 12 ppm was in effect from 1979 through June 15, 2005. The revoked standard is referenced here because it was employed for such a long period and because this benchmark is addressed in State Implementation Plans. 2 At the time of designation, if the available data do not support a designation of attainment or nonattainment, the area is designated as unclassifiable.

CO = carbon monoxide
NO2 = nitrogen dioxide
O3 = ozone
Pb = lead
PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter ppm = parts per million
SO2 = sulfur dioxide
Air Quality Monitoring Results
Air quality monitoring stations are located throughout the nation and are maintained by the local air pollution control district and State air quality regulating agencies. The SDAPCD, together with the California Air Resources Board (CARB), maintains ambient air quality monitoring stations in the SDAB. The air quality monitoring station closest to the project area is the El Cajon ambient air quality monitoring station located at 533 First Street. The air quality trends from this station are used to represent the ambient air quality in the project area. Ambient air quality in the project area from 2020 to 2022 is shown in Table B.1 As indicated in the monitoring results, no violations of the federal and State PM10 standard occurred during the 3-year period. PM2.5 levels exceeded the federal standard two times in 2020 only. The State 1-hour O3 standard was exceeded one time in 2022 only. Additionally, the federal and State 8-hour O3 standards were exceeded 14 times in 2020, 3 times in 2021, and 2 times in 2022. The CO, SO2, and NO2 standards were not exceeded. 1 California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2019. iADAM: Top 4 Summary. Website: https://www.arb.ca.gov/ adam/topfour/topfour1.php (accessed November 2023).
8/9/24 «P:\20231146 - Extra Space Storage Santee\Technical Analyses\AQ GHG\Santee Self-Storage AQ Only Memo_0809.docx» 5 Table B: Ambient Air Quality at Project Vicinity Monitoring Stations Pollutant1 Standard 2020 2021 2022
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm) 1.5 1.2 1.4
Number of days exceeded: State: >20 ppm 0 0 0
Federal: >35 ppm 0 0 0
Maximum 8-hour concentration (ppm) 1.4 1.1 1.1
Number of days exceeded: State: >9 ppm 0 0 0
Federal: >9 ppm 0 0 0
Ozone (O3)
Maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm) 0.094 0.088 0.100
Number of days exceeded: State: >0.09 ppm 0 0 1
Maximum 8-hour concentration (ppm) 0.083 0.077 0.088
Number of days exceeded: State: >0.07 ppm 14 3 2
Federal: >0.08 ppm 14 3 2
Coarse Particulates (PM10)
Maximum 24-hour concentration (µg/m3) 55.0 40.0 44.0
Number of days exceeded: State: >50 µg/m3 ND 0 0
Federal: >150 µg/m3 0 0 0
Annual arithmetic average concentration (µg/m3) ND ND ND Exceeded for the year: State: >20 µg/m3 ND ND ND
Federal: >50 µg/m3 ND ND ND
Fine Particulates (PM2.5)
Maximum 24-hour concentration (µg/m3) 41.6 31.5 27.3
Number of days exceeded: Federal: >35 µg/m3 2 0 0
Annual arithmetic average concentration (µg/m3) 10.3 9.7 9.4 Exceeded for the year: State: >12 µg/m3 No No No
Federal: >12 µg/m3 No No No
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
Maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm) 0.044 0.038 0.037
Number of days exceeded: State: >0.250 ppm 0 0 0
Annual arithmetic average concentration (ppm) 0.008 0.006 0.008 Exceeded for the year: Federal: >0.053 ppm No No No
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
Maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm) 0.0017 0.0016 0.0008 Number of days exceeded: State: >0.25 ppm 0 0 0
Maximum 24-hour concentration (ppm) 0.0004 0.0003 0.0002 Number of days exceeded: State: >0.04 ppm 0 0 0
Federal: >0.14 ppm 0 0 0
Annual arithmetic average concentration (ppm) 0.0001 0.0001 0.00006 Exceeded for the year: Federal: >0.030 ppm No No ND
Sources: Top 4 Summary (CARB 2023); Outdoor Air Quality Data: Monitor Values Report (USEPA 2023). 1 Data taken at the 533 First Street ambient air quality monitoring station in El Cajon. µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
CARB = California Air Resources Board
CO = carbon monoxide
ND = No data. There were insufficient (or no) data to determine the value.

NO2 = nitrogen dioxide
O3 = ozone
PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter ppm = parts per million
SO2 = sulfur dioxide
USEPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency

REGULATORY SETTING
Applicable federal, State, regional, and local air quality regulations are discussed below. 8/9/24 «P:\20231146 - Extra Space Storage Santee\Technical Analyses\AQ GHG\Santee Self-Storage AQ Only Memo_0809.docx» 6 Federal Regulations
The 1970 federal Clean Air Act (CAA) authorized the establishment of national health-based air quality standards and set deadlines for their attainment. The CAA Amendments of 1990 changed deadlines for attaining national standards as well as the remedial actions required for areas of the nation that exceed the standards. Under the CAA, State and local agencies in areas that exceed the national standards are required to develop State Implementation Plans to demonstrate how they will achieve the national standards by specified dates.

State Regulations
In 1988, the California Clean Air Act (CCAA) required that all air districts in the State endeavor to achieve and maintain California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for CO, O3, SO2, and NO2 by the earliest practical date. The CCAA provides districts with the authority to regulate indirect sources and mandates that air quality districts focus particular attention on reducing emissions from transportation and areawide emission sources. Each nonattainment district is required to adopt a plan to achieve a 5 percent annual reduction, averaged over consecutive 3-year periods, in districtwide emissions of each nonattainment pollutant or its precursors. A Clean Air Plan shows how a district would reduce emissions to achieve air quality standards. Generally, the State standards for these pollutants are more stringent than the national standards.

CARB is the State’s “clean air agency.” CARB’s goals are to attain and maintain healthy air quality, protect the public from exposure to toxic air contaminants, and oversee compliance with air pollution rules and regulations.

Regional Regulations
San Diego County Air Pollution Control District. The SDAPCD has adopted air quality plans to improve air quality, protect public health, and protect the climate. The San Diego Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS) outlines SDAPCD plans and control measures designed to attain and maintain the State standards, while San Diego’s portions of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) are designed to attain and maintain federal standards. The RAQS was initially adopted in 1991 and is updated on a triennial basis. The RAQS was updated in 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2009, 2016, and most recently in December 2022. The RAQS does not currently address the CAAQS for PM2.5 and PM10.

SDAPCD has also developed the SDAB input to the SIP, which is required under the CAA for areas that are out of attainment of air quality standards. Both the RAQS and SIP demonstrate the effectiveness of CARB measures (mainly for mobile sources) and SDAPCD plans and control measures (mainly for stationary and areawide sources) for attaining the O3 NAAQS. The SIP is also updated on a triennial basis. SDAPCD adopted its attainment plan and Reasonable Available Control Technology Demonstration for the 2008 8-hour O3 NAAQS. In addition, the Measures to Reduce Particulate Matter in San Diego County Report1 proposes measures to reduce particulate matter 1 SDAPCD. 2005. Measures to Reduce Particulate Matter in San Diego County. Website:
https://www.sdapcd.org/content/dam/sdapcd/documents/grants/planning/PM-Measures.pdf (accessed November 2023).
8/9/24 «P:\20231146 - Extra Space Storage Santee\Technical Analyses\AQ GHG\Santee Self-Storage AQ Only Memo_0809.docx» 7 emissions and recommends measures for further detailed evaluation and, if appropriate, future rule development (or nonregulatory development, if applicable), adoption, and implementation in San Diego County, in order to attain particulate matter CAAQS.

The RAQS relies on information from CARB and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), including mobile- and area-source emissions, as well as information regarding projected growth in the county, to project future emissions and then determine from that the strategies necessary for the reduction of emissions through regulatory controls. The CARB mobile-source emission projections and SANDAG growth projections are based on population and vehicle trends and land use plans developed by the cities and by the County of San Diego (County) as part of the development of the County’s General Plan. As such, projects that propose development that is consistent with the growth anticipated by the general plans would be consistent with the RAQS. In the event that a project would propose development that is less dense than anticipated by the City’s General Plan, the project would likewise be consistent with the RAQS. If a project proposes development that is greater than that anticipated by the General Plan and SANDAG growth projections, the project might be in conflict with the RAQS and SIP, and might have a potentially significant impact on air quality.

The SIP relies on the same information from SANDAG to develop emission inventories and emission reduction strategies that are included in the attainment demonstration for the SDAB. The SIP also includes rules and regulations that have been adopted by the SDAPCD to control emissions from stationary sources. These SIP-approved rules may be used as a guideline to determine whether a project’s emissions would have the potential to conflict with the SIP and thereby hinder attainment of the NAAQS for O3.

SDAPCD Rules and Regulations. As stated above, the SDAPCD is responsible for planning, implementing, and enforcing NAAQS and CAAQS in the SDAB. The following rules and regulations apply to all sources within the jurisdiction of SDAPCD and would apply to the proposed project:

1. SDAPCD Regulation IV: Prohibitions; Rule 50: Visible Emissions. Prohibits visible emissions from exceeding a determined visual threshold from being emitted; this rule applies to the discharge of any air contaminant other than uncombined water vapor.1

2. SDAPCD Regulation IV: Prohibitions; Rule 51: Nuisance. Prohibits the discharge, from any source, of such quantities of air contaminants or other materials that cause or have a tendency to cause injury, detriment, nuisance, annoyance to people and/or the public, or damage to any business or property.2

3. SDAPCD Regulation IV: Prohibitions; Rule 55: Fugitive Dust. Regulates fugitive dust emissions from any commercial construction or demolition activity capable of generating fugitive dust 1 SDAPCD. 1997. Rule 50: Visible Emissions. Website: www.sdapcd.org/content/dam/sdc/apcd/PDF/Rules_ and_Regulations/Prohibitions/APCD_R50.pdf (accessed November 2023). 2 SDAPCD. 1976. Rule 51: Nuisance. Website: www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/apcd/PDF/ Rules_and_Regulations/Prohibitions/APCD_R50-1-51.pdf (accessed November 2023). 8/9/24 «P:\20231146 - Extra Space Storage Santee\Technical Analyses\AQ GHG\Santee Self-Storage AQ Only Memo_0809.docx» 8 emissions, including active operations, open storage piles, and inactive disturbed areas, as well as track-out and carry-out onto paved roads beyond a project site.1

4. SDAPCD Regulation IV: Prohibitions; Rule 67.0.1: Architectural Coatings. Requires manufacturers, distributors, and end-users of architectural and industrial maintenance coatings to reduce volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from the use of these coatings, primarily by placing limits on the VOC content of various coating categories.2

5. SDAPCD Regulation II: Permits; Rule 20.2: New Source Review – Non-Major Stationary Sources.

Outlines Air Quality Impact Analysis (AQIA) trigger levels for new or modified stationary sources.3
SDAPCD Air Quality Guidelines. SACPCD adopted the County of San Diego Guidelines for Determining Significance – Air Quality4 in 2007, which serve as a guidance for evaluating adverse environmental effects that a proposed residential development or other land development projects may have on Air Quality. The intent of these Guidelines is to provide a consistent, objective and predictable evaluation of significant effects. These Guidelines shall be used by County staff for the review of discretionary projects and environmental documents pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Local Regulations
There are no local regulations that apply to the proposed project.

METHODOLOGY
Construction Emissions
Construction activities can generate a substantial amount of air pollution. Construction activities are considered temporary; however, short-term impacts can contribute to exceedances of air quality standards. Construction activities include site preparation, earthmoving, and general construction.

The emissions generated from these common construction activities include fugitive dust from soil disturbance, fuel combustion from mobile heavy-duty, diesel- and gasoline-powered equipment, portable auxiliary equipment, and worker commute trips. 1 SDAPCD. 2009. Rule 55: Fugitive Dust Control. Website: www.sdapcd.org/content/dam/sdc/apcd/PDF/ Rules_and_Regulations/Prohibitions/APCD_R55.pdf (accessed November 2023). 2 SDAPCD. 2021. Rule 67: Fugitive Dust Control. Website: www.sdapcd.org/content/dam/sdc/apcd/ PDF/Rules_and_Regulations/Prohibitions/APCD_R67-0-1-2021.pdf (accessed November 2023). 3 SDAPCD. 2019. Rule 20.2: New Source Review – Non-Major Stationary Sources. Website:
https://www.sdapcd.org/content/dam/sdapcd/documents/rules/current-rules/Rule-20.2.pdf. (accessed December 2023) 4
SDAPCD. 2007. County of San Diego Guidelines for Determining Significance and Report Format and Content Requirements – Air Quality. March 19. Website:
https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/pds/ProjectPlanning/docs/AQ-Guidelines.pdf (accessed December 2023)
8/9/24 «P:\20231146 - Extra Space Storage Santee\Technical Analyses\AQ GHG\Santee Self-Storage AQ Only Memo_0809.docx» 9 The California Emissions Estimator Model version 2022.1 (CalEEMod) computer program was used to calculate emissions from on-site construction equipment and emissions from worker and vehicle trips to the site. This analysis assumes that construction would begin in 2025 and would occur for approximately 14 months. The proposed project would require the demolition of 3,465 cubic yards of soil and the net export of approximately 7,900 cubic yards of soil. In addition, it is anticipated that approximately 8 to 10 construction workers would be on site each day during the construction period, which was included in CalEEMod. This analysis also assumes that the proposed project would comply with SDAPCD Rule 55 measures. Construction equipment would utilize Tier 2 engines, which was also included in CalEEMod. Site preparation, grading, and building activities would involve the use of standard earthmoving equipment such as large excavators, cranes, and other related equipment. All other construction details are not yet known; therefore, default assumptions (e.g., construction equipment, construction worker and truck trips, and fleet activities) from CalEEMod were used.

Operational Emissions
This air quality analysis includes estimating emissions associated with long-term operation of the project. Indirect emissions of criteria pollutants with regional impacts would be emitted by projectgenerated vehicle trips. In addition, localized air quality impacts (i.e., higher CO concentrations or “hot spots”) near intersections or roadway segments in the project vicinity would also potentially occur due to project-generated vehicle trips.

Consistent with SDAPCD guidance1 for estimating emissions associated with land use development projects, the CalEEMod computer program was used to calculate the long-term operational emissions associated with the project. As previously discussed in the Project Location and Description section, the proposed project would construct a self-storage building of approximately 87,100 sq ft, including a 1,158 sq ft apartment unit. The proposed project analysis was conducted using land use codes Unrefrigerated Warehouse No-Rail and Parking Lot. Trip generation rates used in CalEEMod for the project were based on the project’s trip generation analysis, which identifies that the project would generate approximately 121 average daily trips (ADT). In addition, consistent with the project design plans, this CalEEMod analysis incorporates selections to reflect no natural gas usage during construction and operation of the proposed project. When project-specific data were not available, default assumptions from CalEEMod were used to estimate project emissions.

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The State CEQA Guidelines indicate that a project would normally have a significant adverse air quality impact if project-generated pollutant emissions would do any of the following:
1 SDAPCD. 2007. County of San Diego Guidelines for Determining Significance and Report Format and Content Requirements – Air Quality. March 19. Website:
https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/pds/ProjectPlanning/docs/AQ-Guidelines.pdf (accessed December 2023)
8/9/24 «P:\20231146 - Extra Space Storage Santee\Technical Analyses\AQ GHG\Santee Self-Storage AQ Only Memo_0809.docx» 10 • Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; • Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project is in nonattainment under applicable NAAQS or CAAQS;
• Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or • Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) affecting a substantial number of people.

The State CEQA Guidelines indicate that a project would normally have a significant adverse GHG emission impact if the project would:
• Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; or
• Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reduction the emissions of GHGs.

Regional Emissions Thresholds
The SDAPCD does not provide quantitative thresholds for determining the significance of construction- or mobile-source-related impacts. However, the district does specify Air Quality Impact Analysis (AQIA) trigger levels for new or modified stationary sources (SDAPCD Rules 20.2 and

20.3). If these incremental levels for stationary sources are exceeded, an AQIA must be performed for the proposed new or modified source. Although these trigger levels do not generally apply to mobile sources or general land development projects, for comparative purposes, these levels may be used to evaluate the increased emissions that would be discharged to the SDAB from proposed land development projects.

For CEQA purposes, the screening criteria can be used as numeric methods to demonstrate that the project’s total emissions (e.g., stationary and fugitive emissions, as well as emissions from mobile sources) would not result in a significant impact to air quality. The hourly and yearly screening-level thresholds are most appropriately used in situations where temporary emissions like emergency generators or other stationary sources are proposed as a part of a project. The daily screening-level thresholds are most appropriately used for the standard construction and operational emissions.

As such, this analysis will compare the proposed project’s emissions to the daily screening-level thresholds in Table C, below.
8/9/24 «P:\20231146 - Extra Space Storage Santee\Technical Analyses\AQ GHG\Santee Self-Storage AQ Only Memo_0809.docx» 11 Table C: SDAPCD Air Quality Significance Thresholds
Air Pollutant Construction Phase
(lbs/day)
Operational Phase
(lbs/hour) (lbs/day) (tons/year)
VOC 75 — 75 13.7
CO 550 100 550 100
NOX 250 25 250 40
SOX 250 25 250 40
PM10 100 — 100 15
PM2.5 55 — 55 10
Source: Regulation II: Permits; Rule 20.2: New Source Review—Non-Major Sources (San Diego County Air Pollution Control District, January 2019).

CO = carbon monoxide
lbs/ = pounds per
NOX = nitrogen oxides
PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size
SDAPCD = San Diego County Air Pollution Control District SOX = sulfur oxides
tons/ = tons per
VOC = volatile organic compound
Local Microscale Concentration Standards
The significance of localized project impacts under CEQA depends on whether ambient CO levels in the project vicinity are above or below State and federal CO standards. Because ambient CO levels are below the standards throughout the SDAPCD, a project would be considered to have a significant CO impact if project emissions result in an exceedance of one or more of the 1-hour or 8-hour standards. The following are applicable local emission concentration standards for CO:
• California State 1-hour CO standard of 20 ppm
• California State 8-hour CO standard of 9 ppm

IMPACT ANALYSIS
Air pollutant emissions associated with the project would occur over the short term from construction activities and over the long term from project-related vehicular trips and due to energy consumption (e.g., electricity and natural gas usage) by the proposed land uses.

Consistency with Applicable Air Quality Plans
The SDAPCD is responsible for developing and implementing the clean air plans for attainment and maintenance of the AAQS in the SDAPCD, specifically the SIP and RAQS. The federal O3 maintenance plan, which is part of the SIP, was adopted in 2012. The most recent O3 attainment plan was adopted in 2016. The SIP includes a demonstration that current strategies and tactics will maintain acceptable air quality in the SDAB based on the NAAQS. The RAQS was initially adopted in 1991 and is updated on a triennial basis (most recently in 2022). The RAQS outlines SDAPCD plans and control measures designed to attain the State’s air quality standards for O3. The SIP and RAQS rely on information from CARB and SANDAG, including mobile- and area-source emissions, as well as information regarding projected growth in the county as a whole and the cities in the county, to project future emissions and determine the strategies necessary for the reduction of emissions through regulatory controls. CARB mobile-source emission projections and SANDAG growth 8/9/24 «P:\20231146 - Extra Space Storage Santee\Technical Analyses\AQ GHG\Santee Self-Storage AQ Only Memo_0809.docx» 12 projections are based on population, vehicle trends, and land use plans developed by the County and the cities in the county as part of the development of their general plans.

As discussed above, projects that propose development that is consistent with the growth anticipated by the general plans would be consistent with the RAQS. In the event that a project would propose development that is less dense than anticipated by the General Plan, the project would likewise be consistent with the RAQS. If a project proposes development that is greater than that anticipated by the General Plan and SANDAG growth projections, the project might be in conflict with the RAQS and SIP, and might have a potentially significant impact on air quality.

The project site is currently operating as a self-storage facility. The proposed project would continue to operate as a self-storage facility and would add an 87,100 sq ft self-storage building (approximately 622 storage units) to the existing use. In addition, the proposed project would not require any additional employees on site compared to existing operations. As such, the proposed project would not result in development in excess of that anticipated in the City’s General Plan or increases in population/housing growth beyond those contemplated by SANDAG. As such, the proposed project would not increase the population, vehicle trips, or vehicle miles traveled beyond what is anticipated in the RAQS and SIP. Because the proposed project activities and associated vehicle trips are anticipated in local air quality plans, the proposed project would be consistent at a regional level with the underlying growth forecasts in the RAQS and SIP.

Criteria Pollutant Analysis
As demonstrated in Table A, above, San Diego County is currently designated nonattainment for O3, PM10, and PM2.5 standards. The SDAB nonattainment status is attributed to the region’s development history. Past, present, and future development projects contribute to the region’s adverse air quality impacts on a cumulative basis. By its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. No single project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of an AAQS. Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. If a project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considerable, then the project’s impact on air quality would be considered significant.

In developing thresholds of significance for air pollutants, the SDAPCD considered the emission levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. If a project exceeds the identified significance thresholds, its emissions would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region’s existing air quality conditions.

Therefore, additional analysis to assess cumulative impacts is not necessary. The following analysis assesses the potential project-level air quality impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed project.

Construction Emissions. During construction, short-term degradation of air quality may occur due to the release of particulate matter emissions (i.e., fugitive dust) generated by demolition, grading, building construction, paving, and other activities. Emissions from construction equipment are also anticipated and would include CO, NOX, VOCs, directly emitted PM2.5 or PM10, and toxic air contaminants such as diesel exhaust particulate matter. 8/9/24 «P:\20231146 - Extra Space Storage Santee\Technical Analyses\AQ GHG\Santee Self-Storage AQ Only Memo_0809.docx» 13 Project construction activities would include demolition, grading, site preparation, building construction, architectural coating, and paving activities. Construction-related effects on air quality from the proposed project would be greatest during the site preparation phase due to the disturbance of soils. If not properly controlled, these activities would temporarily generate particulate emissions. Sources of fugitive dust would include disturbed soils at the construction site.

Unless properly controlled, vehicles leaving the site would deposit dirt and mud on local streets, which could be an additional source of airborne dust after it dries. PM10 emissions would vary from day to day, depending on the nature and magnitude of construction activity and local weather conditions. PM10 emissions would depend on soil moisture, silt content of soil, wind speed, and amount of operating equipment. Larger dust particles would settle near the source, whereas fine particles would be dispersed over greater distances from the construction site.

Construction emissions were estimated for the project using CalEEMod and are summarized in Table D. (CalEEMod output sheets are provided as an attachment.) Table D: Short-Term Regional Construction Emissions
Construction Phase
Maximum Daily Regional Pollutant Emissions (lbs/day)
VOCs NOX CO SOX
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
Demolition 0.6 19.8 15.0 <0.1 0.3 0.7 0.1 0.6
Site Preparation 0.6 20.3 15.4 <0.1 0.7 0.6 0.1 0.5
Grading 0.7 28.5 18.2 0.1 4.7 0.7 1.9 0.6
Building Construction 0.6 16.9 13.4 <0.1 0.1 0.7 <0.1 0.6 Architectural Coating 3.4 1.1 1.3 <0.1 0.1 0.1 <0.1 0.1 Paving 0.6 10.4 8.7 <0.1 0.1 0.4 <0.1 0.4
Peak Daily Emissions 4.0 28.5 18.2 0.1 5.4 2.5
SDAPCD Threshold 75.0 250.0 550.0 250.0 100.0 55.0
Significant? No No No No No No
Source: Compiled by LSA (August 2024).

Note: Maximum emissions of VOCs and CO occurred during the overlapping building construction and architectural coating phases.

CO = carbon monoxide
lbs/day = pounds per day
NOX = nitrogen oxides
PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size
SDAPCD = San Diego Air Pollution Control District
SOX = sulfur oxides
VOCs = volatile organic compounds
1 SDAPCD. 2009. Op. cit.
8/9/24 «P:\20231146 - Extra Space Storage Santee\Technical Analyses\AQ GHG\Santee Self-Storage AQ Only Memo_0809.docx» 14 The results shown in Table D indicate the proposed project would not exceed the significance criteria for daily VOC, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10, or PM2.5 emissions. Therefore, construction of the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under applicable NAAQS or CAAQS.

Operational Air Quality Impacts. Long-term air pollutant emissions associated with operation of the proposed project include emissions from area, energy, and mobile sources. Area-source emissions include architectural coatings, consumer products, and landscaping. Energy-source emissions result from activities in buildings that use natural gas. Mobile-source emissions are from vehicle trips associated with operation of the project.

PM10 emissions result from running exhaust, tire and brake wear, and the entrainment of dust into the atmosphere from vehicles traveling on paved roadways. Entrainment of PM10 occurs when vehicle tires pulverize small rocks and pavement, and the vehicle wakes generate airborne dust. The contribution of tire and brake wear is small compared to the other particulate matter emission processes. Gasoline-powered engines have small rates of particulate matter emissions compared with diesel-powered vehicles.

Energy-source emissions result from activities in buildings that use natural gas. The quantity of emissions is the product of usage intensity (i.e., the amount of natural gas) and the emission factor of the fuel source. However, the proposed project would not utilize natural gas. Therefore, energysource emissions would be minimal.

Area-source emissions consist of direct sources of air emissions at the project site, including architectural coatings, consumer products, and use of landscape maintenance equipment.

Long-term operational emissions associated with the proposed project were calculated using CalEEMod. Table E provides the estimated existing emission estimates and the proposed project’s estimated operational emissions. (CalEEMod output sheets are provided as an attachment.) Table E: Project Operational Emissions
Emission Type Pollutant Emissions
VOCs NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Lbs/day
Mobile Sources 0.5 0.4 3.4 <0.1 0.7 0.2
Area Sources 2.6 <0.1 3.8 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Energy Sources 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Project Emissions 3.1 0.4 7.2 <0.1 0.7 0.2
SDAPCD Threshold 55.0 55.0 550.0 150.0 150.0 55.0
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
Tons/year
Mobile Sources 0.1 0.1 0.6 <0.1 0.1 <0.1
Area Sources 0.4 <0.1 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Energy Sources 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Project Emissions 0.5 0.1 0.9 <0.1 0.1 <0.1
8/9/24 «P:\20231146 - Extra Space Storage Santee\Technical Analyses\AQ GHG\Santee Self-Storage AQ Only Memo_0809.docx» 15 SDAPCD Threshold 13.7 40.0 100.0 40.0 15.0 10.0
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
Source: Compiled by LSA (August 2024).

Note: Some values may not appear to add correctly due to rounding.

Long-Term Microscale (CO Hot Spot) Analysis. Vehicular trips associated with the proposed project would contribute to congestion at intersections and along roadway segments in the vicinity of the proposed project site. Localized air quality impacts would occur when emissions from vehicular traffic increase as a result of the proposed project. The primary mobile-source pollutant of local concern is CO, a direct function of vehicle idling time and, thus, of traffic flow conditions. CO transport is extremely limited; under normal meteorological conditions, it disperses rapidly with distance from the source. However, under certain extreme meteorological conditions, CO concentrations near a congested roadway or intersection may reach unhealthful levels, thereby affecting local sensitive receptors (e.g., residents, schoolchildren, the elderly, and hospital patients).

Typically, high CO concentrations are associated with roadways or intersections operating at unacceptable levels of service or with extremely high traffic volumes. In areas with high ambient background CO concentrations, modeling is recommended to determine a project’s effect on local CO levels.

1.4 ppm (the State standard is 9 ppm) from 2020 to 2022. The highest CO concentrations would normally occur during peak traffic hours; hence, CO impacts calculated under peak traffic conditions represent a worst-case analysis. Reduced speeds and vehicular congestion at intersections result in increased CO emissions.

The proposed project is expected to generate 121 average daily trips, with 9 trips occurring in the a.m. peak hour and 15 trips occurring in the p.m. peak hour. Therefore, given the extremely low level of CO concentrations in the project area and the lack of traffic impacts at any intersections, project-related vehicles are not expected to result in CO concentrations exceeding the State or federal CO standards. No CO hot spots would occur, and the project would not result in any projectrelated impacts on CO concentrations. 8/9/24 «P:\20231146 - Extra Space Storage Santee\Technical Analyses\AQ GHG\Santee Self-Storage AQ Only Memo_0809.docx» 16 Health Risk on Nearby Sensitive Receptors
Sensitive receptors are defined as people that have an increased sensitivity to air pollution or environmental contaminants. Sensitive receptor locations include schools, parks and playgrounds, daycare centers, nursing homes, hospitals, and residential dwelling units. The project site is surrounded primarily by open space and residential uses. The closest sensitive receptors to the project site include the single-family homes located approximately 20 feet south of the project site.

Construction activities associated with the proposed project would generate airborne particulates and fugitive dust, as well as a small quantity of pollutants associated with the use of construction equipment (e.g., diesel-fueled vehicles and equipment) on a short-term basis. However, construction contractors would be required to implement measures to reduce or eliminate emissions by following SDAPCD Rule 55, Fugitive Dust Control, which would require the applicant to implement measures that would reduce the amount of particulate matter generated during the construction period. In addition, project construction emissions would be well below SDAPCD significance thresholds. Once the project is constructed, the project would not be a source of substantial pollutant emissions. Therefore, sensitive receptors are not expected to be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations during project construction and operation.

Odors
SDAPCD Rules 50, 51, and 55 require the project applicant to include implementation of standard control measures for fugitive dust and diesel equipment emissions. Additionally, operators of off-road vehicles (i.e., self-propelled diesel-fueled vehicles 25 horsepower and up that were not designed to be driven on road) are required to limit vehicle idling to 5 minutes or less; register and label vehicles in accordance with the CARB Diesel Off-Road Online Reporting System; restrict the inclusion of older vehicles into fleets; and retire, replace, or repower older engines or install Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies (e.g., exhaust retrofits). Additionally, SDAPCD Rule 55 regarding nuisances states: “A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause injury or damage to business or property.”
During project construction, some odors may be present due to diesel exhaust. However, these odors would be temporary and limited to the construction period. In addition, the proposed project would be required to comply with SDAPCD nuisance and odor rules. The proposed project would not include any activities or operations that would generate objectionable odors, and once operational, the project would not be a source of odors. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.

CONCLUSION
Based on the analysis presented above, construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in the generation of criteria air pollutants that would exceed SDAPCD thresholds of significance. The proposed project is not expected to produce significant emissions that would affect nearby sensitive receptors. The project would also be consistent with the applicable air quality 8/9/24 «P:\20231146 - Extra Space Storage Santee\Technical Analyses\AQ GHG\Santee Self-Storage AQ Only Memo_0809.docx» 17 plans. The project would also not result in objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.

Attachments: Figure 1: Project Location
Figure 2: Conceptual Site Plan
CalEEMod Output Files
Cambury Dr
Lutheran Way
Cuyamaca St
Swallow Dr
Gillespie
Way
orge Rd
Carreta Dr
El Nopal
Woodpark Dr
Bilteer Dr
Northcote Rd
Cuyama
Mast Blvd
Beck Dr
N Magnol
Susie Pl
2nd St
Riverside Dr
Riverford Rd
Mast Blvd
N
M
a
gnolia
Ave
San Vicente
Fwy
Town Center
Park
Santana High
Prospect Ave
Buena Vista Ave Cottonwood Ave
N Magnolia Ave
Sevilla St
Railroad Ave
Shirley
Ln
Kenney St
N
Mollison Ave
Wing Ave
W Bradley Ave
Airport Dr
E Bradley Ave
N
Magnolia
Ave
Pepper Dr
Cuyamaca St
San Vicente Fwy
San Vic
ente Fw
y
Santee Trolley
Square Town
Center
Gillespie Field
SOURCE: Esri World Street Map (2023)
J:\20231146\GIS\Pro\Santee Self-Storage Project\Santee Self-Storage Project.aprx (11/29/2023) FIGURE 1
Santee Self-Storage Project

S A N D I E G O

C O U N T Y
Ã54
Ã163
Ã56
Ã52
Ã67
Ã125
Ã94
§¨¦15
§¨¦805
§¨¦8
Project Vicinity
0 1000 2000
FEET
Project Location
Regional Location
Woodside Ave
WM

LOADING ZONE
UP
1 A41
2 A41
3 A41

EXISTING BUILDING TO REMAIN

WOODSIDE AVENUE
3 STORY BUILDING W/

BASEMENT
87,100 SF
EXIST. RESIDENTIAL

BUILDING
9 15
18 5
6 7
4 12
TYP.
9'-0" 19'-0" TYP.

TYP.
25'-0" TYP.
9'-0"
9'-0" 8'-0" 9'-0"
19'-0"

FIRE LANE
26'-0"
30'-0" DRIVE WAY 30'-0" DRIVE WAY

FIRE LANE
26'-0"

FIRE LANE
26'-0"
EXIST. RESIDENTIAL

BUILDING
EXIST. RESIDENTIAL

BUILDING

SEWER EASMENT
20'-0"

PROPOSED

FEED STORE- YARD,
BARNS AND STORE.

SLOPED BANK

ADJACENT TO
HIGHWAY 67
100'-0"
100'-0"

HIGHWAY
67 298'HYDRANT DISTANCE
298'HYDRANT DISTANCE
25'-0"
4 A42
3RD FLOOR SETBACK
50'-0"

EASMENT
SEWER
20'-0"
101
101
102
R 50'-0"
R 24'-0"
R 50'-0"
R 24'-0"
R 50'-0"
R 24'-0"
103
101
101 101
103
105
100'-0"
100'-0"
EXIST. RESIDENTIAL

MOBLEHOME PARK
EXIST. RESIDENTIAL

MOBLEHOME PARK
106
A80
1 A80
2 8'-0"

SETBACK
10'-0"
107
108
109
101 101 101 101
R 300'-0" HOSE PULL
R 300'-0" HOSE PULL
13'-0"
102
110
111 111
111
112
112 SETBACK
5'-0"

SETBACK
5'-0"

SETBACK
20'-0"

SETBACK
10'-0"
R-14 ZONE
R-2 ZONE

GC ZONE
44'-9 123/128"
326'-9 77/128"
239'-4 41/128"
611'-4 205/256"
392'-5 195/256"
113
113
113
PL
PL
PL
PL
PL PL
PL PL
PL
115
114
114
116
116
116
116

EXISTING BUILDING TO REMAIN

EXISTING BUILDING TO REMAIN
5 A42
EXISTING 7,082 SF
PROPOSED 6,308 SF
EXISTING 7,973 SF
PROPOSED 7,077 SF
EXISTING 7,685 SF
PROPOSED 6,792 SF
EXISTING 7,406 SF
PROPOSED 6,504 SF

EASTMENT LINE
PROPERTY LINE.

PATH OF TRAVEL

EXISTING CHAINLINK FENCE

EXISTING BARBWIRE FENCE
JOB NO.:

DRAWN BY.

SITE PLAN
A

EXTRA SPACE STORAGE SANTEE
SCALE: 1" = 30'-0" 1 SITE PLAN

EASTMENT LINE
PROPERTY LINE.

PATH OF TRAVEL

EXISTING CHAINLINK FENCE

EXISTING BARBWIRE FENCE
JOB NO.:

DRAWN BY.:

PA/PM:

SITE PLAN
A10
10/27/2023 - SD SET
SCALE: 1" = 30'-0" 1 SITE PLAN

DATE REMARKS
1 Date 1 Revision 1
N

LEGEND KEYNOTES:
101 PLANTED PER LANDSCAPE PLAN
102 FIRE HYDRANT WITH 3'-0" CLEAR RADIOUS INDICATED
103 PIVOT GATE
105 FIRE LANE
106 CMU TRASH ENCLOSURE
107 PATH OF TRAVEL
108 FDC
109 CARETAKER GARAGE (2) @ 10'X20'
110 BACKFLOW PER CIVIL PLAN
111 DASHED LINE INDICATES FIRE LANE RED CURB WITH "NO PARKING FIRE LANE" STENCIL EVERY 30'
112 KNOX BOX
113 PROPERTY LINE
114 EXISTING CHAINLINK FENCE
115 EXISTING BARBWIRE FENCE
116 EXISTING BUILDING PROPOSED LINE OF DEMOLITION
SOURCE: Ware Malcomb
FEET
0 50 100
FIGURE 2
I:\20231146\G\Site_Plan.ai (8/1/2024)
Santee Self-Storage Project
Conceptual Site Plan
Trash Enclosure
LEGEND
Santee Self-Storage Project Custom Report, 8/7/2024
1 / 41
Santee Self-Storage Project Custom Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2025) - Unmitigated

3.3. Site Preparation (2025) - Unmitigated

3.5. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated

3.7. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated

3.9. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
Santee Self-Storage Project Custom Report, 8/7/2024
2 / 41

3.11. Paving (2026) - Unmitigated

3.13. Architectural Coating (2025) - Unmitigated

3.15. Architectural Coating (2026) - Unmitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
Santee Self-Storage Project Custom Report, 8/7/2024
3 / 41

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Santee Self-Storage Project Custom Report, 8/7/2024
4 / 41

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Santee Self-Storage Project Custom Report, 8/7/2024
5 / 41

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

8. User Changes to Default Data
Santee Self-Storage Project Custom Report, 8/7/2024
6 / 41

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Santee Self-Storage Project
Construction Start Date 1/6/2025
Operational Year 2026
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.60
Precipitation (days) 7.60
Location 10835 Woodside Ave, Santee, CA 92071, USA
County San Diego
City Santee
Air District San Diego County APCD
Air Basin San Diego
TAZ 6529
EDFZ 12
Electric Utility San Diego Gas & Electric
Gas Utility San Diego Gas & Electric
App Version 2022.1.1.26

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail

87.1 1000sqft 2.00 87,100 13,092 — — —
Santee Self-Storage Project Custom Report, 8/7/2024
7 / 41
Parking Lot 11.0 Space 0.80 0.00 0.00 — — —

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 4.04 18.0 14.7 0.03 0.72 0.22 0.94 0.66 0.05 0.72 — 2,756 2,756 0.11 0.06 2,778 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 4.06 28.5 18.2 0.07 0.72 4.70 5.38 0.66 1.86 2.50 — 9,646 9,646 0.50 1.14 9,999 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.15 12.7 9.92 0.02 0.47 0.26 0.74 0.44 0.08 0.52 — 2,045 2,045 0.09 0.07 2,068 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.21 2.32 1.81 < 0.005 0.09 0.05 0.13 0.08 0.01 0.09 — 339 339 0.01 0.01 342

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Santee Self-Storage Project Custom Report, 8/7/2024
8 / 41
2025 4.04 18.0 14.7 0.03 0.72 0.22 0.94 0.66 0.05 0.72 — 2,756 2,756 0.11 0.06 2,778 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 4.03 28.5 18.2 0.07 0.72 4.70 5.38 0.66 1.86 2.50 — 9,646 9,646 0.50 1.14 9,999 2026 4.06 18.0 14.6 0.03 0.72 0.22 0.94 0.66 0.05 0.72 — 2,738 2,738 0.11 0.06 2,759 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 1.15 12.7 9.92 0.02 0.47 0.26 0.74 0.44 0.08 0.52 — 2,045 2,045 0.09 0.07 2,068 2026 0.50 1.88 1.55 < 0.005 0.08 0.02 0.10 0.07 0.01 0.08 — 281 281 0.01 0.01 283 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.21 2.32 1.81 < 0.005 0.09 0.05 0.13 0.08 0.01 0.09 — 339 339 0.01 0.01 342 2026 0.09 0.34 0.28 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 — 46.5 46.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 46.8

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 3.08 0.36 7.19 0.01 0.01 0.70 0.72 0.01 0.18 0.19 82.7 1,729 1,811 8.46 0.13 2,065 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2.45 0.36 3.22 0.01 0.01 0.70 0.71 0.01 0.18 0.18 82.7 1,676 1,759 8.46 0.13 2,011 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2.75 0.37 5.08 0.01 0.01 0.70 0.71 0.01 0.18 0.19 82.7 1,690 1,772 8.46 0.13 2,025 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.50 0.07 0.93 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.13 0.13 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 13.7 280 293 1.40 0.02 335 Santee Self-Storage Project Custom Report, 8/7/2024
9 / 41

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.48 0.33 3.40 0.01 0.01 0.70 0.71 0.01 0.18 0.18 — 826 826 0.04 0.03 839 Area 2.60 0.03 3.79 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 15.6 15.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 15.6 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 664 664 0.04 < 0.005 666 Water — — — — — — — — — — 38.6 223 262 3.97 0.10 389
Waste — — — — — — — — — — 44.1 0.00 44.1 4.41 0.00 154
Total 3.08 0.36 7.19 0.01 0.01 0.70 0.72 0.01 0.18 0.19 82.7 1,729 1,811 8.46 0.13 2,065 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.47 0.36 3.22 0.01 0.01 0.70 0.71 0.01 0.18 0.18 — 789 789 0.04 0.03 801 Area 1.98 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 664 664 0.04 < 0.005 666 Water — — — — — — — — — — 38.6 223 262 3.97 0.10 389
Waste — — — — — — — — — — 44.1 0.00 44.1 4.41 0.00 154
Total 2.45 0.36 3.22 0.01 0.01 0.70 0.71 0.01 0.18 0.18 82.7 1,676 1,759 8.46 0.13 2,011 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.46 0.36 3.21 0.01 0.01 0.70 0.71 0.01 0.18 0.18 — 795 795 0.04 0.03 807 Area 2.29 0.02 1.87 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 7.68 7.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 7.71 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 664 664 0.04 < 0.005 666 Water — — — — — — — — — — 38.6 223 262 3.97 0.10 389
Waste — — — — — — — — — — 44.1 0.00 44.1 4.41 0.00 154
Total 2.75 0.37 5.08 0.01 0.01 0.70 0.71 0.01 0.18 0.19 82.7 1,690 1,772 8.46 0.13 2,025 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Santee Self-Storage Project Custom Report, 8/7/2024
10 / 41
Mobile 0.08 0.06 0.59 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.13 0.13 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 — 132 132 0.01 0.01 134 Area 0.42 < 0.005 0.34 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.27 1.27 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.28 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 110 110 0.01 < 0.005 110 Water — — — — — — — — — — 6.39 36.9 43.3 0.66 0.02 64.4 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 7.31 0.00 7.31 0.73 0.00 25.6 Total 0.50 0.07 0.93 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.13 0.13 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 13.7 280 293 1.40 0.02 335

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.61 19.6 14.6 0.02 0.66 — 0.66 0.61 — 0.61 — 2,494 2,494 0.10 0.02 2,502 Demolitio
n
— — — — — 0.15 0.15 — 0.02 0.02 — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.81 0.60 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 102 102 < 0.005 < 0.005 103 Demolitio
n
— — — — — 0.01 0.01 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — —
Santee Self-Storage Project Custom Report, 8/7/2024
11 / 41
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.15 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 17.0 17.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 17.0 Demolitio
n
— — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 85.1 85.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 86.2 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.26 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 — 192 192 0.01 0.03 201 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.53 3.53 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.58 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.88 7.88 < 0.005 < 0.005 8.26 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.58 0.58 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.59 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.30 1.30 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.37

3.3. Site Preparation (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Santee Self-Storage Project Custom Report, 8/7/2024
12 / 41
Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.56 20.3 15.0 0.03 0.55 — 0.55 0.50 — 0.50 — 2,717 2,717 0.11 0.02 2,726 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.62 0.62 — 0.07 0.07 — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.56 0.41 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.01 — 0.01 — 74.4 74.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 74.7 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.02 0.02 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.10 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 12.3 12.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 12.4 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Santee Self-Storage Project Custom Report, 8/7/2024
13 / 41
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 71.7 71.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 72.6 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.98 1.98 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.01 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.33 0.33 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.33 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.5. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.56 18.8 14.2 0.02 0.55 — 0.55 0.51 — 0.51 — 2,455 2,455 0.10 0.02 2,463 Santee Self-Storage Project Custom Report, 8/7/2024
14 / 41
Dust — — — — — 2.78 2.78 — 1.34 1.34 — — — — — —
From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.52 0.39 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.01 — 0.01 — 67.3 67.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 67.5 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.08 0.08 — 0.04 0.04 — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.09 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 11.1 11.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 11.2 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 89.6 89.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 90.8 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.15 9.64 3.52 0.05 0.13 1.83 1.96 0.13 0.50 0.63 — 7,102 7,102 0.39 1.12 7,445 Santee Self-Storage Project Custom Report, 8/7/2024
15 / 41
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.48 2.48 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.51 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.26 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 — 195 195 0.01 0.03 204 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.41 0.41 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.42 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.05 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 32.2 32.2 < 0.005 0.01 33.8

3.7. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.57 16.5 12.8 0.02 0.65 — 0.65 0.60 — 0.60 — 2,201 2,201 0.09 0.02 2,209 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.57 16.5 12.8 0.02 0.65 — 0.65 0.60 — 0.60 — 2,201 2,201 0.09 0.02 2,209 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.34 10.1 7.77 0.01 0.40 — 0.40 0.37 — 0.37 — 1,340 1,340 0.05 0.01 1,344 Santee Self-Storage Project Custom Report, 8/7/2024
16 / 41
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.06 1.84 1.42 < 0.005 0.07 — 0.07 0.07 — 0.07 — 222 222 0.01 < 0.005 223 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 94.9 94.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 96.3 Vendor 0.01 0.33 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 250 250 0.01 0.04 262 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 89.6 89.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 90.8 Vendor 0.01 0.35 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 250 250 0.01 0.04 261 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 55.0 55.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 55.8 Vendor 0.01 0.21 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 152 152 0.01 0.02 159 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.11 9.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 9.24 Vendor < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 25.2 25.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 26.3 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.9. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
Santee Self-Storage Project Custom Report, 8/7/2024
17 / 41
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.57 16.5 12.8 0.02 0.65 — 0.65 0.60 — 0.60 — 2,201 2,201 0.09 0.02 2,208 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.05 1.42 1.10 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.05 — 0.05 — 190 190 0.01 < 0.005 190 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.26 0.20 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 31.4 31.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 31.5 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 87.8 87.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 89.0 Vendor 0.01 0.33 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 246 246 0.01 0.04 257 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Santee Self-Storage Project Custom Report, 8/7/2024
18 / 41
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.63 7.63 < 0.005 < 0.005 7.74 Vendor < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 21.2 21.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 22.1 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.26 1.26 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.28 Vendor < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.50 3.50 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.66 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.11. Paving (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.40 10.4 8.32 0.01 0.46 — 0.46 0.43 — 0.43 — 1,244 1,244 0.05 0.01 1,248 Paving 0.21 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.28 0.23 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 34.1 34.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 34.2 Paving 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Santee Self-Storage Project Custom Report, 8/7/2024
19 / 41
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.05 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 5.64 5.64 < 0.005 < 0.005 5.66 Paving < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 87.8 87.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 89.0 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.43 2.43 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.46 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.40 0.40 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.41 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.13. Architectural Coating (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Santee Self-Storage Project Custom Report, 8/7/2024
20 / 41
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Off-Road
Equipment

0.05 1.09 0.96 < 0.005 0.07 — 0.07 0.06 — 0.06 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 134 Architect
ural
Coatings

3.33 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.05 1.09 0.96 < 0.005 0.07 — 0.07 0.06 — 0.06 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 134 Architect
ural
Coatings

3.33 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.23 0.20 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 28.0 28.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 28.1 Architect
ural
Coatings

0.70 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 4.63 4.63 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.64 Architect
ural
Coatings

0.13 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Santee Self-Storage Project Custom Report, 8/7/2024
21 / 41
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.02 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 75.9 75.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 77.1 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 71.7 71.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 72.6 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.1 15.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 15.4 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.51 2.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.54 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.15. Architectural Coating (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Santee Self-Storage Project Custom Report, 8/7/2024
22 / 41
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.05 1.09 0.96 < 0.005 0.07 — 0.07 0.06 — 0.06 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 134 Architect
ural
Coatings

3.33 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.14 0.12 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 17.0 17.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 17.0 Architect
ural
Coatings

0.42 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.03 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.81 2.81 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.82 Architect
ural
Coatings

0.08 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Santee Self-Storage Project Custom Report, 8/7/2024
23 / 41
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Worker 0.03 0.02 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 70.2 70.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 71.2 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.01 9.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 9.15 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.49 1.49 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.51 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail

0.48 0.33 3.40 0.01 0.01 0.70 0.71 0.01 0.18 0.18 — 826 826 0.04 0.03 839 Santee Self-Storage Project Custom Report, 8/7/2024
24 / 41
Parking 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lot
Total 0.48 0.33 3.40 0.01 0.01 0.70 0.71 0.01 0.18 0.18 — 826 826 0.04 0.03 839 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail

0.47 0.36 3.22 0.01 0.01 0.70 0.71 0.01 0.18 0.18 — 789 789 0.04 0.03 801 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.47 0.36 3.22 0.01 0.01 0.70 0.71 0.01 0.18 0.18 — 789 789 0.04 0.03 801 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail

0.08 0.06 0.59 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.13 0.13 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 — 132 132 0.01 0.01 134 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.08 0.06 0.59 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.13 0.13 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 — 132 132 0.01 0.01 134

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Santee Self-Storage Project Custom Report, 8/7/2024
25 / 41
Unrefrige — — — — — — — — — — — 615 615 0.03 < 0.005 617 rated
Warehou
se-No
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 49.3 49.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 49.4
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 664 664 0.04 < 0.005 666
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 615 615 0.03 < 0.005 617
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 49.3 49.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 49.4
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 664 664 0.04 < 0.005 666
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 102 102 0.01 < 0.005 102
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 8.16 8.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 8.18
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 110 110 0.01 < 0.005 110

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Santee Self-Storage Project Custom Report, 8/7/2024
26 / 41
Unrefrige 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 rated
Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Santee Self-Storage Project Custom Report, 8/7/2024
27 / 41
Consume
Products

1.87 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings

0.11 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landscap
e
Equipme
nt

0.62 0.03 3.79 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 15.6 15.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 15.6 Total 2.60 0.03 3.79 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 15.6 15.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 15.6 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consume
r
Products

1.87 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings

0.11 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 1.98 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consume
r
Products

0.34 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings

0.02 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landscap
e
Equipme
nt

0.06 < 0.005 0.34 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.27 1.27 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.28 Total 0.42 < 0.005 0.34 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.27 1.27 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.28

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
Santee Self-Storage Project Custom Report, 8/7/2024
28 / 41

4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — 38.6 223 262 3.97 0.10 389
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 38.6 223 262 3.97 0.10 389
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — 38.6 223 262 3.97 0.10 389
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 38.6 223 262 3.97 0.10 389
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — 6.39 36.9 43.3 0.66 0.02 64.4
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 6.39 36.9 43.3 0.66 0.02 64.4 Santee Self-Storage Project Custom Report, 8/7/2024
29 / 41

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — 44.1 0.00 44.1 4.41 0.00 154
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 44.1 0.00 44.1 4.41 0.00 154
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — 44.1 0.00 44.1 4.41 0.00 154
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 44.1 0.00 44.1 4.41 0.00 154
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unrefrige
rated
Warehou
se-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — 7.31 0.00 7.31 0.73 0.00 25.6
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Santee Self-Storage Project Custom Report, 8/7/2024
30 / 41
Total — — — — — — — — — — 7.31 0.00 7.31 0.73 0.00 25.6

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Santee Self-Storage Project Custom Report, 8/7/2024
31 / 41
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Santee Self-Storage Project Custom Report, 8/7/2024
32 / 41
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio
n
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Santee Self-Storage Project Custom Report, 8/7/2024
33 / 41
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequeste
red
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequeste
red
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Santee Self-Storage Project Custom Report, 8/7/2024
34 / 41
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequeste
red
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Demolition Demolition 1/6/2025 1/24/2025 5.00 15.0 —
Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/27/2025 2/7/2025 5.00 10.0 — Grading Grading 2/10/2025 2/21/2025 5.00 10.0 —
Building Construction Building Construction 2/24/2025 2/13/2026 5.00 255 — Paving Paving 2/16/2026 2/27/2026 5.00 10.0 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 9/16/2025 3/6/2026 5.00 124 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Santee Self-Storage Project Custom Report, 8/7/2024
35 / 41
Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Back Diesel Tier 2 3.00 8.00 84.0 0.37 hoes
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Tier 2 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Tier 2 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Site Preparation Graders Diesel Tier 2 1.00 8.00 148 0.41 Site Preparation Scrapers Diesel Tier 2 1.00 8.00 423 0.48 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Tier 2 1.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Graders Diesel Tier 2 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Tier 2 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Tier 2 2.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Tier 2 1.00 8.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Tier 2 2.00 7.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Tier 2 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Tier 2 1.00 6.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Welders Diesel Tier 2 3.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Paving Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Tier 2 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Paving Pavers Diesel Tier 2 1.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Tier 2 1.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Tier 2 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Paving Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Tier 2 1.00 8.00 10.0 0.56
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Tier 2 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Santee Self-Storage Project Custom Report, 8/7/2024
36 / 41
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition — — — —
Demolition Worker 9.50 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor — 7.63 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 2.67 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 8.00 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 7.63 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 10.0 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 7.63 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 98.8 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 10.0 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 10.0 7.63 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 10.0 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 7.63 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 8.00 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Santee Self-Storage Project Custom Report, 8/7/2024
37 / 41
Architectural Coating Vendor — 7.63 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water unpaved roads twice daily 55% 55%
Limit vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 25 mph 44% 44% Sweep paved roads once per month 9% 9%

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 0.00 0.00 130,650 43,550 2,091

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (Cubic
Yards)
Material Exported (Cubic
Yards)
Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (Building
Square Footage)
Acres Paved (acres)
Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,465 —
Site Preparation 0.00 0.00 15.0 0.00 —
Grading 0.00 7,900 10.0 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.80

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Santee Self-Storage Project Custom Report, 8/7/2024
38 / 41
Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day) PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water Exposed Area 2 61% 61%
Water Demolished Area 2 36% 36%

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 0.00 0%
Parking Lot 0.80 100%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2025 0.00 589 0.03 < 0.005
2026 0.00 589 0.03 < 0.005

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
120 120 120 43,872 998 998 998 364,142
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
Santee Self-Storage Project Custom Report, 8/7/2024
39 / 41

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
0 0.00 130,650 43,550 2,091

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No
Rail
381,038 589 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Parking Lot 30,527 589 0.0330 0.0040 0.00

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 20,141,875 195,649
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00

5.13. Operational Waste Generation
Santee Self-Storage Project Custom Report, 8/7/2024
40 / 41

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 81.9 —
Parking Lot 0.00 —

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor

5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)

5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type
Santee Self-Storage Project Custom Report, 8/7/2024
41 / 41

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Land Use 2.8 - acre site that would develop a self-storage building of approximately 622 units or 87,100 square feet and 11 parking spaces. Project would also include 13,092 square feet of landscaping.

Construction: Construction Phases construction is anticipated to begin in 2025 and occur for 14 months Construction: Off-Road Equipment default equipment with tier 2 engine Construction: Trips and VMT Per the project applicant, approximately 8-10 workers will be on-site during construction each day
Operations: Vehicle Data Trip rate adjusted based on the trip generation of approximately 121 daily trips Operations: Energy Use proposed project would be all-electric CLASS 32 C ATEGORICAL E XEMPTION
MARCH 2025

E XTRA S PACE S TORAGE S ANTEE P ROJECT

S ANTEE , C ALIFORNIA
P:\2023\20231146 - Extra Space Storage Santee\Initial Study_CE\Extra Space Santee CE 3.12.25_clean.docx (03/12/25)

ATTACHMENT E

PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

PRELIMINARY

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

EXTRA SPACE STORAGE
10835 WOODSIDE AVENUE

SANTEE, CALIFORNIA

PREPARED FOR

EXTRA SPACE STORAGE

SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
SEPTEMBER 22, 2023
PROJECT NO. G3177-42-01
GROCON

INCORPORATED
GEOTECHNICAL • ENVIRONMENTAL MATERIALSO
6960 Flanders Drive • San Diego, California 92121-2974 • Telephone 858.558.6900 • Fax 858.558.6159 Project No. G3177-42-01
September 22, 2023
Extra Space Storage
2795 E. Cottonwood Parkway, #400
Salt Lake City, UT 84121
Attention: Mr. Clint Kleppe
Subject: PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

EXTRA SPACE STORAGE
10835 WOODSIDE AVENUE

SANTEE, CALIFORNIA
Dear Mr. Kleppe:

In accordance with your request and authorization of our proposal (LG-23253 dated May 25, 2023), we herein submit the results of our preliminary geotechnical investigation for the subject project. We performed our investigation to evaluate the underlying soil and geologic conditions, potential geologic hazards, and to assist in the design of the proposed building and associated improvements.

The accompanying report presents the results of our study and conclusions and recommendations pertaining to geotechnical aspects of the proposed project. The site is suitable for the proposed building and improvements provided the recommendations of this report are incorporated into the design and construction of the planned project.

Should you have questions regarding this report, or if we may be of further service, please contact the undersigned at your convenience.

Very truly yours,

GEOCON INCORPORATED
Lilian E. Rodriguez
RCE 83227
Rodney C. Mikesell
GE 2533
Garry W. Cannon
CEG 2201, RCE 56468
LER:RCM:GWC:am
(e-mail) Addressee

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE ................................................................................................................. 1

2. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................... 2

3. SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS ........................................................................................ 3

3.1 Undocumented Fill (unmapped) ............................................................................................ 3

3.2 Topsoil/Sapprolite (unmapped) ............................................................................................. 4

3.3 Granitic Rock (Kgt) ............................................................................................................... 4

4. GROUNDWATER .......................................................................................................................... 4

5. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ................................................................................................................. 4

5.1 Seismic Hazard Map .............................................................................................................. 4

5.2 Ground Rupture ..................................................................................................................... 5

5.3 Seismicity .............................................................................................................................. 5

5.4 Liquefaction ........................................................................................................................... 5

5.5 Landslides .............................................................................................................................. 5

5.6 Seiches and Tsunamis ............................................................................................................ 5

5.7 Flooding ................................................................................................................................. 5

6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................... 6

6.1 General ................................................................................................................................... 6

6.2 Excavation and Soil Characteristics ...................................................................................... 6

6.3 Grading .................................................................................................................................. 7

6.4 Subdrains ............................................................................................................................. 10

6.5 Excavation Slopes, Shoring and Tiebacks ........................................................................... 10

6.6 Seismic Design Criteria – 2022 California Building Code .................................................. 15

6.7 Shallow Foundations ........................................................................................................... 17

6.8 Concrete Slabs On Grade ..................................................................................................... 18

6.9 Exterior Concrete Flatwork ................................................................................................. 20

6.10 Retaining Walls ................................................................................................................... 21

6.11 Lateral Loading .................................................................................................................... 24

6.12 Preliminary Pavement Recommendations ........................................................................... 25

6.13 Site Drainage and Moisture Protection ................................................................................ 28

6.14 Grading and Foundation Plan Review ................................................................................. 28

LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS

MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure 1, Geologic Map

APPENDIX A

FIELD INVESTIGATION

APPENDIX B

LABORATORY TESTING

APPENDIX C

STORM WATER MANAGEMENT INVESTIGATION

APPENDIX D

RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS

LIST OF REFERENCES
Geocon Project No. G3177-42-01 - 1 - September 22, 2023

PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This report presents the results of our preliminary geotechnical investigation for the proposed Extra Space Storage building to be located in Santee, California (see Vicinity Map).

Vicinity Map
The purpose of this preliminary geotechnical investigation was to evaluate the surface and subsurface soil conditions, general site geology, and to identify geotechnical constraints that could affect development of the property including faulting, liquefaction, and seismic shaking. We provide recommendations for remedial grading, temporary shoring, shallow foundations, concrete slab on grade, concrete flatwork, pavement, and retaining walls.

The scope of this investigation included our review of readily available pertinent geologic literature, field work, performing engineering analyses, and preparing this report.

Field work consisted of drilling 4 exploratory borings to a maximum depth of about 18.5 feet; performing two infiltration tests; sampling soil; and performing laboratory tests on selected soil samples.

Appendix A presents the boring logs and details of the field investigation. The details of the laboratory Geocon Project No. G3177-42-01 - 2 - September 22, 2023 testing, and a summary of the test results are shown in Appendix B and on the boring logs in Appendix A. Appendix C presents a summary of our storm-water-management investigation.

2. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project site is located at 10835 Woodside Avenue in Santee, California. The irregularly shaped property is bound to the west and north by Woodside Avenue and a commercial property, State Route 67 to the east, and residential apartments to the south. A gravel/dirt parking lot occupies the west side of the property in the area of the proposed new building. Existing storage units occupy the eastern side of the site. The property slopes to the north and the east with elevations ranging from about 370 to 395 feet Mean Sea Level (MSL). The figure below shows the current site development.

Current Site Development
We understand the planned improvements will consist of constructing a 4-story structure with a footprint of approximately 87,395 square feet. The building will have a basement level that will extend down to approximately 11 feet below existing grade. The improvements will also include removing portions of the existing structures to accommodate more parking, new drive lanes, and landscaping. We understand storm-water management devices could also be required. The figure below shows the currently proposed improvements.

Geocon Project No. G3177-42-01 - 3 - September 22, 2023 Proposed Site Plan
Grading plans were not available; however, we expect grading will consist of excavations of up to approximately 11 feet within the building footprint and minor cuts and fills surrounding the building to achieve proposed grades.

The locations, site descriptions, and proposed development are based on our site reconnaissance, review of published geologic literature, field investigations, and discussions with project personnel. If development plans differ from those described herein, Geocon Incorporated should be contacted for review of the plans and possible revisions to this report.

3. SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
We encountered two surficial soil units consisting of undocumented fill and topsoil, and one formational unit consisting of Cretaceous age granitic rock. The occurrence, distribution, and description of each unit encountered is shown on the Geologic Map, Figure 1 and on the boring logs in Appendix A. The surficial soils and geologic unit are described below.

3.1 Undocumented Fill (unmapped)
We encountered approximately 2.5 feet of undocumented fill in borings B-2 and B-3. The undocumented fill consists of loose to dense, dry to moist, silty to clayey sand with gravel and cobble. We expect the Geocon Project No. G3177-42-01 - 4 - September 22, 2023 undocumented fill will be removed within the building pad to reach basement grade. The undocumented fill is not suitable in its current condition for the support of foundations or structural fill and should be removed during grading. The undocumented fill can be reused as fill during grading operations provided it is free of roots and debris.

3.2 Topsoil/Sapprolite (unmapped)
Topsoil was encountered in Boring B-1 consisting of dark red brown silty sand to a depth of approximately 7 feet below existing grade. The topsoil is composed of saprolitic granitic rock. The topsoil/saprolite is not suitable to support settlement sensitive improvements and should be removed and replaced as compacted fill within structural improvement areas. We expect the majority of the topsoil will be removed to reach the basement level. However, this should be evaluated once a grading plan is prepared and building pad grades are established. The topsoil/sapprolite can be reused as fill during grading operations provided it is free of roots and debris.

3.3 Granitic Rock (Kgt)
We encountered Cretaceous-age granitic rock (Tan, 2002) in all of the borings to the greatest depth explored. The granitic rock encountered varied from weak to moderately weak, completely to highly weathered rock, and possesses a “very low” to “low” expansion index (expansion index of 50 or less).

Based on the exploratory excavations, we expect the proposed grading will not require blasting or rock breaking to a depth of 18.5 feet; however, localized corestones or zones of strong rock should be expected during construction operations. The granitic rock is suitable for support of proposed fill and structural loads. We expect granitic rock will be exposed at the planned basement building pad elevation.

4. GROUNDWATER
We did not encounter groundwater during our field investigation to depths of 18.5 feet below existing grade. We do not expect groundwater will be encountered during construction of the planned improvements. It is not uncommon for groundwater or seepage conditions to develop where none previously existed. Groundwater and seepage are dependent on seasonal precipitation, irrigation, land use, among other factors, and varies as a result. Proper surface drainage will be important to future performance of the project.

5. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS

5.1 Seismic Hazard Map
The City of Santee (2021) shows the property is located in an area assigned as “A”, Granitic Rock.

Geocon Project No. G3177-42-01 - 5 - September 22, 2023

5.2 Ground Rupture
The USGS (2016) and Todd (2004) shows that there are no mapped Quaternary faults crossing or trending toward the property. The site is not located within a currently established Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (CEG, 2021a).

There are no active faults, potentially active faults, inactive faults, presumed inactive faults, or activity unknown faults at the site or trending toward the site. The risk associated with ground rupture hazard is low.

5.3 Seismicity
Considerations important in seismic design include frequency and duration of motion and soil conditions underlying the site. Seismic design of structures should be evaluated in accordance with the 2022 California Building Code currently adopted by the local agency. The risk associated with strong seismic ground motion hazard is high; however, the risk is no greater than that for the site vicinity.

5.4 Liquefaction
The risk associated with seismically induced soil liquefaction hazard is low due to the density and age of the underlying geologic units.

5.5 Landslides
No evidence of landsliding was observed during our investigation. Tan (2002) does not map any landslides at the subject site or in areas that could affect the site. The risk associated with ground movement hazard due to landsliding is low.

5.6 Seiches and Tsunamis
The site is not mapped within a State of California tsunami hazard zone (CGS, 2021b). The site is not located near a large body of water. The risk associated with flooding due to tsunami or seiche hazard is low.

5.7 Flooding
The site is not mapped in a Special Flood Hazard Area as defined by FEMA (2020). The risk of inundation hazard due to flooding is low.

Geocon Project No. G3177-42-01 - 6 - September 22, 2023

6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 General

6.1.1 We did not encounter soil or geologic conditions during our exploration that would preclude the proposed development, provided the recommendations presented herein are followed and implemented during design and construction. We will provide supplemental recommendations if we observe variable or undesirable conditions during construction, or if the proposed construction will differ from that anticipated herein.

6.1.2 With the exception of possible moderate to strong seismic shaking, we did not observe or know of significant geologic hazards on the site that would adversely affect the proposed project.

6.1.3 The undocumented fill and topsoil is potentially compressible and unsuitable in their present condition to support compacted fill or settlement-sensitive improvements and will require removal and replacement with properly compacted fill. Granitic rock is suitable to support proposed fill and structural loads.

6.1.4 We did not encounter groundwater during our subsurface exploration and we do not expect it to be a constraint to project development; however, seepage within the existing soils may be encountered during the grading operations, especially during the rainy seasons.

6.1.5 Proper drainage should be maintained to preserve the engineering properties of the soil.

Recommendations for site drainage are provided herein.

6.1.6 Infiltration on the property is considered infeasible as discussed in Appendix C.

6.1.7 We do not expect the planned development will destabilize or result in the settlement of adjacent properties if properly constructed.

6.2 Excavation and Soil Characteristics

6.2.1 Excavation of the in-situ soil should be possible with moderate to heavy effort using conventional heavy-duty equipment. Excavation of the granitic rock may require very heavy effort and may generate oversized material. Oversized rock (rocks greater than 12-inches in dimension) may be generated during excavation of granitic rock that will require special handling or disposal. The grading and improvement contractors should review this report and evaluate the proper equipment to use for the planned excavations.

Geocon Project No. G3177-42-01 - 7 - September 22, 2023

6.2.2 The soil encountered in the field investigation is considered both “non-expansive” (Expansion Index [EI] of 20 or less)) and “expansive” (EI greater than 20) as defined by 2022 California Building Code (CBC) Section 1803.5.3. We expect most of the soil encountered possess a “very low” to “low” expansion potential (EI of 50 or less) in accordance with ASTM D 4829.

Table 6.2 presents soil classifications based on the expansion index.

TABLE 6.2

EXPANSION CLASSIFICATION BASED ON EXPANSION INDEX
Expansion Index (EI) ASTM D 4829 Expansion
Classification
2022 CBC Expansion
Classification
0 – 20 Very Low Non-Expansive
21 – 50 Low
Expansive
51 – 90 Medium
91 – 130 High
Greater Than 130 Very High

6.2.3 We performed a laboratory test on a sample of the site soil to evaluate the percentage of watersoluble sulfate content. Appendix B presents test results, which indicate the on-site soils at the location tested possesses “S0” sulfate exposure to concrete structures as defined by 2022 CBC Section 1904 and ACI 318. The presence of water-soluble sulfates is not a visually discernible characteristic; therefore, other soil samples from the site could yield different concentrations. Over time, landscaping activities (i.e., addition of fertilizers and other additives) may affect the water-soluble sulfate concentration.

6.2.4 Geocon Incorporated does not practice in the field of corrosion engineering; therefore, further evaluation by a corrosion engineer may be needed if improvements susceptible to corrosion are planned.

6.3 Grading

6.3.1 Grading should be performed in accordance with the recommendations provided in this report; the Recommended Grading Specifications contained in Appendix D; and the City of Santee grading ordinance. Geocon Incorporated should observe the grading operations on a full-time basis and provide testing during the fill placement.

6.3.2 A preconstruction conference should be held at the site with the agency inspector, developer, grading and underground contractors, civil engineer, and geotechnical engineer in attendance.

Special soil handling and the grading plans can be discussed at that time.

Geocon Project No. G3177-42-01 - 8 - September 22, 2023

6.3.3 Site preparation should begin with the removal of deleterious material, debris, vegetation, asphalt concrete, and concrete. The depth of vegetation removal should be such that soil exposed in cut areas or to be used as fill is relatively free of organic matter. Material generated during stripping and/or site demolition should be exported from the site. Asphalt and concrete should not be mixed with the fill.

6.3.4 Abandoned foundations and buried utilities should be removed and the resultant depressions and trenches backfilled with properly compacted soil.

6.3.5 We expect the excavation to reach the basement level for the proposed building will expose granitic rock. However, since building pad grade has not yet been established, once grading plans have been developed, we should evaluate if additional removals below building pad grade will be required.

6.3.6 Where granitic rock is exposed at basement grade, no additional removal below pad elevation will be required. Where undocumented fill or topsoil is present below building pad grade, the undocumented fill or topsoil should be removed to competent granitic rock and replaced with properly compacted fill.

6.3.7 If grading results in a cut to fill transition in the building pad, the building pad should be undercut to a depth of at least 3 feet below pad grade or 1-foot below the building footings, whichever is deeper. The undercut area should then be replaced with compacted fill. The undercut should extend to at least 5 feet beyond the building footprint, where practical. As an alternative to undercutting, building footings can be deepened to extend through compacted fill to bear entirely on the underlying granitic rock.

6.3.8 In structural improvement area outside of the proposed building pad, undocumented fill and topsoil should be removed to the granitic rock and replaced as compacted fill. The excavations should extend at least 3 feet laterally outside of the improvement area.

6.3.9 Table 6.3.1 provides a summary of the remedial grading recommendations.

Geocon Project No. G3177-42-01 - 9 - September 22, 2023 TABLE 6.3.1

SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS
Area Remedial Grading Excavation Requirements
Building Pad
Remove undocumented fill and toposoil to expose granitic rock. Undercut building pad if grading results in a cut to fill transition, or alternatively, extend building footings through the fill to bear entirely on the granitic rock.

Site Development Remove undocumented fill and topsoil to granitic rock and replace with properly compacted fill
Lateral Grading Limits
5 Feet Outside of Building Pad
3 Feet Outside of Improvement Areas
Exposed Bottoms of Excavations Scarify Upper 12 Inches

6.3.10 A representative of Geocon should be on-site during excavations to evaluate the limits of the remedial grading.

6.3.11 The site soils are suitable for use as fill provided that they are free from vegetation, debris, and other deleterious material. Prior to placing fill the removal bottom should be scarified, moisture conditioned, and recompacted. Fill should be placed in layers no greater than 6 to 8 inches in loose thickness and no thicker than will allow for adequate bonding and compaction.

Fill, including backfill and scarified ground surfaces, should be compacted to a dry density of at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density near to slightly above optimum moisture content in accordance with ASTM Test Procedure D 1557. Fill soil placed below optimum moisture content will require moisture conditioning prior to placing additional fill.

The upper 12 inches of subgrade soil underlying pavement should be compacted to a dry density of at least 95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density near to slightly above optimum moisture content shortly before paving operations.

6.3.12 Imported fill, if needed, should consist of the characteristics presented in Table 6.3.2. Geocon Incorporated should be provided with samples of the proposed import soil to perform laboratory testing prior to importation to the site.

TABLE 6.3.2

SUMMARY OF IMPORT FILL RECOMMENDATIONS
Soil Characteristic Values
Expansion Potential “Very Low” to “Low” (Expansion Index of 50 or less) Particle Size
Maximum Dimension Less Than 3 Inches
Generally Free of Debris
Geocon Project No. G3177-42-01 - 10 - September 22, 2023

6.4 Subdrains

6.4.1 With the exception of retaining wall drains, we do not expect the installation of other subdrains.

6.5 Excavation Slopes, Shoring and Tiebacks

6.5.1 The recommendations included herein are provided for stable excavations. It is the contractor’s responsibility to ensure all excavations, temporary slopes, and trenches are properly constructed and maintained in accordance with applicable OSHA guidelines in order to maintain safety and the stability of the excavations and adjacent improvements. These excavation sidewalls should not be allowed to become saturated or to dry out. Surcharge loads should not be permitted within a distance equal to the height of the excavation from the edge of the excavation. The edge of the excavation should be a minimum of 15 feet from the edge of existing improvements.

6.5.2 Geocon Incorporated is not responsible for site safety and the stability of the proposed excavations. The stability of an excavation is dependent on the design and construction of the shoring system and site conditions and should be reviewed by the contractor’s competent person in accordance with OSHA guidelines.

6.5.3 The design of temporary shoring is governed by soil and groundwater conditions, and by the depth and width of the excavated area. Continuous support of the excavation face can be provided by a system of soldier piles and wood lagging or other applicable techniques.

Excavations exceeding 15 feet may require tieback anchors or internal bracing to provide additional wall restraint.

6.5.4 The condition of existing improvements around the perimeter of the planned excavation should be documented prior to the start of shoring and excavation work. Special attention should be given to documenting existing cracks or other indications of differential settlement within these adjacent structures, pavements, and other improvements. Settlement-sensitive, underground utilities should be videotaped prior to construction to verify the integrity of pipes. Monitoring points should be established indicating location and elevation around the excavation and on existing structures. These points should be monitored at appropriate intervals during excavation work and on a monthly basis thereafter. Inclinometers should be installed and monitored behind any shoring sections that will be advanced deeper than 30 feet below the existing ground surface.

6.5.5 In general, ground conditions are suited for soldier-pile-and-tieback anchor wall construction techniques; however, gravel and cobble could be encountered that could be difficult to drill.

Geocon Project No. G3177-42-01 - 11 - September 22, 2023 If cohesionless sand layers are encountered, raveling could result along the unsupported portions of excavations.

6.5.6 Temporary shoring having a level backfill surface should be designed using a lateral pressure envelope acting on the back of the shoring as presented in Table 6.5.1. The distributions are shown on the Active Pressures for Temporary Shoring. Cantilevered shoring should use the triangular distribution and multi-braced systems (such as tieback anchors and rakers) should use the trapezoidal or rectangular distributions. The project shoring engineer should determine the applicable soil distribution for the design of the temporary shoring system. Additional lateral earth pressure due to the surcharging effects from construction equipment, sloping backfill, planned stockpiles, adjacent structures and/or traffic loads should be considered, where appropriate, during design of the shoring system. Geocon Incorporated should be contacted to provide revised lateral earth pressures if permanent shoring is required.

TABLE 6.5.1

SUMMARY OF TEMPORARY SHORING WALL RECOMMENDATIONS
Parameter Value
Triangular Distribution, A 21H psf
Rectangular Distribution, B 14H psf
Trapezoidal Distribution, C 17H psf
Passive Pressure, P 350D + 500 psf
Effective Zone Angle, E 31 degrees
Maximum Design Lateral Movement 1 Inch
Maximum Design Vertical Movement ½ Inch
Maximum Design Retained Height, H 15 Feet
H equals the height of the retaining portion of the wall in feet D equals the embedment depth of the retaining wall in feet Geocon Project No. G3177-42-01 - 12 - September 22, 2023 Active Pressures on Temporary Shoring

6.5.7 The passive resistance can be assumed to act over a width of three pile diameters. Typically, soldier piles are embedded a minimum of 0.5 times the maximum height of the excavation (this depth is to include footing excavations) if tieback anchors are not employed. The project shoring engineer should determine the actual embedment depth.

Passive Pressures on Temporary Shoring

6.5.8 We should observe the drilled shafts for the soldier piles prior to the placement of the pile to check that the exposed soil conditions are similar to those expected and that the excavation Geocon Project No. G3177-42-01 - 13 - September 22, 2023 have been extended to the appropriate bearing strata and design depths. If unexpected soil conditions are encountered, modifications could be required.

6.5.9 Lateral movement of shoring is associated with vertical ground settlement outside of the excavation. The shoring system should be designed to limit horizontal movement to a maximum of 1 inch. The amount of horizontal deflection can be assumed to be essentially zero along the Active Zone and Effective Zone boundary. The magnitude of movement for intermediate depths and distances from the shoring wall can be linearly interpolated.

Horizontal movements of the shoring wall should be accurately monitored and recorded during excavation and shoring construction.

6.5.10 Survey points should be established at the top of the pile on at least 20 percent of the soldier piles. An additional point located at an intermediate point between the top of the pile and the base of the excavation should be monitored on at least 20 percent of the piles if tieback anchors will be used. These points should be monitored on appropriate intervals during excavation work and until the permanent support system is constructed.

6.5.11 The project civil engineer should provide the location, depth, and pipe type of the underground utilities to the shoring engineer to help select the shoring type and shoring design.

6.5.12 Tieback anchors employed in shoring should be designed such that anchors fully penetrate the Active Zone behind the shoring. The Active Zone can be considered the wedge of soil from the face of the shoring to a plane extending upward from the base of the excavation as shown on the Active Zone Detail. Normally, tieback anchors are contractor-designed and installed, and there are numerous anchor construction methods available. Non-shrinkage grout should be used for the construction of the tieback anchors.

Geocon Project No. G3177-42-01 - 14 - September 22, 2023 Active Zone Detail

6.5.13 Experience has shown that the use of pressure grouting during formation of the bonded portion of the anchor will increase the soil-grout bond stress. A pressure grouting tube should be installed during the construction of the tieback. Post grouting should be performed if adequate capacity cannot be obtained by other construction methods.

6.5.14 Anchor capacity is a function of construction method, depth of anchor, batter, diameter of the bonded section and the length of the bonded section. Anchor capacity should be evaluated using the strength parameters shown in Table 6.5.2.

TABLE 6.5.2

SOIL STRENGTH PARAMETERS FOR TEMPORARY SHORING
Description Soil Density
(pcf) Cohesion (psf) Friction Angle (Degrees)
Undocumented Fill/Topsoil 120 100 26
Granitic Rock 130 400 36

6.5.15 Grout should only be placed in the tieback anchor’s bonded section prior to testing. Tieback anchors should be proof-tested to at least 130 percent of the anchor’s design working load.

Following a successful proof test, the tieback anchors should be locked off at 80 percent of the allowable working load. Tieback anchor test failure criteria should be established in Geocon Project No. G3177-42-01 - 15 - September 22, 2023 project plans and specifications. The tieback anchor test failure criteria should be based upon a maximum allowable displacement at 130 percent of the anchor’s working load (anchor creep) and a maximum residual displacement within the anchor following stressing. Tieback anchor stressing should only be conducted after sufficient hydration has occurred within the grout. Tieback anchors that fail to meet project specified test criteria should be replaced or additional anchors should be constructed.

6.5.16 Lagging should keep pace with excavation. The excavation should not be advanced deeper than three feet below the bottom of lagging at any time or as determined by the shoring contractor. These unlagged gaps should only be allowed to stand for short periods of time in order to decrease the probability of soil instability and should never be unsupported overnight.

Proper backfilling should be conducted when necessary between the back of lagging and excavation sidewalls to reduce sloughing in this zone and all voids should be filled by the end of each day. It may be necessary to backfill with slurry to help prevent future lateral movement behind the supported excavation. Further, the excavation should not be advanced further than four feet below a row of tiebacks prior to those tiebacks being proof tested and locked off unless otherwise specific by the shoring engineer. Surface sloughing may occur during the excavation process.

6.5.17 If tieback anchors are employed, an accurate survey of existing utilities and other underground structures adjacent to the shoring wall should be conducted. The survey should include both locations and depths of existing utilities. Locations of anchors should be adjusted as necessary during the design and construction process to accommodate the existing and proposed utilities.

6.5.18 Tieback anchors within the City right of way should be de-tensioned and removed.

6.6 Seismic Design Criteria – 2022 California Building Code

6.6.1 Table 6.6.1 summarizes site-specific design criteria obtained from the 2022 California Building Code (CBC; Based on the 2021 International Building Code [IBC] and ASCE 7-16), Chapter 16 Structural Design, Section 1613 Earthquake Loads. We used SEAOC (2019) to calculate the seismic design parameters. The short spectral response uses a period of 0.2 second. We evaluated the Site Class based on the discussion in Section 1613.2.2 of the 2022 CBC and Table 20.3-1 of ASCE 7-16. The values presented herein are for the risk-targeted maximum considered earthquake (MCER).

Geocon Project No. G3177-42-01 - 16 - September 22, 2023 TABLE 6.6.1
2022 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
Parameter Value 2022 CBC Reference
Site Class C Section 1613.2.2
MCER Ground Motion Spectral Response
Acceleration – Class B (short), SS

0.766g Figure 1613.2.1(1)
MCER Ground Motion Spectral Response
Acceleration – Class B (1 sec), S1

0.282g Figure 1613.2.1(3)
Site Coefficient, FA 1.2 Table 1613.2.3(1)
Site Coefficient, FV 1.5 Table 1613.2.3(2)
Site Class Modified MCER Spectral Response
Acceleration (short), SMS

0.919g Section 1613.2.3 (Eqn 16-20)
Site Class Modified MCER Spectral Response
Acceleration – (1 sec), SM1

0.423g Section 1613.2.3 (Eqn 16-21)
5% Damped Design
Spectral Response Acceleration (short), SDS

0.613g Section 1613.2.4 (Eqn 16-22)
5% Damped Design
Spectral Response Acceleration (1 sec), SD1

0.282g Section 1613.2.4 (Eqn 16-23)
*See following paragraph.

6.6.2 Table 6.6.2 presents the mapped maximum considered geometric mean (MCEG) seismic design parameters for projects located in Seismic Design Categories of D through F in accordance with ASCE 7-16.

TABLE 6.6.2
ASCE 7-16 PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION
Parameter Value ASCE 7-16 Reference
Mapped MCEG Peak Ground Acceleration, PGA 0.328g Figure 22-9 Site Coefficient, FPGA 1.2 Table 11.8-1
Site Class Modified MCEG Peak Ground
Acceleration, PGAM

0.394g Section 11.8.3 (Eqn 11.8-1)

6.6.3 Conformance to the criteria in Tables 6.6.1 and 6.6.2 for seismic design does not constitute any kind of guarantee or assurance that significant structural damage or ground failure will not occur in the event of a large earthquake. The primary goal of seismic design is to protect life, not to avoid all damage, since such design may be economically prohibitive.

6.6.4 The values presented herein assume a Risk Category of II and result in a Seismic Design Category D. The project structural engineer and architect should evaluate the appropriate Risk Category and Seismic Design Category for the planned structures. Table 6.6.3 presents a summary of the risk categories in accordance with ASCE 7-16.

Geocon Project No. G3177-42-01 - 17 - September 22, 2023 TABLE 6.6.3
ASCE 7-16 RISK CATEGORIES
Risk
Category Building Use Examples
I Low risk to Human Life at Failure Barn, Storage Shelter II Nominal Risk to Human Life at Failure
(Buildings Not Designated as I, III or IV)
Residential, Commercial and Industrial
Buildings
III Substantial Risk to Human Life at
Failure
Theaters, Lecture Halls, Dining Halls,
Schools, Prisons, Small Healthcare
Facilities, Infrastructure Plants, Storage
for Explosives/Toxins
IV Essential Facilities
Hazardous Material Facilities,
Hospitals, Fire and Rescue, Emergency
Shelters, Police Stations, Power
Stations, Aviation Control Facilities,
National Defense, Water Storage

6.7 Shallow Foundations

6.7.1 The proposed structure can be supported on a shallow foundation system founded entirely on granitic rock. Foundations for the structure should consist of continuous strip footings and/or isolated spread footings. Table 6.7 provides a summary of the foundation design recommendations.

TABLE 6.7

SUMMARY OF FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS
Parameter Value
Minimum Continuous Foundation Width, WC 12 inches
Minimum Isolated Foundation Width, WI 24 inches
Minimum Foundation Depth, D 24 Inches Below Lowest Adjacent Grade Minimum Steel Reinforcement 4 No. 5 Bars, 2 at the Top and 2 at the Bottom Allowable Bearing Capacity (Compacted Fill) 2,500 psf
Allowable Bearing Capacity (Granitic Rock) 8,000 psf
Bearing Capacity Increase
500 psf per Foot of Depth
300 psf per Foot of Width
Maximum Allowable Bearing Capacity
(Compacted fill) 4,000 psf
Maximum Allowable Bearing Capacity
(Granitic Rock) 10,000 psf
Estimated Total Settlement 1-Inch
Estimated Differential Settlement ½ Inch in 40 Feet
Footing Size Used for Settlement 10-Foot Square
Design Expansion Index 50 or less
Geocon Project No. G3177-42-01 - 18 - September 22, 2023

6.7.2 The foundations should be embedded in accordance with the recommendations herein and the Wall/Column Footing Dimension Detail. The embedment depths should be measured from the lowest adjacent pad grade for both interior and exterior footings. Footings should be deepened such that the bottom outside edge of the footing is at least 7 feet horizontally from the face of the slope.

Wall/Column Footing Dimension Detail

6.7.3 The bearing capacity values presented herein are for dead plus live loads and may be increased by one-third when considering transient loads due to wind or seismic forces.

6.7.4 Overexcavation of the footings and replacement with 3-sack cement-slurry back to footing bottom can be used in areas where compacted fill exists below building footings.

6.7.5 We should observe the foundation excavations prior to the placement of reinforcing steel to check that the exposed soil conditions are similar to those expected and that they have been extended to the appropriate bearing strata. Foundation modifications may be required if unexpected soil conditions are encountered.

6.7.6 Geocon Incorporated should be consulted to provide additional design parameters as required by the structural engineer.

6.8 Concrete Slabs On Grade

6.8.1 Concrete slabs on grade for the structures should be constructed in accordance with Table 6.8.

Geocon Project No. G3177-42-01 - 19 - September 22, 2023 TABLE 6.8

MINIMUM CONCRETE-SLAB-ON-GRADE RECOMMENDATIONS
Parameter Value
Minimum Concrete Slab Thickness 5 inches
Minimum Concrete Reinforcement No. 3 Bars 18 Inches on Center, Both Directions Typical Slab Underlayment 3 to 4 Inches of Sand/Gravel/Base Design Expansion Index 50 or less

6.8.2 A vapor retarder should underlie slabs that could receive moisture-sensitive floor coverings or be used to store moisture-sensitive materials. The vapor retarder design should be consistent with the guidelines presented in the American Concrete Institute’s (ACI) Guide for Concrete Slabs that Receive Moisture-Sensitive Flooring Materials (ACI 302.2R-06). The membrane should be installed in a manner that prevents puncture in accordance with manufacturer’s recommendations and ASTM requirements. The project architect or developer should specify the vapor retarder used based on the type of floor covering that will be installed and if the structure will possess a humidity-controlled environment.

6.8.3 The project foundation engineer, architect, or developer should determine the thickness of the slab bedding. It is common to have 3 to 4 inches of sand in the southern California region.

We should be contacted to provide recommendations if the bedding sand is thicker than 6 inches.

6.8.4 The foundation design engineer should provide appropriate concrete mix design criteria and curing measures to assure proper curing of the slab. The foundation design engineer should present the concrete mix design and proper curing methods on the foundation plans. It is critical that the foundation contractor understands and follows the specifications presented on the foundation plans.

6.8.5 Concrete slabs should be provided with adequate crack-control joints, construction joints and expansion joints. American Concrete Institute (ACI) guidelines should be used to establish crack-control spacing. Crack-control joints should be spaced at intervals no greater than 12 feet. Additional reinforcement, concrete admixtures, and closer crack-control-joint spacing should be considered where bare-concrete finished floors are planned.

6.8.6 Subgrade presaturation is not deemed necessary prior to placing concrete; however, the exposed foundation and slab subgrade soil should be moisturized to maintain a moist condition as would be expected in any such concrete placement.

Geocon Project No. G3177-42-01 - 20 - September 22, 2023

6.8.7 The concrete-slab-on-grade recommendations are based on soil support characteristics only.

The project structural engineer should evaluate the structural requirements of the concrete slabs for supporting expected loads.

6.8.8 The recommendations of this report are intended to reduce potential cracking of slabs due to expansive soil (if present), differential settlement of existing soil or fill soil with varying thicknesses, however, even with the incorporation of the recommendations presented herein, foundations, stucco walls, and slabs-on-grade could still exhibit cracking due to soil movement and concrete shrinkage. The occurrence of concrete-shrinkage cracks is independent of the supporting soil characteristics. Their occurrence may be controlled by limiting the slump of the concrete, proper concrete placement and curing, and by the placement of crack control joints at periodic intervals, in particular, where re-entrant slab corners occur.

6.9 Exterior Concrete Flatwork

6.9.1 Exterior concrete flatwork not subject to vehicular traffic should be constructed in accordance with the recommendations presented in Table 6.9. The recommended concrete reinforcement would help reduce potential cracking.

TABLE 6.9

MINIMUM CONCRETE FLATWORK RECOMMENDATIONS
Expansion
Index, EI Minimum Steel Reinforcement* Options Minimum Thickness EI < 90
6x6-W2.9/W2.9 (6x6-6/6) welded wire mesh
4 Inches
No. 3 Bars 18 inches on center, Both Directions
*In excess of 8 feet square.

6.9.2 The subgrade soil should be properly moisturized and compacted prior to the placement of steel and concrete. The subgrade soil should be compacted to a dry density of at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density near to slightly above optimum moisture content in accordance with ASTM D 1557.

6.9.3 Even with the incorporation of the recommendations presented in this report, the exterior concrete flatwork could experience uplift due to expansive soil. Flatwork should be structurally connected to the curbs, where practical, to reduce potential offsets between the curbs and the flatwork.

Geocon Project No. G3177-42-01 - 21 - September 22, 2023

6.9.4 Concrete flatwork should be provided with crack-control joints to control shrinkage cracking.

American Concrete Institute (ACI) guidelines should be taken into consideration when establishing crack-control spacing.

6.9.5 Subgrade soil for exterior slabs not subjected to vehicle loads should be compacted in accordance with criteria presented in the grading section prior to concrete placement.

Subgrade soil should be properly compacted and the moisture content of subgrade soil should be verified prior to placing concrete. Base materials will not be required below concrete improvements.

6.9.6 Where exterior flatwork abuts the structure at entrant or exit points, the exterior slab should be dowelled into the structure’s foundation stem wall. This recommendation is intended to reduce potential differential elevations resulting from settlement or heave of the flatwork.

Dowelling details should be designed by the project structural engineer.

6.9.7 The recommendations presented herein are intended to reduce potential cracking of exterior slabs resulting from differential movement. Even with the incorporation of the recommendations presented herein, slabs on grade could still crack. The occurrence of concrete shrinkage cracks is independent of the soil-support characteristics. Their occurrence could be controlled by limiting the slump of the concrete, the use of crack-control joints, and proper concrete placement and curing. Crack-control joints should be spaced at intervals no greater than 12 feet. Portland Concrete Association (PCA) and American Concrete Institute (ACI) provide guidelines for proper concrete mix, construction, and curing practices, and should be incorporated into project construction.

6.10 Retaining Walls

6.10.1 Retaining walls should be designed using the values presented in Table 6.10.1. Soil with an expansion index (EI) of greater than 50 should not be used as backfill behind retaining walls.

Geocon Project No. G3177-42-01 - 22 - September 22, 2023 TABLE 6.10.1

RETAINING WALL DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
Parameter Value
Active Soil Pressure, A (Fluid Density, Level Backfill) 35 pcf Active Soil Pressure, A (Fluid Density, 2:1 Sloping Backfill) 50 pcf Seismic Pressure, S 13H psf
At-Rest/Restrained Walls Additional Uniform Pressure, RU (0 to 8 Feet High) 7H psf At-Rest/Restrained Walls Additional Uniform Pressure, RL (8+ Feet High) 13H psf Expected Expansion Index for the Subject Property EI<50 H equals the height of the retaining portion of the wall

6.10.2 The project retaining walls should be designed as shown in the Retaining Wall Loading Diagram.

Retaining Wall Loading Diagram

6.10.3 Unrestrained walls are those that are allowed to rotate more than 0.001H (where H equals the height of the retaining portion of the wall) at the top of the wall. Where walls are restrained from movement at the top (at-rest condition), an additional uniform pressure should be applied to the wall. For retaining walls subject to vehicular loads within a horizontal distance equal to two-thirds the wall height, a surcharge equivalent to 2 feet of fill soil should be added to the upper 10 feet of the retaining wall.

Geocon Project No. G3177-42-01 - 23 - September 22, 2023

6.10.4 The structural engineer should determine the Seismic Design Category for the project in accordance with Section 1613 of the 2022 CBC or Section 11.6 of ASCE 7-16. For structures assigned to Seismic Design Category of D, E, or F, retaining walls that support more than 6 feet of backfill should be designed with seismic lateral pressure in accordance with Section 1803.5.12 of the 2022 CBC. The seismic load is dependent on the retained height where H is the height of the wall, in feet, and the calculated loads result in pounds per square foot (psf) exerted at the base of the wall and zero at the top of the wall.

6.10.5 It is not necessary to consider active pressure on the keyway.

6.10.6 Drainage openings through the base of the wall should not be used where the seepage could be a nuisance or otherwise adversely affect the property adjacent to the base of the wall. The recommendations herein assume a properly compacted granular (EI of 90 or less) freedraining backfill material with no hydrostatic forces or imposed surcharge load. The retaining wall should be properly drained as shown in the Typical Retaining Wall Drainage Detail. If conditions different than those described are expected, or if specific drainage details are desired, Geocon Incorporated should be contacted for additional recommendations.

Typical Retaining Wall Drainage Detail

6.10.7 In general, wall foundations should be designed in accordance with Table 6.10.2. The proximity of the foundation to the top of a slope steeper than 3:1 could impact the allowable soil bearing pressure. Therefore, retaining wall foundations should be deepened such that the bottom outside edge of the footing is at least 7 feet horizontally from the face of the slope.

Geocon Project No. G3177-42-01 - 24 - September 22, 2023 TABLE 6.10.2

SUMMARY OF RETAINING WALL FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS
Parameter Value
Minimum Retaining Wall Foundation Width 12 inches
Minimum Retaining Wall Foundation Depth 12 Inches
Minimum Concrete Reinforcement Per Structural Engineer
Maximum Allowable Bearing Capacity 2,500 psf
Estimated Total Settlement 1 Inch
Estimated Differential Settlement ½ Inch in 40 Feet

6.10.8 The recommendations presented herein are generally applicable to the design of rigid concrete or masonry retaining walls. In the event that other types of walls (such as mechanically stabilized earth [MSE] walls, soil nail walls, or soldier pile walls) are planned, Geocon Incorporated should be consulted for additional recommendations.

6.10.9 Unrestrained walls will move laterally when backfilled and loading is applied. The amount of lateral deflection is dependent on the wall height, the type of soil used for backfill, and loads acting on the wall. The retaining walls and improvements above the retaining walls should be designed to incorporate an appropriate amount of lateral deflection as determined by the structural engineer.

6.10.10 Soil contemplated for use as retaining wall backfill, including import materials, should be identified in the field prior to backfill. At that time, Geocon Incorporated should obtain samples for laboratory testing to evaluate its suitability. Modified lateral earth pressures may be necessary if the backfill soil does not meet the required expansion index or shear strength.

City or regional standard wall designs, if used, are based on a specific active lateral earth pressure and/or soil friction angle. In this regard, on-site soil to be used as backfill may or may not meet the values for standard wall designs. Geocon Incorporated should be consulted to assess the suitability of the on-site soil for use as wall backfill if standard wall designs will be used.

6.11 Lateral Loading

6.11.1 Table 6.11 should be used to help design the proposed structures and improvements to resist lateral loads for the design of footings or shear keys. The allowable passive pressure assumes a horizontal surface extending at least 5 feet, or three times the surface generating the passive pressure, whichever is greater. The upper 12 inches of material in areas not protected by floor slabs or pavement should not be included in the design for passive resistance.

Geocon Project No. G3177-42-01 - 25 - September 22, 2023 TABLE 6.11

SUMMARY OF LATERAL LOAD DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
Parameter Value
Passive Pressure Fluid Density 350 pcf
Coefficient of Friction (Concrete and Soil) 0.35
Coefficient of Friction (Along Vapor Barrier) 0.2 to 0.25* *Per manufacturer’s recommendations.

6.11.2 The passive and frictional resistant loads can be combined for design purposes. The lateral passive pressures may be increased by one-third when considering transient loads due to wind or seismic forces.

6.12 Preliminary Pavement Recommendations

6.12.1 We calculated the flexible pavement sections in general conformance with the Caltrans Method of Flexible Pavement Design (Highway Design Manual, Section 608.4) using an estimated Traffic Index (TI) of 5.0, 5.5, 6.0, and 7.0 for parking stalls, driveways, medium truck traffic areas, and heavy truck traffic areas, respectively. The project civil engineer should review the pavement designations to determine appropriate locations for pavement thickness. The final pavement sections should be based on the R-Value of the subgrade soil encountered at final subgrade elevation. We have assumed an R-Value of 30 and 78 for the subgrade soil and base materials, respectively, for the purposes of this preliminary analysis.

Table 6.12.1 presents the preliminary flexible pavement sections.

TABLE 6.12.1

PRELIMINARY FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT SECTION
Location Assumed
Traffic Index
Asphalt
Concrete
(inches)
Class 2
Aggregate Base
(inches)
Parking Stalls for Automobiles
and Light-Duty Vehicles 5.0 3 5.5
Driveways for Automobiles
and Light-Duty Vehicles 5.5 3 7
Medium Truck Traffic Areas 6.0 3.5 7.5
Driveways for Heavy Truck Traffic 7.0 4 9.5

6.12.2 Prior to placing base materials, the upper 12 inches of the subgrade soil should be scarified, moisture conditioned as necessary, and recompacted to a dry density of at least 95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density near to slightly above optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM D 1557. Similarly, the base material should be compacted to a dry Geocon Project No. G3177-42-01 - 26 - September 22, 2023 density of at least 95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density near to slightly above optimum moisture content. Asphalt concrete should be compacted to a density of at least 95 percent of the laboratory Hveem density in accordance with ASTM D 2726.

6.12.3 Aggregate base should conform to Section 26-1.02B of the Standard Specifications for The State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) with a ¾-inch maximum size aggregate. Asphalt concrete should conform to Section 203-6 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Greenbook).

6.12.4 A rigid Portland cement concrete (PCC) pavement section should be placed in roadway aprons and cross gutters. We calculated the rigid pavement section in general conformance with the procedure recommended by the American Concrete Institute report ACI 330-21 Commercial Concrete Parking Lots and Site Paving Design and Construction – Guide. Table 6.12.2 provides the traffic categories and design parameters used for the calculations for 20-year design life.

TABLE 6.12.2

TRAFFIC CATEGORIES
Traffic
Category Description Reliability (%)
Slabs Cracked at
End of Design
Life (%)
A Car Parking Areas and Access Lanes 60 15
D Truck Traffic and Fire Lanes 75 15

6.12.5 We used the parameters presented in Table 6.12.3 to calculate the pavement design sections.

We should be contacted to provide updated design sections, if necessary.

TABLE 6.13.3

RIGID PAVEMENT DESIGN PARAMETERS
Design Parameter Design Value
Modulus of Subgrade Reaction, k 150 pci
Modulus of Rupture for Concrete, MR 500 psi
Concrete Compressive Strength 3,000 psi
Concrete Modulus of Elasticity, E 3,150,000 psi

6.12.6 Based on the criteria presented herein, the PCC pavement sections should have a minimum thickness as presented in Table 6.13.4.

Geocon Project No. G3177-42-01 - 27 - September 22, 2023 TABLE 6.13.4

RIGID VEHICULAR PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
Traffic Category Trucks Per Day Portland Cement
Concrete, T (Inches)
A = Car Parking Areas and Access Lanes 10 5
D = Heavy Duty Trucks/Fire Lane 50 6.5

6.12.7 The PCC vehicular pavement should be placed over subgrade soil that is compacted to a dry density of at least 95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density near to slightly above optimum moisture content.

6.12.8 The trash-truck pad should be large enough such that all wheels are on the concrete pad during the loading operations.

6.12.9 Adequate joint spacing based on ACI guidelines should be incorporated into the design and construction of the rigid pavement.

6.12.10 Reinforcing steel will not be necessary within the concrete pavement.

6.12.11 Perimeter curbs adjacent to landscape areas should extend at least 6 inches below the bottom of the pavement aggregate base. In lieu of extending the perimeter curb, an impermeable liner should be installed.

6.12.12 Concrete flatwork should be structurally connected to the curbs to help reduce potential offsets between the curbs and the flatwork.

6.12.13 To control the location and spread of concrete shrinkage cracks, crack-control joints should be included in the design of the concrete-pavement slab. Crack-control joints should be sealed with an appropriate sealant to prevent the migration of water through the control joint to the subgrade materials. The depth of the crack-control joints should be in accordance with ACI guidelines.

6.12.14 Construction joints should be provided at the interface between areas of concrete placed at different times during construction. The project structural engineer should provide details for load transfer.

6.12.15 Concrete curb/gutter should be placed on soil subgrade compacted to a dry density of at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density near to slightly above optimum moisture content. Cross-gutters should be placed on subgrade soil compacted to a dry density of at least Geocon Project No. G3177-42-01 - 28 - September 22, 2023 95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density near to slightly above optimum moisture content. Base materials should not be placed below the curb/gutter, or cross-gutters so water is not able to migrate from the adjacent parkways to the pavement sections. Where flatwork is located directly adjacent to the curb/gutter, the concrete flatwork should be structurally connected to the curbs to help reduce the potential for offsets between the curbs and the flatwork.

6.13 Site Drainage and Moisture Protection

6.13.1 Adequate site drainage is critical to reduce the potential for differential soil movement, erosion and subsurface seepage. Under no circumstances should water be allowed to pond adjacent to footings. The site should be graded and maintained such that surface drainage is directed away from structures in accordance with 2022 CBC 1804.4 or other applicable standards. In addition, surface drainage should be directed away from the top of slopes into swales or other controlled drainage devices. Roof and pavement drainage should be directed into conduits that carry runoff away from the proposed structure.

6.13.2 In the case of basement walls or building walls retaining landscaping areas, a water-proofing system should be used on the wall and joints, and a Miradrain drainage panel (or similar) should be placed over the waterproofing. The project architect or civil engineer should provide detailed specifications on the plans for all waterproofing and drainage.

6.13.3 Underground utilities should be leak free. Utility and irrigation lines should be checked periodically for leaks, and detected leaks should be repaired promptly. Detrimental soil movement could occur if water is allowed to infiltrate the soil for prolonged periods of time.

6.13.4 Landscaping planters adjacent to paved areas are not advised due to potential surface or irrigation water infiltration into the pavement subgrade and base courses. Area drains to collect excess irrigation water and transmit it to drainage structures or impervious abovegrade planter boxes can be used. In addition, where landscaping is planned adjacent to the pavement, construction of a cutoff wall along the edge of the pavement that extends at least 6 inches below the bottom of the base material should be considered.

6.13.5 We have prepared a storm water management investigation and it is included in Appendix C herein.

6.14 Grading and Foundation Plan Review

6.14.1 Geocon Incorporated should review the grading and building foundation plans for the project prior to final design submittal to evaluate if additional analyses and/or recommendations are required.

Geocon Project No. G3177-42-01 September 22, 2023

LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS

1. The firm that performed the geotechnical investigation for the project should be retained to provide testing and observation services during construction to provide continuity of geotechnical interpretation and to check that the recommendations presented for geotechnical aspects of site development are incorporated during site grading, construction of improvements, and excavation of foundations. If another geotechnical firm is selected to perform the testing and observation services during construction operations, that firm should prepare a letter indicating their intent to assume the responsibilities of project geotechnical engineer of record.

A copy of the letter should be provided to the regulatory agency for their records. In addition, that firm should provide revised recommendations concerning the geotechnical aspects of the proposed development, or a written acknowledgement of their concurrence with the recommendations presented in our report. They should also perform additional analyses deemed necessary to assume the role of Geotechnical Engineer of Record.

2. The recommendations of this report pertain only to the site investigated and are based upon the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate from those disclosed in the investigation. If any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during construction, or if the proposed construction will differ from that anticipated herein, Geocon Incorporated should be notified so that supplemental recommendations can be given. The evaluation or identification of the potential presence of hazardous or corrosive materials was not part of the scope of services provided by Geocon Incorporated.

3. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner or his representative to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the architect and engineer for the project and incorporated into the plans, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field.

4. The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge.

Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of three years.

B-1
(7')
B-2
(3')
B-3
(1')
B-4
(6')
A-1 A-2
Kgt Kgt
Kgt

GEOLOGIC MAP
1 EXTRA SPACE STORAGE
10835 WOODSIDE AVENUE

SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 - 2974 PHONE 858 558-6900 - FAX 858 558-6159
PROJECT NO. G3177 - 42 - 01
DATE 09 - 22 - 2023
FIGURE

GEOTECHNICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MATERIALS
Plotted:09/22/2023 8:20AM | By:ALVIN LADRILLONO | File Location:Y:\PROJECTS\G3177-42-01 10835 Woodside Ave\SHEETS\G3177-42-01 GeoMap.dwg B-4
(6')

GEOCON LEGEND
........APPROX. LOCATION OF BORING
Kgt........GRANITIC ROCK
........APPROX. LOCATION OF INFILTRATION TEST
A-2
........ESTIMATED DEPTH OF REMEDIAL GRADING (In Feet)

APPENDIX A
Geocon Project No. G3177-42-01 September 22, 2023

APPENDIX A

FIELD INVESTIGATION
We performed the drilling operations on August 17, 2023. The approximate locations of the exploratory borings are shown on the Geologic Map, Figure 1 and the boring logs are presented in this appendix.

The borings were drilled to a maximum depth of approximately 18.5 feet below existing grade using an Ingersoll Rand A-300 drill rig equipped with hollow-stem augers. The infiltration-test borings were drilled to depths of approximately 4 to 4.5 feet.

We obtained soil samples from the borings using a California-Modified, split-spoon sampler. We also collected bulk soil samples from the auger spoils. The type of sample is noted on the boring logs.

The penetration resistances shown on the boring logs are shown in terms of blows per foot. The blowcount values are not N-values as adjustments have not been applied.

We visually examined, classified, and logged the soil encountered in the borings in general accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure D 2488). The logs depict the soil and geologic conditions observed and the depth at which samples were obtained.
2" ROCK

TOPSOIL/SAPPROLITE
Loose, damp, dark reddish brown, Silty, fine to coarse SAND; saprolite granitic rock
GRANITIC ROCK (Kgt)
Highly weathered, grayish brown, weak GRANITIC ROCK; excavates as Silty, fine SAND
-Becomes moderately weak; no recovery
-No recovery
BORING TERMINATED AT 18.5 FEET
No groundwater encountered
Backfilled with cuttings
115.3
119.4

9.7 4.2
B1-1
B1-2
B1-3
B1-4
B1-5
7 11
50/5"
50/1"
50/1"
SM
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
Figure A-1,
Log of Boring B 1, Page 1 of 1

DRY DENSITY
(P.C.F.)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
IR A-300

PENETRATION

RESISTANCE
(BLOWS/FT.)
BORING B 1
... CHUNK SAMPLE

DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)

GROUNDWATER
K. OVERTURF
CONTENT (%)
SAMPLE
NO. 08-17-2023

SAMPLE SYMBOLS

MOISTURE
EQUIPMENT BY:

ELEV. (MSL.) 378'
G3177-42-01 BORING LOGS.GPJ

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

LITHOLOGY
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:

PROJECT NO.

THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED.

IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.

G3177-42-01
2" ROCK
UNDOCUMENTED FILL (Qudf)
Loose, dry, light grayish brown, Silty, fine to coarse SAND GRANITIC ROCK (Kgt)
Highly weathered, light brown to gray, weak GRANITIC ROCK; excavates as Silty, fine SAND
-Becomes moderately weak; poor recovery due to rock
-Becomes mottled white and black, micaceous
-No recovery
BORING TERMINATED AT 18.5 FEET
No groundwater encountered
Backfilled with cuttings
B2-1
B2-2
B2-3
B2-4
B2-5
B2-6
50/4"
50/5"
50/1"
50/3"
50/2"
SM
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
Figure A-2,
Log of Boring B 2, Page 1 of 1

DRY DENSITY
(P.C.F.)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
IR A-300

PENETRATION

RESISTANCE
(BLOWS/FT.)
BORING B 2
... CHUNK SAMPLE

DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)

GROUNDWATER
K. OVERTURF
CONTENT (%)
SAMPLE
NO. 08-17-2023

SAMPLE SYMBOLS

MOISTURE
EQUIPMENT BY:

ELEV. (MSL.) 382'
G3177-42-01 BORING LOGS.GPJ

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

LITHOLOGY
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:

PROJECT NO.

THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED.

IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.

G3177-42-01
2" ROCK/GRAVEL
GRANITIC ROCK (Kgt)
Highly weathered, light brown to gray, weak GRANITIC ROCK; excavates as Silty, fine SAND
-Hard drilling
-Becomes moderately weak; no recovery
-No recovery
BORING TERMINATED AT 18.5 FEET
No groundwater encountered
Backfilled with cuttings
B3-1
B3-2
B3-3
B3-4
B3-5
72/11.5"
86/10"
50/1"
84/9"
50/1"
SC
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
Figure A-3,
Log of Boring B 3, Page 1 of 1

DRY DENSITY
(P.C.F.)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
IR A-300

PENETRATION

RESISTANCE
(BLOWS/FT.)
BORING B 3
... CHUNK SAMPLE

DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)

GROUNDWATER
K. OVERTURF
CONTENT (%)
SAMPLE
NO. 08-17-2023

SAMPLE SYMBOLS

MOISTURE
EQUIPMENT BY:

ELEV. (MSL.) 379'
G3177-42-01 BORING LOGS.GPJ

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

LITHOLOGY
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:

PROJECT NO.

THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED.

IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.

G3177-42-01
2" ROCK/GRAVEL
UNDOCUMENTED FILL (Qudf)
Loose, damp, dark brown, Clayey, fine to coarse SAND

TOPSOIL/SAPPROLITE
Very dense, moist, dark reddish brown, Clayey, fine to coarse SAND; micaceous
GRANITIC ROCK (Kgt)
Highly weathered, light brown to gray, weak GRANITIC ROCK; excavates as Silty, fine SAND
-No recovery
-No recovery
BORING TERMINATED AT 18.5 FEET
No groundwater encountered
Backfilled with cuttings
B4-1
B4-2
B4-3
B4-4
B4-5
B4-6
88/9"
50/3"
50/2"
50/1"
50/1"
SC
SC
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
GEOCON
DEPTH
IN
FEET
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
Figure A-4,
Log of Boring B 4, Page 1 of 1

DRY DENSITY
(P.C.F.)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
IR A-300

PENETRATION

RESISTANCE
(BLOWS/FT.)
BORING B 4
... CHUNK SAMPLE

DATE COMPLETED
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)

GROUNDWATER
K. OVERTURF
CONTENT (%)
SAMPLE
NO. 08-17-2023

SAMPLE SYMBOLS

MOISTURE
EQUIPMENT BY:

ELEV. (MSL.) 380'
G3177-42-01 BORING LOGS.GPJ

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

LITHOLOGY
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
... WATER TABLE OR ... SEEPAGE
NOTE:

PROJECT NO.

THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED.

IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.

G3177-42-01

APPENDIX B
Geocon Project No. G3177-42-01 B- 1 - September 22, 2023

APPENDIX B

LABORATORY TESTING
We performed laboratory tests in accordance with generally accepted test methods of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) or other suggested procedures. We tested selected soil samples for inplace dry density/moisture content, maximum density/optimum moisture content, expansion index, watersoluble sulfate, pH and resistivity, chloride, R-Value, consolidation, and direct shear strength. The results of our laboratory tests are presented herein. The in-place dry density and moisture content of the samples tested are presented on the boring logs in Appendix A.

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY

AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 1557
Sample
No. Description
Maximum
Dry Density
(pcf)
Optimum
Moisture Content
(% dry wt.)
B2-1 Grayish brown, Silty SAND; trace gravel 137.9 8.2

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 4829
Sample No.

Moisture Content (%) Dry
Density
(pcf)
Expansion
Index
2022 CBC
Expansion
Classification
ASTM Soil
Expansion
Classification Before
Test After Test
B4-4 6.0 11.5 126.3 0 Non-Expansive Very Low

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY WATER-SOLUBLE SULFATE TEST RESULTS CALIFORNIA TEST NO. 417
Sample No. Depth (feet) Geologic Unit Water-Soluble
Sulfate (%)
ACI 318 Sulfate
Exposure
B4-4 10-15 Kgt 0.001 S0

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY CHLORIDE TEST RESULTS
AASHTO T 291
Sample No. Depth (Feet) Geologic Unit
Chloride Ion
Content (ppm)
Chloride Ion
Content (%)
B4-4 10-15 Kgt 81 0.008
Geocon Project No. G3177-42-01 B- 2 - September 22, 2023

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY POTENTIAL OF

HYDROGEN (PH) AND RESISTIVITY TEST RESULTS
CALIFORNIA TEST NO. 643
Sample No. Depth (Feet) Geologic Unit pH
Minimum
Resistivity
(ohm-centimeters)
B4-4 10-15 Kgr 7.7 6,100

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY RESISTANCE VALUE (R-VALUE) TEST RESULTS ASTM D 2844
Sample No. Depth
(Feet) Description (Geologic Unit) R-Value
B2-1 0-3 Grayish brown, Silty SAND; trace gravel (Qudf) 67 SAMPLE NO.: Qudf
SAMPLE DEPTH (FT):

B1-2
5'
GEOLOGIC UNIT:

TEST INFORMATION
115.3
PROJECT NO.: G3177-42-01

9.7%
INITIAL DRY DENSITY (PCF):

INITIAL WATER CONTENT (%):

SAMPLE SATURATED AT (KSF):

INITIAL SATURATION (%):

2.0 58.9%
CONSOLIDATION CURVE - ASTM D 2435
10835 WOODSIDE AVENUE
‐2.0

0.0 2.0

4.0 6.0

8.0 10.0

0.10 1.00 10.00
VERTICAL STRAIN (%)
APPLIED PRESSURE (KSF)
SAMPLE NO.: GEOLOGIC UNIT:

SAMPLE DEPTH (FT): NATURAL/REMOLDED:
1 K 2 K 4 K AVERAGE
890 2030 4300 --

4.3 4.0 4.5 4.2
123.1 117.5 117.7 119.4
1 K 2 K 4 K AVERAGE

12.8 14.7 14.8 14.1
1258 2317 4218 --
1109 2317 4218 --
520
41 400
41 COHESION, C (PSF)
DRY DENSITY (PCF):

AFTER TEST CONDITIONS
B1-3
G3177-42-01
10835 WOODSIDE AVE

COHESION, C (PSF)

FRICTION ANGLE (DEGREES)
DIRECT SHEAR - AASHTO T-236
PROJECT NO.:

FRICTION ANGLE (DEGREES)

NORMAL STRESS TEST LOAD
ACTUAL NORMAL STRESS (PSF):

WATER CONTENT (%):

ULTIMATE

RESULTS
PEAK
Kgr
10'

NORMAL STRESS TEST LOAD
WATER CONTENT (%):

PEAK SHEAR STRESS (PSF):

ULT.-E.O.T. SHEAR STRESS (PSF):

INITIAL CONDITIONS
N
0 1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000

0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250 0.300
SHEAR STRESS (PSF)
HORIZONTAL DEFORMATION (IN)
1 K 2 K 4 K
1 K PEAK 2 K PEAK 4 K PEAK
1 K ULTIMATE 2 K ULTIMATE 4 K ULTIMATE
4 K
2 K
1K
0 1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
SHEAR STRESS (PSF)
NORMAL STRESS (PSF)

APPENDIX C
Geocon Project No. G3177-42-01 - C- 1 - September 22, 2023

APPENDIX C

STORM WATER MANAGEMENT INVESTIGATION
We understand storm water management devices are being proposed in accordance with the 2016 City of Santee BMP Design Manual. If not properly constructed, there is a potential for distress to improvements and properties located hydrologically down gradient or adjacent to these devices. Factors such as the amount of water to be detained, its residence time, and soil permeability have an important effect on seepage transmission and the potential adverse impacts that may occur if the storm water management features are not properly designed and constructed. We have not performed a hydrogeological study at the site. If infiltration of storm water runoff occurs, downstream properties may be subjected to seeps, springs, slope instability, raised groundwater, movement of foundations and slabs, or other undesirable impacts as a result of water infiltration.

Hydrologic Soil Group
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Services, possesses general information regarding the existing soil conditions for areas within the United States.

The USDA website also provides the Hydrologic Soil Group. Table C-1 presents the descriptions of the hydrologic soil groups.

TABLE C-1

HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP DEFINITIONS
Soil Group Soil Group Definition
A
Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission.

B
Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission.

C
Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission.

D
Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission.

Table C-2 presents the information from the USDA website for the property.

Geocon Project No. G3177-42-01 - C - 2 - September 22, 2023 TABLE C-2
USDA WEB SOIL SURVEY – HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP*
Map Unit Name
Map
Unit
Symbol
Approximate
Percentage
of Property
Hydrologic
Soil Group
kSAT of Most
Limiting Layer
(Inches/ Hour)
Ramona Sandy Loam, 2 to 5
Percent Slopes RaB 100 C 0.20 – 0.57
*The areas of the property that possess fill materials should be considered to possess a Hydrologic Soil Group D.

In Situ Testing
We performed constant-head infiltration tests at the locations shown on the Geologic Map, Figure 1.

Table C-3 presents the results of the infiltration tests. The field data sheets are attached herein. We applied a feasibility factor of safety of 2.0 to our estimated infiltration rates. Soil infiltration rates from in-situ tests can vary significantly from one location to another due to the heterogeneous characteristics inherent to most soil.

TABLE C-3

INFILTRATION TEST RESULTS
Test No. Geologic
Unit
Test
Elevation
(feet, MSL)
Field-Saturated Hydraulic
Conductivity/Infiltration
Rate, ksat (inch/hour)
Worksheet Infiltration
Rate1(inch/hour)
A-1 Topsoil 375 0.136. 0.068
A-2 Kgr 377 0.039 0.020
Average 0.088 0.044
1 Using a Factor of Safety of 2.

Infiltration categories include full infiltration, partial infiltration and no infiltration. Table C-4 presents the commonly accepted definitions of the potential infiltration categories based on the infiltration rates.

TABLE C-4

INFILTRATION CATEGORIES
Infiltration Category Field Infiltration Rate, I
(Inches/Hour)
Factored Infiltration Rate1, I
(Inches/Hour)
Full Infiltration I > 1.0 I > 0.5
Partial Infiltration 0.10 < I < 1.0 0.05 < I < 0.5
No Infiltration (Infeasible) I < 0.10 I < 0.05
1 Using a Factor of Safety of 2.

Geocon Project No. G3177-42-01 - C - 3 - September 22, 2023 Based on our observations and test results, the average of the factored infiltration rates at the test locations indicated rates less than 0.05 inches per hour. Therefore, partial and full infiltration on the property is considered infeasible based on the calculated infiltration rates, and the site possesses a “No Infiltration” condition.

GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Groundwater Elevations
We expect groundwater is approximately 20 feet or greater below existing grade. We do not expect groundwater to be encountered during construction of the proposed development. The SWS indicates that the depth to the groundwater table beneath an infiltration BMP must be greater than 10 feet for infiltration to be allowed. Therefore, infiltration would be feasible when considering the depth to groundwater.

New or Existing Utilities
Utilities are located on and adjacent to the property within the existing parking areas, driveways, and roadways. Therefore, full and partial infiltration within the areas near these utilities should be considered infeasible. Setbacks for infiltration should be incorporated if infiltration were to be considered. The setback for infiltration devices should be a minimum of 10 feet and a 1:1 plane of 1 foot below the closest edge of the deepest adjacent utility.

Existing and Planned Structures
Existing buildings are present adjacent to the site. Water should not be allowed to infiltrate in areas where it could affect the neighboring properties and existing adjacent structures, improvements, and roadway. Mitigation for existing structures consists of not allowing water infiltration within a lateral distance of at least 10 feet from the new or existing foundations and property lines.

Soil or Groundwater Contamination
We are unaware of contaminated soil on the property. Therefore, infiltration associated with this risk is considered feasible. In addition, groundwater mounding would not be a concern due to the lack of a near surface groundwater table.

Geocon Project No. G3177-42-01 - C - 4 - September 22, 2023

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Storm Water Evaluation Narrative
The in-place infiltration test locations were selected in areas likely used for potential infiltration devices.

We performed 2 infiltration tests within the underlying topsoil and granitic rock and the results indicate an average rate of 0.044 inches per hour (with an applied factor of safety of 2).

Storm Water Evaluation Conclusion
Based on the results of our infiltration tests (less than 0.05 inches per hour); we opine full and partial infiltration on the property is considered infeasible and the property possesses a “No Infiltration” condition.

Storm Water Management Devices
Liners and subdrains should be incorporated into the design and construction of the planned storm water devices. The liners should be impermeable (e.g. High-density polyethylene, HDPE, with a thickness of about 30 mil or equivalent Polyvinyl Chloride, PVC) to prevent water migration. The subdrains should be perforated within the liner area, installed at the base and above the liner, be at least 3 inches in diameter and consist of Schedule 40 PVC pipe. The subdrains outside of the liner should consist of solid pipe. The penetration of the liners at the subdrains should be properly waterproofed. The subdrains should be connected to a proper outlet. The devices should also be installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations.

Storm Water Standard Worksheets
The BMP design manual requests the geotechnical engineer complete the Categorization of Infiltration Feasibility Condition (Form I-8) worksheet information to help evaluate the potential for infiltration on the property. Form I-8 presents the completed information for the submittal process and is attached herein.

The regional storm water standards also have a worksheet that helps the project civil engineer estimate the factor of safety based on several factors. Table C-5 describes the suitability assessment input parameters related to the geotechnical engineering aspects for the factor of safety determination.

Geocon Project No. G3177-42-01 - C - 5 - September 22, 2023 TABLE C-5

SUITABILITY ASSESSMENT RELATED CONSIDERATIONS FOR INFILTRATION FACILITY

SAFETY FACTORS
Consideration High
Concern – 3 Points
Medium
Concern – 2 Points
Low
Concern – 1 Point
Assessment
Methods
Use of soil survey maps or
simple texture analysis to
estimate short-term
infiltration rates. Use of well
permeameter or borehole
methods without
accompanying continuous
boring log. Relatively sparse
testing with direct infiltration
methods
Use of well permeameter or
borehole methods with
accompanying continuous
boring log. Direct
measurement of infiltration
area with localized
infiltration measurement
methods (e.g.,
Infiltrometer). Moderate
spatial resolution
Direct measurement with
localized (i.e. small-scale)
infiltration testing methods
at relatively high resolution
or use of extensive test pit
infiltration measurement
methods.

Predominant Soil
Texture
Silty and clayey soils
with significant fines Loamy soils Granular to slightly loamy soils Site Soil
Variability
Highly variable soils
indicated from site
assessment or unknown
variability
Soil boring/test pits indicate
moderately homogenous
soils
Soil boring/test pits indicate
relatively homogenous soils
Depth to
Groundwater/
Impervious
Layer
<5 feet below
facility bottom
5-15 feet below
facility bottom
>15 feet below
facility bottom
Based on our geotechnical investigation and the previous table, Table C-6 presents the estimated factor values for the evaluation of the factor of safety. This table only presents the suitability assessment safety factor (Part A) of the worksheet. The project civil engineer should evaluate the safety factor for design (Part B) and use the combined safety factor for the design infiltration rate.

TABLE C-6
FACTOR OF SAFETY WORKSHEET DESIGN VALUES – PART A
Suitability Assessment Factor Category Assigned
Weight (w)
Factor
Value (v)
Product
(p = w x v)
Assessment Methods 0.25 2 0.50
Predominant Soil Texture 0.25 1 0.25
Site Soil Variability 0.25 2 0.50
Depth to Groundwater/ Impervious Layer 0.25 1 0.25
Suitability Assessment Safety Factor, SA = ∑p 1.50
*The project civil engineer should complete Form I-9 using the data on this table. Additional information is required to evaluate the design factor of safety.

Categorization of Infiltration Feasibility Condition Form I-8 Part 1 - Full Infiltration Feasibility ScreeningCriteria Would infiltration of the full design volume be feasible from a physical perspective without any undesirable consequences that cannot be reasonably mitigated?
Criteria Screening Question Yes No
1 Is the estimated reliable infiltration rate below proposed facility locations greater than 0.5 inches per hour? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2 and Appendix D.

X
Provide basis:

We performed 2 Aardvark Permeameter tests at the site in areas where storm water devices may be installed. The following presents the results of the field infiltration tests:

A-1 at 4.5 feet: 0.136 inches/hour (0.068 inches/hour with FOS=2) A-2 at 4.0 feet: 0.039 inches/hour (0.020 inches/hour with FOS=2) These tests result in an average of 0.088 inches/hour (0.044 inches/hour with an applied factor of safety of 2); less than 0.5 inches per hour.
2 Can infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour be allowed without increasing risk of geotechnical hazards (slope stability, groundwater mounding, utilities, or other factors) that cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2.

X
Provide basis:

Geologic hazards do not exist at the site that would preclude infiltration.

Form I-8 Page 2 of 4
Criteria Screening Question Yes No
3 Can infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour be allowed without increasing risk of groundwater contamination (shallow water table, storm water pollutants or other factors) that cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3.

X
Provide basis:

Groundwater was not encountered during our investigation. We expect groundwater is approximately 20 feet or greater below existing grade. Therefore, risk of groundwater contamination does not exist at the site that would preclude infiltration.
4 Can infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour be allowed without causing potential water balance issues such as change of seasonality of ephemeral streams or increased discharge of contaminated groundwater to surface waters? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3.

X
Provide basis:

We do not expect infiltration will cause water balance issues such as seasonality of ephemeral streams or increased discharge of contaminated groundwater to surface waters.

Part 1
Result*
If all answers to rows 1 - 4 are “Yes” a full infiltration design is potentially feasible.

The feasibility screening category is Full Infiltration If any answer from row 1-4 is “No”, infiltration may be possible to some extent but would not generally be feasible or desirable to achieve a “full infiltration” design.

Proceed to Part 2
No Full
Infiltration
*To be completed using gathered site information and best professional judgment considering the definition of MEP in the MS4 Permit. Additional testing and/or studies may be required by the City to substantiate findings.

Form I-8 Page 3 of 4
Part 2 – Partial Infiltration vs. No Infiltration Feasibility Screening Criteria Would infiltration of water in any appreciable amount be physically feasible without any negative consequences that cannot be reasonably mitigated?
Criteria Screening Question Yes No
5 Do soil and geologic conditions allow for infiltration in any appreciable rate or volume? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2 and Appendix D.

X
Provide basis:

We performed 2 Aardvark Permeameter tests at the site in areas where storm water devices may be installed. The following presents the results of the field infiltration tests:

A-1 at 4.5 feet: 0.136 inches/hour (0.068 inches/hour with FOS=2) A-2 at 4.0 feet: 0.039 inches/hour (0.020 inches/hour with FOS=2) These tests result in an average of 0.088 inches/hour (0.044 inches/hour with an applied factor of safety of 2); less than 0.05 inches per hour.
6 Can Infiltration in any appreciable quantity be allowed without increasing risk of geotechnical hazards (slope
stability, groundwater mounding, utilities, or other factors) that cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2.

X
Provide basis:

Geologic hazards do not exist at the site that would preclude infiltration.

Form I-8 Page 4 of 4
Criteria Screening Question Yes No
7 Can Infiltration in any appreciable quantity be allowed without posing significant risk for groundwater related concerns (shallow water table, storm water pollutants or other factors)? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3.

X
Provide basis:

Groundwater was not encountered during our investigation. We expect groundwater is approximately 20 feet or greater below existing grade. Therefore, risk of groundwater contamination does not exist at the site that would preclude infiltration.
8 Can infiltration be allowed without violating downstream water rights? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3.

X
Provide basis:

We have not provided a study regarding water rights. However, these rights are not typical in the San Diego County area.

Part 2
Result*
If all answers from row 1-4 are yes then partial infiltration design is potentially feasible.

The feasibility screening category is Partial Infiltration.

If any answer from row 5-8 is no, then infiltration of any volume is considered to be infeasible within the drainage area. The feasibility screening category is No Infiltration.

No Infiltration
*To be completed using gathered site information and best professional judgment considering the definition of MEP in the MS4 Permit. Additional testing and/or studies may be required by the City to substantiate findings.

TEST NO.: A-1 GEOLOGIC UNIT: Qu
EXCAVATION ELEVATION (MSL, FT): 379
Reading Time Elapsed
(min)
Water Weight
Consumed (lbs)
Water Volume
Consumed (in3
) Q (in3
/min)
1 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.00
2 5.00 0.273 7.56 1.512
3 5.00 0.246 6.81 1.362
4 6.00 0.264 7.31 1.218
5 4.00 0.180 4.98 1.246
6 5.00 0.222 6.15 1.230
7 5.00 0.213 5.90 1.180
8 5.00 0.207 5.73 1.146
9 5.00 0.207 5.73 1.146

TEST RESULTS
FIELD-SATURATED INFILTRATION RATE (IN/HR):

FACTORED INFILTRATION RATE (IN/HR):

0.136

0.068
STEADY FLOW RATE (IN3/MIN): 1.146

TEST DATA

AARDVARK PERMEAMETER TEST RESULTS
EXTRA SPACE STORAGE #1984
PROJECT NO.: G3177-42-01

TEST INFORMATION
BOREHOLE DIAMETER (IN): 4

4.5 375
FACTOR OF SAFETY: 2.0
BOREHOLE DEPTH (FT):

TEST/BOTTOM ELEVATION (MSL, FT):

MEASURED HEAD HEIGHT (IN):

CALCULATED HEAD HEIGHT (IN):

6.0 6.2

0.0 1.0

2.0 3.0

4.0 5.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Q (in3/min)
Time (min)
TEST NO.: A-2 GEOLOGIC UNIT: Kgr
EXCAVATION ELEVATION (MSL, FT): 381
Reading Time Elapsed
(min)
Water Weight
Consumed (lbs)
Water Volume
Consumed (in3
) Q (in3
/min)
1 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.00
2 6.00 0.755 20.91 3.485
3 4.00 0.440 12.18 3.046
4 5.00 0.510 14.12 2.825
5 5.00 0.080 2.22 0.443
6 6.00 0.050 1.38 0.231
7 4.00 0.045 1.25 0.312
8 5.00 0.070 1.94 0.388
9 5.00 0.070 1.94 0.388

TEST RESULTS
FIELD-SATURATED INFILTRATION RATE (IN/HR):

FACTORED INFILTRATION RATE (IN/HR):

0.039

0.020
STEADY FLOW RATE (IN3/MIN): 0.329

TEST DATA

AARDVARK PERMEAMETER TEST RESULTS
EXTRA SPACE STORAGE #1984
PROJECT NO.: G3177-42-01

TEST INFORMATION
BOREHOLE DIAMETER (IN): 4

4.0 377
FACTOR OF SAFETY: 2.0
BOREHOLE DEPTH (FT):

TEST/BOTTOM ELEVATION (MSL, FT):

MEASURED HEAD HEIGHT (IN):

CALCULATED HEAD HEIGHT (IN):

6.0 6.1

0.0 1.0

2.0 3.0

4.0 5.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Q (in3/min)
Time (min)

APPENDIX D

RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
FOR

EXTRA SPACE STORAGE
10835 WOODSIDE AVENUE

SANTEE, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. G3177-42-01
GI rev. 07/2015

RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS

1. GENERAL

1.1 These Recommended Grading Specifications shall be used in conjunction with the Geotechnical Report for the project prepared by Geocon. The recommendations contained in the text of the Geotechnical Report are a part of the earthwork and grading specifications and shall supersede the provisions contained hereinafter in the case of conflict.

1.2 Prior to the commencement of grading, a geotechnical consultant (Consultant) shall be employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for substantial conformance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Report and these specifications. The Consultant should provide adequate testing and observation services so that they may assess whether, in their opinion, the work was performed in substantial conformance with these specifications. It shall be the responsibility of the Contractor to assist the Consultant and keep them apprised of work schedules and changes so that personnel may be scheduled accordingly.

1.3 It shall be the sole responsibility of the Contractor to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the work in accordance with applicable grading codes or agency ordinances, these specifications and the approved grading plans. If, in the opinion of the Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions such as questionable soil materials, poor moisture condition, inadequate compaction, and/or adverse weather result in a quality of work not in conformance with these specifications, the Consultant will be empowered to reject the work and recommend to the Owner that grading be stopped until the unacceptable conditions are corrected.

2. DEFINITIONS

2.1 Owner shall refer to the owner of the property or the entity on whose behalf the grading work is being performed and who has contracted with the Contractor to have grading performed.

2.2 Contractor shall refer to the Contractor performing the site grading work.

2.3 Civil Engineer or Engineer of Work shall refer to the California licensed Civil Engineer or consulting firm responsible for preparation of the grading plans, surveying and verifying as-graded topography.

2.4 Consultant shall refer to the soil engineering and engineering geology consulting firm retained to provide geotechnical services for the project.

GI rev. 07/2015

2.5 Soil Engineer shall refer to a California licensed Civil Engineer retained by the Owner, who is experienced in the practice of geotechnical engineering. The Soil Engineer shall be responsible for having qualified representatives on-site to observe and test the Contractor's work for conformance with these specifications.

2.6 Engineering Geologist shall refer to a California licensed Engineering Geologist retained by the Owner to provide geologic observations and recommendations during the site grading.

2.7 Geotechnical Report shall refer to a soil report (including all addenda) which may include a geologic reconnaissance or geologic investigation that was prepared specifically for the development of the project for which these Recommended Grading Specifications are intended to apply.

3. MATERIALS

3.1 Materials for compacted fill shall consist of any soil excavated from the cut areas or imported to the site that, in the opinion of the Consultant, is suitable for use in construction of fills. In general, fill materials can be classified as soil fills, soil-rock fills or rock fills, as defined below.

3.1.1 Soil fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps greater than 12 inches in maximum dimension and containing at least 40 percent by weight of material smaller than ¾ inch in size.

3.1.2 Soil-rock fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps larger than 4 feet in maximum dimension and containing a sufficient matrix of soil fill to allow for proper compaction of soil fill around the rock fragments or hard lumps as specified in Paragraph 6.2. Oversize rock is defined as material greater than 12 inches.

3.1.3 Rock fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps larger than 3 feet in maximum dimension and containing little or no fines. Fines are defined as material smaller than ¾ inch in maximum dimension. The quantity of fines shall be less than approximately 20 percent of the rock fill quantity.

3.2 Material of a perishable, spongy, or otherwise unsuitable nature as determined by the Consultant shall not be used in fills.

3.3 Materials used for fill, either imported or on-site, shall not contain hazardous materials as defined by the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 30, Articles 9 GI rev. 07/2015
and 10; 40CFR; and any other applicable local, state or federal laws. The Consultant shall not be responsible for the identification or analysis of the potential presence of hazardous materials. However, if observations, odors or soil discoloration cause Consultant to suspect the presence of hazardous materials, the Consultant may request from the Owner the termination of grading operations within the affected area. Prior to resuming grading operations, the Owner shall provide a written report to the Consultant indicating that the suspected materials are not hazardous as defined by applicable laws and regulations.

3.4 The outer 15 feet of soil-rock fill slopes, measured horizontally, should be composed of properly compacted soil fill materials approved by the Consultant. Rock fill may extend to the slope face, provided that the slope is not steeper than 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) and a soil layer no thicker than 12 inches is track-walked onto the face for landscaping purposes. This procedure may be utilized provided it is acceptable to the governing agency, Owner and Consultant.

3.5 Samples of soil materials to be used for fill should be tested in the laboratory by the Consultant to determine the maximum density, optimum moisture content, and, where appropriate, shear strength, expansion, and gradation characteristics of the soil.

3.6 During grading, soil or groundwater conditions other than those identified in the Geotechnical Report may be encountered by the Contractor. The Consultant shall be notified immediately to evaluate the significance of the unanticipated condition.

4. CLEARING AND PREPARING AREAS TO BE FILLED

4.1 Areas to be excavated and filled shall be cleared and grubbed. Clearing shall consist of complete removal above the ground surface of trees, stumps, brush, vegetation, man-made structures, and similar debris. Grubbing shall consist of removal of stumps, roots, buried logs and other unsuitable material and shall be performed in areas to be graded. Roots and other projections exceeding 1½ inches in diameter shall be removed to a depth of 3 feet below the surface of the ground. Borrow areas shall be grubbed to the extent necessary to provide suitable fill materials.

4.2 Asphalt pavement material removed during clearing operations should be properly disposed at an approved off-site facility or in an acceptable area of the project evaluated by Geocon and the property owner. Concrete fragments that are free of reinforcing steel may be placed in fills, provided they are placed in accordance with Section 6.2 or 6.3 of this document.

GI rev. 07/2015

4.3 After clearing and grubbing of organic matter and other unsuitable material, loose or porous soils shall be removed to the depth recommended in the Geotechnical Report. The depth of removal and compaction should be observed and approved by a representative of the Consultant. The exposed surface shall then be plowed or scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches and until the surface is free from uneven features that would tend to prevent uniform compaction by the equipment to be used.

4.4 Where the slope ratio of the original ground is steeper than 5:1 (horizontal:vertical), or where recommended by the Consultant, the original ground should be benched in accordance with the following illustration.

TYPICAL BENCHING DETAIL
Remove All
Unsuitable Material
As Recommended By
Consultant
Finish Grade Original Ground
Finish Slope Surface
Slope To Be Such That
Sloughing Or Sliding
Does Not Occur Varies
“B”
See Note 1
No Scale
See Note 2
1 2
DETAIL NOTES: (1) Key width "B" should be a minimum of 10 feet, or sufficiently wide to permit complete coverage with the compaction equipment used. The base of the key should be graded horizontal, or inclined slightly into the natural slope. (2) The outside of the key should be below the topsoil or unsuitable surficial material and at least 2 feet into dense formational material. Where hard rock is exposed in the bottom of the key, the depth and configuration of the key may be modified as approved by the Consultant.

4.5 After areas to receive fill have been cleared and scarified, the surface should be moisture conditioned to achieve the proper moisture content, and compacted as recommended in Section 6 of these specifications.

GI rev. 07/2015

5. COMPACTION EQUIPMENT

5.1 Compaction of soil or soil-rock fill shall be accomplished by sheepsfoot or segmented-steel wheeled rollers, vibratory rollers, multiple-wheel pneumatic-tired rollers, or other types of acceptable compaction equipment. Equipment shall be of such a design that it will be capable of compacting the soil or soil-rock fill to the specified relative compaction at the specified moisture content.

5.2 Compaction of rock fills shall be performed in accordance with Section 6.3.

6. PLACING, SPREADING AND COMPACTION OF FILL MATERIAL

6.1 Soil fill, as defined in Paragraph 3.1.1, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with the following recommendations:

6.1.1 Soil fill shall be placed by the Contractor in layers that, when compacted, should generally not exceed 8 inches. Each layer shall be spread evenly and shall be thoroughly mixed during spreading to obtain uniformity of material and moisture in each layer. The entire fill shall be constructed as a unit in nearly level lifts. Rock materials greater than 12 inches in maximum dimension shall be placed in accordance with Section 6.2 or 6.3 of these specifications.

6.1.2 In general, the soil fill shall be compacted at a moisture content at or above the optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM D 1557.

6.1.3 When the moisture content of soil fill is below that specified by the Consultant, water shall be added by the Contractor until the moisture content is in the range specified.

6.1.4 When the moisture content of the soil fill is above the range specified by the Consultant or too wet to achieve proper compaction, the soil fill shall be aerated by the Contractor by blading/mixing, or other satisfactory methods until the moisture content is within the range specified.

6.1.5 After each layer has been placed, mixed, and spread evenly, it shall be thoroughly compacted by the Contractor to a relative compaction of at least 90 percent.

Relative compaction is defined as the ratio (expressed in percent) of the in-place dry density of the compacted fill to the maximum laboratory dry density as determined in accordance with ASTM D 1557. Compaction shall be continuous over the entire area, and compaction equipment shall make sufficient passes so that the specified minimum relative compaction has been achieved throughout the entire fill.

GI rev. 07/2015

6.1.6 Where practical, soils having an Expansion Index greater than 50 should be placed at least 3 feet below finish pad grade and should be compacted at a moisture content generally 2 to 4 percent greater than the optimum moisture content for the material.

6.1.7 Properly compacted soil fill shall extend to the design surface of fill slopes. To achieve proper compaction, it is recommended that fill slopes be over-built by at least 3 feet and then cut to the design grade. This procedure is considered preferable to track-walking of slopes, as described in the following paragraph.

6.1.8 As an alternative to over-building of slopes, slope faces may be back-rolled with a heavy-duty loaded sheepsfoot or vibratory roller at maximum 4-foot fill height intervals. Upon completion, slopes should then be track-walked with a D-8 dozer or similar equipment, such that a dozer track covers all slope surfaces at least twice.

6.2 Soil-rock fill, as defined in Paragraph 3.1.2, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with the following recommendations:

6.2.1 Rocks larger than 12 inches but less than 4 feet in maximum dimension may be incorporated into the compacted soil fill, but shall be limited to the area measured 15 feet minimum horizontally from the slope face and 5 feet below finish grade or 3 feet below the deepest utility, whichever is deeper.

6.2.2 Rocks or rock fragments up to 4 feet in maximum dimension may either be individually placed or placed in windrows. Under certain conditions, rocks or rock fragments up to 10 feet in maximum dimension may be placed using similar methods. The acceptability of placing rock materials greater than 4 feet in maximum dimension shall be evaluated during grading as specific cases arise and shall be approved by the Consultant prior to placement.

6.2.3 For individual placement, sufficient space shall be provided between rocks to allow for passage of compaction equipment.

6.2.4 For windrow placement, the rocks should be placed in trenches excavated in properly compacted soil fill. Trenches should be approximately 5 feet wide and 4 feet deep in maximum dimension. The voids around and beneath rocks should be filled with approved granular soil having a Sand Equivalent of 30 or greater and should be compacted by flooding. Windrows may also be placed utilizing an "open-face" method in lieu of the trench procedure, however, this method should first be approved by the Consultant.

GI rev. 07/2015

6.2.5 Windrows should generally be parallel to each other and may be placed either parallel to or perpendicular to the face of the slope depending on the site geometry.

The minimum horizontal spacing for windrows shall be 12 feet center-to-center with a 5-foot stagger or offset from lower courses to next overlying course. The minimum vertical spacing between windrow courses shall be 2 feet from the top of a lower windrow to the bottom of the next higher windrow.

6.2.6 Rock placement, fill placement and flooding of approved granular soil in the windrows should be continuously observed by the Consultant.

6.3 Rock fills, as defined in Section 3.1.3, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with the following recommendations:

6.3.1 The base of the rock fill shall be placed on a sloping surface (minimum slope of 2 percent). The surface shall slope toward suitable subdrainage outlet facilities. The rock fills shall be provided with subdrains during construction so that a hydrostatic pressure buildup does not develop. The subdrains shall be permanently connected to controlled drainage facilities to control post-construction infiltration of water.

6.3.2 Rock fills shall be placed in lifts not exceeding 3 feet. Placement shall be by rock trucks traversing previously placed lifts and dumping at the edge of the currently placed lift. Spreading of the rock fill shall be by dozer to facilitate seating of the rock. The rock fill shall be watered heavily during placement. Watering shall consist of water trucks traversing in front of the current rock lift face and spraying water continuously during rock placement. Compaction equipment with compactive energy comparable to or greater than that of a 20-ton steel vibratory roller or other compaction equipment providing suitable energy to achieve the required compaction or deflection as recommended in Paragraph 6.3.3 shall be utilized. The number of passes to be made should be determined as described in Paragraph 6.3.3. Once a rock fill lift has been covered with soil fill, no additional rock fill lifts will be permitted over the soil fill.

6.3.3 Plate bearing tests, in accordance with ASTM D 1196, may be performed in both the compacted soil fill and in the rock fill to aid in determining the required minimum number of passes of the compaction equipment. If performed, a minimum of three plate bearing tests should be performed in the properly compacted soil fill (minimum relative compaction of 90 percent). Plate bearing tests shall then be performed on areas of rock fill having two passes, four passes and six passes of the compaction equipment, respectively. The number of passes required for the rock fill shall be determined by comparing the results of the plate bearing tests for the soil fill and the rock fill and by evaluating the deflection GI rev. 07/2015
variation with number of passes. The required number of passes of the compaction equipment will be performed as necessary until the plate bearing deflections are equal to or less than that determined for the properly compacted soil fill. In no case will the required number of passes be less than two.

6.3.4 A representative of the Consultant should be present during rock fill operations to observe that the minimum number of “passes” have been obtained, that water is being properly applied and that specified procedures are being followed. The actual number of plate bearing tests will be determined by the Consultant during grading.

6.3.5 Test pits shall be excavated by the Contractor so that the Consultant can state that, in their opinion, sufficient water is present and that voids between large rocks are properly filled with smaller rock material. In-place density testing will not be required in the rock fills.

6.3.6 To reduce the potential for “piping” of fines into the rock fill from overlying soil fill material, a 2-foot layer of graded filter material shall be placed above the uppermost lift of rock fill. The need to place graded filter material below the rock should be determined by the Consultant prior to commencing grading. The gradation of the graded filter material will be determined at the time the rock fill is being excavated. Materials typical of the rock fill should be submitted to the Consultant in a timely manner, to allow design of the graded filter prior to the commencement of rock fill placement.

6.3.7 Rock fill placement should be continuously observed during placement by the Consultant.

7. SUBDRAINS

7.1 The geologic units on the site may have permeability characteristics and/or fracture systems that could be susceptible under certain conditions to seepage. The use of canyon subdrains may be necessary to mitigate the potential for adverse impacts associated with seepage conditions. Canyon subdrains with lengths in excess of 500 feet or extensions of existing offsite subdrains should use 8-inch-diameter pipes. Canyon subdrains less than 500 feet in length should use 6-inch-diameter pipes.

GI rev. 07/2015

TYPICAL CANYON DRAIN DETAIL

7.2 Slope drains within stability fill keyways should use 4-inch-diameter (or lager) pipes.

GI rev. 07/2015

TYPICAL STABILITY FILL DETAIL

7.3 The actual subdrain locations will be evaluated in the field during the remedial grading operations. Additional drains may be necessary depending on the conditions observed and the requirements of the local regulatory agencies. Appropriate subdrain outlets should be evaluated prior to finalizing 40-scale grading plans.

7.4 Rock fill or soil-rock fill areas may require subdrains along their down-slope perimeters to mitigate the potential for buildup of water from construction or landscape irrigation. The subdrains should be at least 6-inch-diameter pipes encapsulated in gravel and filter fabric.

Rock fill drains should be constructed using the same requirements as canyon subdrains.

GI rev. 07/2015

7.5 Prior to outletting, the final 20-foot segment of a subdrain that will not be extended during future development should consist of non-perforated drainpipe. At the non-perforated/ perforated interface, a seepage cutoff wall should be constructed on the downslope side of the pipe.

TYPICAL CUT OFF WALL DETAIL

7.6 Subdrains that discharge into a natural drainage course or open space area should be provided with a permanent headwall structure.

GI rev. 07/2015

TYPICAL HEADWALL DETAIL

7.7 The final grading plans should show the location of the proposed subdrains. After completion of remedial excavations and subdrain installation, the project civil engineer should survey the drain locations and prepare an “as-built” map showing the drain locations. The final outlet and connection locations should be determined during grading operations. Subdrains that will be extended on adjacent projects after grading can be placed on formational material and a vertical riser should be placed at the end of the subdrain. The grading contractor should consider videoing the subdrains shortly after burial to check proper installation and functionality. The contractor is responsible for the performance of the drains.

GI rev. 07/2015

8. OBSERVATION AND TESTING

8.1 The Consultant shall be the Owner’s representative to observe and perform tests during clearing, grubbing, filling, and compaction operations. In general, no more than 2 feet in vertical elevation of soil or soil-rock fill should be placed without at least one field density test being performed within that interval. In addition, a minimum of one field density test should be performed for every 2,000 cubic yards of soil or soil-rock fill placed and compacted.

8.2 The Consultant should perform a sufficient distribution of field density tests of the compacted soil or soil-rock fill to provide a basis for expressing an opinion whether the fill material is compacted as specified. Density tests shall be performed in the compacted materials below any disturbed surface. When these tests indicate that the density of any layer of fill or portion thereof is below that specified, the particular layer or areas represented by the test shall be reworked until the specified density has been achieved.

8.3 During placement of rock fill, the Consultant should observe that the minimum number of passes have been obtained per the criteria discussed in Section 6.3.3. The Consultant should request the excavation of observation pits and may perform plate bearing tests on the placed rock fills. The observation pits will be excavated to provide a basis for expressing an opinion as to whether the rock fill is properly seated and sufficient moisture has been applied to the material. When observations indicate that a layer of rock fill or any portion thereof is below that specified, the affected layer or area shall be reworked until the rock fill has been adequately seated and sufficient moisture applied.

8.4 A settlement monitoring program designed by the Consultant may be conducted in areas of rock fill placement. The specific design of the monitoring program shall be as recommended in the Conclusions and Recommendations section of the project Geotechnical Report or in the final report of testing and observation services performed during grading.

8.5 We should observe the placement of subdrains, to check that the drainage devices have been placed and constructed in substantial conformance with project specifications.

8.6 Testing procedures shall conform to the following Standards as appropriate:

8.6.1 Soil and Soil-Rock Fills:

8.6.1.1 Field Density Test, ASTM D 1556, Density of Soil In-Place By the Sand-Cone Method.

GI rev. 07/2015

8.6.1.2 Field Density Test, Nuclear Method, ASTM D 6938, Density of Soil and Soil-Aggregate In-Place by Nuclear Methods (Shallow Depth).

8.6.1.3 Laboratory Compaction Test, ASTM D 1557, Moisture-Density Relations of Soils and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures Using 10-Pound Hammer and 18-Inch Drop.

8.6.1.4. Expansion Index Test, ASTM D 4829, Expansion Index Test.

9. PROTECTION OF WORK

9.1 During construction, the Contractor shall properly grade all excavated surfaces to provide positive drainage and prevent ponding of water. Drainage of surface water shall be controlled to avoid damage to adjoining properties or to finished work on the site. The Contractor shall take remedial measures to prevent erosion of freshly graded areas until such time as permanent drainage and erosion control features have been installed. Areas subjected to erosion or sedimentation shall be properly prepared in accordance with the Specifications prior to placing additional fill or structures.

9.2 After completion of grading as observed and tested by the Consultant, no further excavation or filling shall be conducted except in conjunction with the services of the Consultant.

10. CERTIFICATIONS AND FINAL REPORTS

10.1 Upon completion of the work, Contractor shall furnish Owner a certification by the Civil Engineer stating that the lots and/or building pads are graded to within 0.1 foot vertically of elevations shown on the grading plan and that all tops and toes of slopes are within 0.5 foot horizontally of the positions shown on the grading plans. After installation of a section of subdrain, the project Civil Engineer should survey its location and prepare an as-built plan of the subdrain location. The project Civil Engineer should verify the proper outlet for the subdrains and the Contractor should ensure that the drain system is free of obstructions.

10.2 The Owner is responsible for furnishing a final as-graded soil and geologic report satisfactory to the appropriate governing or accepting agencies. The as-graded report should be prepared and signed by a California licensed Civil Engineer experienced in geotechnical engineering and by a California Certified Engineering Geologist, indicating that the geotechnical aspects of the grading were performed in substantial conformance with the Specifications or approved changes to the Specifications.

Geocon Project No. G3177-42-01 September 22, 2023

LIST OF REFERENCES
CGS (2021a), EQ Zapp: California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application, web application that queries California Geological Survey mapped earthquake hazard zones, https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/geohazards/eq-zapp, accessed September 2023.

CGS (2021b), California Tsunami Maps and Data, web application for accessing tsunami inundation hazard, https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps, accessed September 2023.

City of Santee (2021), Seismic Safety Study, Geotechnical/Seismic Hazard Map; FEMA (2020), Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), Map Number 06073C1654G, effective date May 16, 2012, http://www.fema.gov/portal/home, accessed September 2023.

SEAOC (2019), OSHPD Seismic Design Maps: web application that uses USGS data to retrieve seismic design data, Structural Engineers Association of California website, http://seismicmaps.org/, accessed September 2023.

Tan, S, S. (2002), Geologic Map of the El Cajon 7.5’ Quadrangle, San Dieg0, California, CGS & USGS, scale 1:24,000.

USGS (2016), Quaternary Fault and Fold Database of the United States: U.S. Geological Survey website, https://www.usgs.gov/programs/earthquake-hazards/faults, accessed September 2023.

CLASS 32 C ATEGORICAL E XEMPTION
MARCH 2025

E XTRA S PACE S TORAGE S ANTEE P ROJECT

S ANTEE , C ALIFORNIA
P:\2023\20231146 - Extra Space Storage Santee\Initial Study_CE\Extra Space Santee CE 3.12.25_clean.docx (03/12/25)

ATTACHMENT F

STORMWATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN
PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2024

CITY OF SANTEE

PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (PDP)

STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWQMP)
FOR
Extra Space Storage - Santee
CUP-2024-0001
10835 Santee Woodside Avenue
Santee, CA 92071
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER(S):
384-120-46-00
ENGINEER OF WORK:
___________________________________________________________________________________ Lucas A. Corsbie, RCE 72588
PREPARED FOR:

Clint Kleppe
2795 E. Cottonwood Parkway, STE 400
Salt Lake City, Utah 84121
480.266.5263
PDP SWQMP PREPARED BY:

Ware Malcomb
3911 Sorrento Valley Blvd, STE 120
San Diego, CA 92121
858.875.1069
DATE OF SWQMP:

September 11, 2024
PLANS PREPARED BY:

Ware Malcomb
3911 Sorrento Valley Blvd, STE 120
San Diego, CA 92121
858.875.1069
PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2024
Page intentionally blank

PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2024

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acronym Sheet
PDP SWQMP Preparer's Certification Page
PDP SWQMP Project Owner's Certification Page
Submittal Record
Project Vicinity Map
FORM I-1 Applicability of Permanent, Post-Construction Storm Water BMP Requirements FORM I-2 Project Type Determination Checklist (Standard Project or PDP) FORM I-3B Site Information Checklist for PDPs
FORM I-4 Source Control BMP Checklist for All Development Projects FORM I-5 Site Design BMP Checklist for All Development Projects FORM I-6 Summary of PDP Structural BMPs
Attachment 1: Backup for PDP Pollutant Control BMPs
Attachment 1a: DMA Exhibit
Attachment 1b: Tabular Summary of DMAs and Design Capture Volume Calculations Attachment 1c: Harvest and Use Feasibility Screening (when applicable) Attachment 1d: Categorization of Infiltration Feasibility Condition (when applicable) Attachment 1e: Pollutant Control BMP Design Worksheets / Calculations Attachment 2: Backup for PDP Hydromodification Control Measures Attachment 2a: Hydromodification Management Exhibit
Attachment 2b: Management of Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas Attachment 2c: Geomorphic Assessment of Receiving Channels Attachment 2d: Flow Control Facility Design
Attachment 3: Structural BMP Maintenance Plan
Attachment 3a: B Structural BMP Maintenance Thresholds and Actions Attachment 3b: Draft Maintenance Agreement (when applicable) Attachment 4: Copy of Plan Sheets Showing Permanent Storm Water BMPs

PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2024

ACRONYMS
APN Assessor's Parcel Number
BMP Best Management Practice
HMP Hydromodification Management Plan
HSG Hydrologic Soil Group
MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
N/A Not Applicable
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
PDP Priority Development Project
PE Professional Engineer
SC Source Control
SD Site Design
SDRWQCB San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
SIC Standard Industrial Classification
SWQMP Storm Water Quality Management Plan

PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2024

SWQMP PREPARER'S

CERTIFICATION PAGE
Project Name: Extra Space Storage - Santee
Permit Application Number: CUP-2024-0001

PREPARER'S CERTIFICATION
I hereby declare that I am the Engineer in Responsible Charge of design of storm water best management practices (BMPs) for this project, and that I have exercised responsible charge over the design of the BMPs as defined in Section 6703 of the Business and Professions Code, and that the design is consistent with the PDP requirements of the City of Santee BMP Design Manual, which is a design manual for compliance with local City of Santee and regional MS4 Permit (California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Diego Region Order No. R9-2015-0100) requirements for storm water management.

I have read and understand that the [City Engineer] has adopted minimum requirements for managing urban runoff, including storm water, from land development activities, as described in the BMP Design Manual. I certify that this PDP SWQMP has been completed to the best of my ability and accurately reflects the project being proposed and the applicable BMPs proposed to minimize the potentially negative impacts of this project's land development activities on water quality. I understand and acknowledge that the plan check review of this PDP SWQMP by the [City Engineer] is confined to a review and does not relieve me, as the Engineer in Responsible Charge of design of storm water BMPs for this project, of my responsibilities for project design.
________________________________________________________ Engineer of Work's Signature, PE Number & Expiration Date ________________________________________________________ Print Name
________________________________________________________ Company
____________________________
Date
Engineer's Seal:

PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2024
Page intentionally blank

PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2024

SWQMP PROJECT OWNER'S

CERTIFICATION PAGE
Project Name: Extra Space Storage – Santee
Permit Application Number: CUP-2024-0001

PROJECT OWNER'S CERTIFICATION
This PDP SWQMP has been prepared for Clint Kleppe by Ware Malcomb. The PDP SWQMP is intended to comply with the PDP requirements of the City of Santee BMP Design Manual, which is a design manual for compliance with local City of Santee and regional MS4 Permit (California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Diego Region Order No. R9-2015-0100) requirements for storm water management.

The undersigned, while it owns the subject property, is responsible for the implementation of the provisions of this plan. Once the undersigned transfers its interests in the property, its successor-ininterest shall bear the aforementioned responsibility to implement the best management practices (BMPs) described within this plan, including ensuring on-going operation and maintenance of structural BMPs. A signed copy of this document shall be available on the subject property into perpetuity. ________________________________________________________ Project Owner's Signature
________________________________________________________ Print Name
________________________________________________________ Company
____________________________
Date

PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2024
Page intentionally blank

PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2024

SUBMITTAL RECORD
Use this Table to keep a record of submittals of this PDP SWQMP. Each time the PDP SWQMP is resubmitted, provide the date and status of the project. In column 4 summarize the changes that have been made or indicate if response to plancheck comments is included. When applicable, insert response to plancheck comments behind this page.

Submittal
Number
Date Project Status Summary of Changes
1 2/26/2024 X Preliminary Design /
Planning/ CEQA
Final Design
Initial Submittal
2 5/23/2024 X Preliminary Design /
Planning/ CEQA
Final Design
2 nd Submittal
3 09/11/2024 X Preliminary Design /
Planning/ CEQA
Final Design
3 rd Submittal
4 Preliminary Design /
Planning/ CEQA
Final Design

PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2024

PROJECT VICINITY MAP
Project Name: Extra Space Storage - Santee
Permit Application Number: CUP-2024-0001

PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2024
Applicability of Permanent, Post-Construction
Storm Water BMP Requirements
(Storm Water Intake Form for all Development Permit Applications) Form I-1
Model BMP Design
Manual
[August 31, 2015]
Project Identification
Project Name: Extra Space Storage – Santee
Permit Application Number: CUP-2024-0001 Date: 09/11/2024 Project Address: 10835 Santee Woodside Avenue Santee, CA 92071 Determination of Requirements
The purpose of this form is to identify permanent, post-construction requirements that apply to the project. This form serves as a short summary of applicable requirements, in some cases referencing separate forms that will serve as the backup for the determination of requirements.

Answer each step below, starting with Step 1 and progressing through each step until reaching "Stop".

Upon reaching a Stop, do not complete further Steps beyond the Stop.

Refer to BMP Design Manual sections and/or separate forms referenced in each step below.

Step Answer Progression
Step 1: Is the project a "development
project"?
See Section 1.3 of the BMP Design
Manual for guidance.

X Yes Go to Step 2.
No Stop.

Permanent BMP requirements do not apply.

No SWQMP will be required. Provide
discussion below.

Discussion / justification if the project is not a "development project" (e.g., the project includes only interior remodels within an existing building):

Step 2: Is the project a Standard
Project, Priority Development Project
(PDP), or exception to PDP definitions?
To answer this item, see Section 1.4 of
the BMP Design Manual in its entirety
for guidance, AND complete Form I-2,
Project Type Determination.

Standard
Project
Stop.

Only Standard Project requirements apply,
including Standard Project SWQMP.

X PDP Standard and PDP requirements apply,
including PDP SWQMP.

Go to Step 3.
Exception
to PDP
definitions
Stop.

Standard Project requirements apply, and any
additional requirements specific to the type of
project. Provide discussion and list any
additional requirements below. Prepare
Standard Project SWQMP.

PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2024
Form I-1 Page 2, Form Template Date: August 31, 2015
[Step 2 Continued from Page 1] Discussion / justification, and additional requirements for exceptions to PDP definitions, if applicable:

Step 3 (PDPs only). Is the project
subject to earlier PDP requirements
due to a prior lawful approval?
See Section 1.10 of the BMP Design
Manual for guidance.
Yes Consult the [City Engineer] to determine
requirements. Provide discussion and identify
requirements below.

Go to Step 4.

X No BMP Design Manual PDP requirements apply.

Go to Step 4.

Discussion / justification of prior lawful approval, and identify requirements (not required if prior lawful approval does not apply):

Step 4 (PDPs only). Do
hydromodification control
requirements apply?
See Section 1.6 of the BMP Design
Manual for guidance.
Yes PDP structural BMPs required for pollutant
control (Chapter 5) and hydromodification
control (Chapter 6).

Go to Step 5.

X No Stop.

PDP structural BMPs required for pollutant
control (Chapter 5) only.

Provide brief discussion of exemption to
hydromodification control below.

Discussion / justification if hydromodification control requirements do not apply: The proposed project connects to a hydromod exempt storm drain system. See Attachment 2 for further details.

Step 5 (PDPs subject to
hydromodification control
requirements only). Does protection
of critical coarse sediment yield areas
apply based on review of WMAA
Potential Critical Coarse Sediment
Yield Area Map?
See Section 6.2 of the BMP Design
Manual for guidance.
Yes Management measures required for
protection of critical coarse sediment yield
areas (Chapter 6.2).

Stop.

X No Management measures not required for
protection of critical coarse sediment yield
areas.

Provide brief discussion below.

Stop.

PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2024
Priority Determination Form
Form I-2
Model BMP Design Manual
[August 31, 2015]
Project Information
Project Name: Extra Space Storage – Santee
Permit Application Number: CUP-2024-0001 Date: 09/11/2024 Project Address: 10835 Santee Woodside Avenue Santee, CA 92071 Project Type Determination: Standard Project or Priority Development Project (PDP) The project is (select one): New Development X Redevelopment The total proposed newly created or replaced impervious area is: 47,878 ft2(1.10) acres Is the project in any of the following categories, (a) through (f)? Yes
X
No (a) New development projects that create 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surfaces (collectively over the entire project site). This includes commercial, industrial, residential, mixed-use, and public development projects on public or private land.

Yes
X
No (b) Redevelopment projects that create and/or replace 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface (collectively over the entire project site on an existing site of 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surfaces). This includes commercial, industrial, residential, mixed-use, and public development projects on public or private land.

Yes No
X
(c) New and redevelopment projects that create and/or replace 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface (collectively over the entire project site), and support one or more of the following uses:
(i) Restaurants. This category is defined as a facility that sells prepared foods and drinks for consumption, including stationary lunch counters and refreshment stands selling prepared foods and drinks for immediate consumption (Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code 5812). (ii) Hillside development projects. This category includes development on any natural slope that is twenty-five percent or greater.
(iii) Parking lots. This category is defined as a land area or facility for the temporary parking or storage of motor vehicles used personally, for business, or for commerce.
(iv) Streets, roads, highways, freeways, and driveways. This category is defined as any paved impervious surface used for the transportation of automobiles, trucks, motorcycles, and other vehicles.

PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2024
Form I-2 Page 2, Form Template Date: August 31, 2015
Yes No
X
(d) New or redevelopment projects that create and/or replace 2,500 square feet or more of impervious surface (collectively over the entire project site), and discharging directly to an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA). “Discharging directly to” includes flow that is conveyed overland a distance of 200 feet or less from the project to the ESA, or conveyed in a pipe or open channel any distance as an isolated flow from the project to the ESA (i.e. not commingled with flows from adjacent lands).

Note: ESAs are areas that include but are not limited to all Clean Water Act Section 303(d) impaired water bodies; areas designated as Areas of Special Biological Significance by the State Water Board and San Diego Water Board; State Water Quality Protected Areas; water bodies designated with the RARE beneficial use by the State Water Board and San Diego Water Board; and any other equivalent environmentally sensitive areas which have been identified by the Copermittees. See BMP Design Manual Section 1.4.2 for additional guidance.

Yes No
X
(e) New development projects, or redevelopment projects that create and/or replace 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface, that support one or more of the following uses:
(i) Automotive repair shops. This category is defined as a facility that is categorized in any one of the following SIC codes: 5013, 5014, 5541, 7532- 7534, or 7536-7539.
(ii) Retail gasoline outlets (RGOs). This category includes RGOs that meet the following criteria: (a) 5,000 square feet or more or (b) a projected Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of 100 or more vehicles per day.

Yes
X
No (f) New or redevelopment projects that result in the disturbance of one or more acres of land and are expected to generate pollutants post construction.

Note: See BMP Design Manual Section 1.4.2 for additional guidance.

Does the project meet the definition of one or more of the Priority Development Project categories (a) through (f) listed above?
No – the project is not a Priority Development Project (Standard Project).

X Yes – the project is a Priority Development Project (PDP).

The following is for redevelopment PDPs only:

The area of existing (pre-project) impervious area at the project site is: 73,384 ft2 (A) The total proposed newly created or replaced impervious area is 47,878 ft2 (B) Percent impervious surface created or replaced (B/A)*100: 65% The percent impervious surface created or replaced is (select one based on the above calculation):
less than or equal to fifty percent (50%) – only new impervious areas are considered PDP OR
X greater than fifty percent (50%) – the entire project site is a PDP PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2024

PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2024
Site Design Checklist
For PDPs
Form I-3B (PDPs)
Model BMP Design Manual
[August 31, 2015]
Project Summary Information
Project Name Extra Space Storage - Santee
Project Address
10835 Santee Woodside Avenue
Santee, CA 92071
Assessor's Parcel Number(s) (APN(s)) 384-120-46-00
Permit Application Number CUP-2024-0001
Project Hydrologic Unit Select One:
Santa Margarita 902
San Luis Rey 903
Carlsbad 904
San Dieguito 905
Penasquitos 906
X San Diego 907
Pueblo San Diego 908
Sweetwater 909
Otay 910
Tijuana 911
Project Watershed
(Complete Hydrologic Unit, Area, and Subarea
Name with Numeric Identifier)
San Diego, Lower San Diego, Santee 907.12
Parcel Area
(total area of Assessor's Parcel(s) associated
with the project)
__2.81___ Acres (___121,968___ Square Feet)
Area to be Disturbed by the Project
(Project Area) ____1.29____ Acres (___56,222___ Square Feet) Project Proposed Impervious Area
(subset of Project Area) ____1.10____ Acres (___47,878___ Square Feet) Project Proposed Pervious Area
(subset of Project Area) ____0.19____ Acres (___8,344___ Square Feet) Note: Proposed Impervious Area + Proposed Pervious Area = Area to be Disturbed by the Project.

This may be less than the Parcel Area.

PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2024
Form I-3B Page 2 of 10, Form Template Date: August 31, 2015 Description of Existing Site Condition
Current Status of the Site (select all that apply):

X Existing development
Previously graded but not built out
Demolition completed without new construction
Agricultural or other non-impervious use
Vacant, undeveloped/natural
Description / Additional Information:

The existing site is developed with an existing RV parking lot, four (4) existing storage buildings and asphalt drive aisle.

Existing Land Cover Includes (select all that apply):

X Vegetative Cover
Non-Vegetated Pervious Areas
X Impervious Areas
Description / Additional Information:

The existing site is developed with an existing RV parking lot, four (4) existing storage buildings and asphalt drive aisle. There is vegetation along the perimeter of the site and minimal landscape area around the existing RV parking lot.

Underlying Soil belongs to Hydrologic Soil Group (select all that apply):
NRCS Type A
NRCS Type B
X NRCS Type C
NRCS Type D
PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2024
Approximate Depth to Groundwater (GW):
GW Depth < 5 feet
5 feet < GW Depth < 10 feet
10 feet < GW Depth < 20 feet
X GW Depth > 20 feet
Existing Natural Hydrologic Features (select all that apply):
Watercourses
Seeps
Springs
Wetlands
X None
Description / Additional Information:

There are no existing natural hydrologic features near the site.

PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2024
Form I-3B Page 3 of 10, Form Template Date: August 31, 2015 Description of Existing Site Drainage Patterns
How is storm water runoff conveyed from the site? At a minimum, this description should answer:
(1) whether existing drainage conveyance is natural or urban; (2) Is runoff from offsite conveyed through the site? if yes, quantify all offsite drainage areas, design flows, and locations where offsite flows enter the project site, and summarize how such flows are conveyed through the site;
(3)Provide details regarding existing project site drainage conveyance network, including any existing storm drains, concrete channels, swales, detention facilities, storm water treatment facilities, natural or constructed channels; and
(4) Identify all discharge locations from the existing project site along with a summary of conveyance system size and capacity for each of the discharge locations. Provide summary of the pre-project drainage areas and design flows to each of the existing runoff discharge locations.

Describe existing site drainage patterns:
1) The existing drainage conveyance of the site is urban. The existing 2.81 acre project site is developed as a commercial storage development with four (4) existing storage buildings and a gravel parking lot. 2) There is runoff from offsite conveyed through the site. Offsite areas from the south and the east discharges offsite runoff onto the project site. A total of 3.48 acres of onsite and offsite drainage area was analyzed. The project site is split into several drainage areas discharge into three (3) points of compliance (POC)s.
3,4) The existing site is developed. The site consists of three (3) drainage basins. Drainage Basin 1A and 1B combine for a total area of 2.61 acres that discharge to POC 1. Drainage Basin 1A consists of the existing storage buildings, drive aisles and some landscape areas. Runoff sheets flows towards an existing concrete swale that then covey flows towards the ROW. Drainage Basin 1B consists of the existing RV parking lot and associated landscape areas. Flow from the parking lot sheet flow towards an existing concrete swale the west that then conveys flows north to confluence with flows with Drainage Basin 1A at the driveway prior to discharging into the Woodside Avenue (POC 1). Runoff is conveyed via curb and gutter north until it enters the City of Santee public storm drain system. Existing run-on is no conveyed through Drainage Basin 1.

Drainage Basin 2B consists of 0.25 acres. Drainage Basin 2B consists of existing offsite run-on from the residential properties to the south and a portion of the existing RV parking lot and associated landscape areas. The existing run-on flows from the southern residential properties enter the site through an existing concrete swale at the southern property line. Flows are conveyed to the west in the concrete swale towards Woodside Avenue. A portion of existing runoff from the project site confluences with the existing run-on prior to discharging into Woodside Avenue via an existing 12-inch storm drain pipe (POC 2). Runoff then flows south via curb and gutter and then eventually enters the City of Santee public storm drain system.

PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2024
Drainage Basin 3A consist of 0.60 acres. Drainage Basin 3A consists of existing run-on from a portion of the southern residential properties and a portion of the existing landscape slope to the east. Run-on flows are conveyed north via an existing concrete swale. Flows continue north onto to the adjacent property via the concrete swale where it ultimately discharges on Woodside avenue via a curb outlet and then ultimately enters the City of Santee public storm drain system. 100-year flow was not analyzed for Drainage Basin 3A.

Refer to Hydrology Report for the project site for detailed calculations.

PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2024
Form I-3B Page 4 of 10, Form Template Date: August 31, 2015 Description of Proposed Site Development
Project Description / Proposed Land Use and/or Activities:

The project proposes to re-develop a portion of the property into a four-story storage building and associated site improvements. The total property is 2.81 acres of land, but the proposed project will disturb 1.29 acres of the entire site. The site is bounded by Woodside Avenue to the west, existing commercial development to the north, California State Route 67 to the east, and residential development to the south.

List/describe proposed impervious features of the project (e.g., buildings, roadways, parking lots, courtyards, athletic courts, other impervious features):

Proposed impervious features of the redevelopment project consist of building, drive aisles, parking stalls, and sidewalk.

List/describe proposed pervious features of the project (e.g., landscape areas):

Proposed pervious features include site landscaping areas.

Does the project include grading and changes to site topography? X Yes
No
Description / Additional Information:

Proposed site grading was designed to convey runoff away from the proposed building to the planned onsite storm drain facilities which capture, store, and treat stormwater runoff before conveying runoff to discharge locations in accordance with existing drainage patterns.

PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2024
Form I-3B Page 5 of 10, Form Template Date: August 31, 2015 Description of Proposed Site Drainage Patterns
Does the project include changes to site drainage (e.g., installation of new storm water conveyance systems)?
X Yes
No
If yes, provide details regarding the proposed project site drainage conveyance network, including storm drains, concrete channels, swales, detention facilities, storm water treatment facilities, natural or constructed channels, and the method for conveying offsite flows through or around the proposed project site. Identify all discharge locations from the proposed project site along with a summary of the conveyance system size and capacity for each of the discharge locations. Provide a summary of pre- and post-project drainage areas and design flows to each of the runoff discharge locations. Reference the drainage study for detailed calculations.

Describe proposed site drainage patterns:

The project proposes the development of a four-story storage building along, parking stalls and associated site improvements. The proposed project will encompass 1.29 acres of the 2.81 acre project site. The proposed project site will maintain the three (3) drainage basins. Due to site constraints, Drainage Basin 1 and 2 will not match the existing drainage basin area. However, the discharge 100-year flow rate leaving the site will be below existing conditions.

Drainage Basin 1A consist of 0.88 acres of the proposed project. Basin 1A consist of a portion of the proposed building, a portion of the exiting storage buildings, new and existing drive aisle and some landscape area. Runoff sheet flows from east to west towards a proposed modular wetland with a curb inlet for stormwater treatment only. Flows then discharge towards Woodside Avenue via a curb outlet at the northwest corner of the site (POC 1). Runoff flows will be conveyed north via curb and gutter where it ultimately enters the City of Santee public storm drain system. The area discharging to POC 1 in proposed conditions is less than existing conditions.

Drainage Basin 2A and 2B combined consist of 1.98 acres and discharge at POC 2. Drainage Basin 2A consists of a majority of the proposed building area, existing storage buildings, new and existing drive aisles, and landscape area. Basin 2A drains from east to west via sheet flow and pipe flow and eventually discharges into the underground detention vault. Due to the increased area in Drainage Basin 2, the underground detention vault is used to attenuate the increased 100-year flow. The underground detention vault is designed to detain the 100-year flow and the required stormwater treatment. Low flows will charge to the proposed modular wetland for stormwater treatment and high flows will discharge directly into the proposed storm drain system. Flows ultimately discharge towards Woodside Avenue via pipe flow. Drainage Basin 2B consists of existing run-on from the residential properties to the south. Flows are conveyed onto the site via an existing concrete swale at the southern property line.

Existing run-on flows are conveyed west towards a proposed catch basin and discharge via pipe flow to the proposed storm drain system in Woodside Avenue. Flows from Drainage Basin 2A and 2B confluence together at POC 2 then connect to the City of Santee public storm drain system PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2024
Drainage Basin 3A will remain the same as in existing conditions and will remain undisturbed.

See Hydrology Report for detailed calculations of proposed flows PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2024
Form I-3B Page 6 of 10, Form Template Date: August 31, 2015 Identify whether any of the following features, activities, and/or pollutant source areas will be present (select all that apply):

X On-site storm drain inlets
X Interior floor drains and elevator shaft sump pumps
Interior parking garages
X Need for future indoor & structural pest control
X Landscape/Outdoor Pesticide Use
Pools, spas, ponds, decorative fountains, and other water features Food service
X Refuse areas
Industrial processes
Outdoor storage of equipment or materials
Vehicle and Equipment Cleaning
Vehicle/Equipment Repair and Maintenance
Fuel Dispensing Areas
Loading Docks
Fire Sprinkler Test Water
Miscellaneous Drain or Wash Water
X Plazas, sidewalks, and parking lots
Description / Additional Information:

PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2024
Form I-3B Page 7 of 10, Form Template Date: August 31, 2015 Identification and Narrative of Receiving Water and Pollutants of Concern Describe flow path of storm water from the project site discharge location(s), through urban storm conveyance systems as applicable, to receiving creeks, rivers, and lagoons as applicable, and ultimate discharge to the Pacific Ocean (or bay, lagoon, lake or reservoir, as applicable):

Onsite Runoff is conveyed to public storm drain in Woodside Avenue and is discharged to the San Vicente Creek- San Diego River and ultimately the Pacific Ocean.

List any 303(d) impaired water bodies within the path of storm water from the project site to the Pacific Ocean (or bay, lagoon, lake or reservoir, as applicable), identify the pollutant(s)/stressor(s) causing impairment, and identify any TMDLs and/or Highest Priority Pollutants from the WQIP for the impaired water bodies:
303(d) Impaired
Water Body Pollutant(s)/Stressor(s)
TMDLs / WQIP Highest
Priority Pollutant
Forester Creek Benthic Community Effects, Indicator Bacteria, Nitrogen, dissolved oxygen, phosphorous, total dissolved solids,
cadmium, and toxicity.

Indicator Bacteria
San Diego River
(Lower)
Benthic Community Effects, Bifenthrin, Chlordane,
Chloride, Color, Cyfluthrin, Cypermethrin, Indicator
Bacteria, Nitrogen, DO, Permethrin, Phosphorus,
Pyrethroids, Total Dissolved solids, Toxicity, Turbidity Indicator Bacteria
Identification of Project Site Pollutants*
*Identification of project site pollutants is only required if flow-thru treatment BMPs are implemented onsite in lieu of retention or biofiltration BMPs (note the project must also participate in an alternative compliance program unless prior lawful approval to meet earlier PDP requirements is demonstrated)
Identify pollutants expected from the project site based on all proposed use(s) of the site (see BMP Design Manual Appendix B.6):

Pollutant
Not Applicable to the
Project Site
Expected from the
Project Site
Also a Receiving Water
Pollutant of Concern
Sediment
Nutrients
Heavy Metals
Organic Compounds
Trash & Debris
Oxygen Demanding
Substances
Oil & Grease
Bacteria & Viruses
Pesticides
PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2024
Form I-3B Page 8 of 10, Form Template Date: August 31, 2015 Hydromodification Management Requirements
Do hydromodification management requirements apply (see Section 1.6 of the BMP Design Manual)? Yes, hydromodification management flow control structural BMPs required. No, the project will discharge runoff directly to existing underground storm drains discharging directly to water storage reservoirs, lakes, enclosed embayments, or the Pacific Ocean. No, the project will discharge runoff directly to conveyance channels whose bed and bank are concrete-lined all the way from the point of discharge to water storage reservoirs, lakes, enclosed embayments, or the Pacific Ocean.

X No, the project will discharge runoff directly to an area identified as appropriate for an exemption by the WMAA for the watershed in which the project resides.

Description / Additional Information (to be provided if a 'No' answer has been selected above):

The proposed project is hydromod exempt. The project proposes to collect stormwater runoff via a proposed storm drain system that connects to an exempt storm drain system. See Hydromodification Exempt Exhibit.

PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2024
Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas*
*This Section only required if hydromodification management requirements apply Based on the maps provided within the WMAA, do potential critical coarse sediment yield areas exist within the project drainage boundaries?
Yes
X No, No critical coarse sediment yield areas to be protected based on WMAA maps If yes, have any of the optional analyses presented in Section 6.2 of the BMP Design Manual been performed?
6.2.1 Verification of Geomorphic Landscape Units (GLUs) Onsite 6.2.2 Downstream Systems Sensitivity to Coarse Sediment 6.2.3 Optional Additional Analysis of Potential Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas Onsite No optional analyses performed, the project will avoid critical coarse sediment yield areas identified based on WMAA maps
If optional analyses were performed, what is the final result? No critical coarse sediment yield areas to be protected based on verification of GLUs onsite Critical coarse sediment yield areas exist but additional analysis has determined that protection is not required. Documentation attached in Attachment 2.b of the SWQMP. Critical coarse sediment yield areas exist and require protection. The project will implement management measures described in Sections 6.2.4 and 6.2.5 as applicable, and the areas are identified on the SWQMP Exhibit.

Discussion / Additional Information:

PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2024
Form I-3B Page 9 of 10, Form Template Date: August 31, 2015 Flow Control for Post-Project Runoff*
*This Section only required if hydromodification management requirements apply List and describe point(s) of compliance (POCs) for flow control for hydromodification management (see Section 6.3.1). For each POC, provide a POC identification name or number correlating to the project's HMP Exhibit and a receiving channel identification name or number correlating to the project's HMP Exhibit.

N/A . The site is hydromod exempt
Has a geomorphic assessment been performed for the receiving channel(s)? No, the low flow threshold is 0.1Q2 (default low flow threshold) Yes, the result is the low flow threshold is 0.1Q2
Yes, the result is the low flow threshold is 0.3Q2
Yes, the result is the low flow threshold is 0.5Q2
If a geomorphic assessment has been performed, provide title, date, and preparer:

N/A
Discussion / Additional Information: (optional)
N/A

PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2024
Form I-3B Page 10 of 10, Form Template Date: August 31, 2015 Other Site Requirements and Constraints
When applicable, list other site requirements or constraints that will influence storm water management design, such as zoning requirements including setbacks and open space, or local codes governing minimum street width, sidewalk construction, allowable pavement types, and drainage requirements.

The disturbance is greater than 50%, so the entire site will have to be treated. There is limited space for a traditional biofiltration basin, so proprietary BMPs will be used Optional Additional Information or Continuation of Previous Sections As Needed This space provided for additional information or continuation of information from previous sections as needed.

PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2024
Source Control BMP Checklist
for All Development Projects
(Standard Projects and Priority Development Projects)
Form I-4
Model BMP Design
Manual
[August 31, 2015]
Project Identification
Project Name: Extra Space Storage - Santee
Permit Application Number: CUP-2024-0001
Source Control BMPs
All development projects must implement source control BMPs SC-1 through SC-6 where applicable and feasible. See Chapter 4 and Appendix E of the Model BMP Design Manual for information to implement source control BMPs shown in this checklist.

Answer each category below pursuant to the following.
• "Yes" means the project will implement the source control BMP as described in Chapter 4 and/or Appendix E of the Model BMP Design Manual. Discussion / justification is not required. • "No" means the BMP is applicable to the project but it is not feasible to implement. Discussion / justification must be provided.
• "N/A" means the BMP is not applicable at the project site because the project does not include the feature that is addressed by the BMP (e.g., the project has no outdoor materials storage areas).

Discussion / justification may be provided.

Source Control Requirement Applied?
SC-1 Prevention of Illicit Discharges into the MS4 X Yes No N/A Discussion / justification if SC-1 not implemented:

SC-2 Storm Drain Stenciling or Signage X Yes No N/A Discussion / justification if SC-2 not implemented:

SC-3 Protect Outdoor Materials Storage Areas from Rainfall, Run-On, Runoff, and Wind Dispersal
Yes No X N/A
Discussion / justification if SC-3 not implemented:

N/A
SC-4 Protect Materials Stored in Outdoor Work Areas from Rainfall, Run-On, Runoff, and Wind Dispersal
Yes No X N/A
Discussion / justification if SC-4 not implemented:

N/A

PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2024
Form I-4 Page 2 of 2, Form Template Date: August 31, 2015 Source Control Requirement Applied?
SC-5 Protect Trash Storage Areas from Rainfall, Run-On, Runoff, and Wind Dispersal
X Yes No N/A
Discussion / justification if SC-5 not implemented:

SC-6 Additional BMPs Based on Potential Sources of Runoff Pollutants (must answer for each source listed below)
On-site storm drain inlets
Interior floor drains and elevator shaft sump pumps
Interior parking garages
Need for future indoor & structural pest control
Landscape/Outdoor Pesticide Use
Pools, spas, ponds, decorative fountains, and other water features Food service
Refuse areas
Industrial processes
Outdoor storage of equipment or materials
Vehicle and Equipment Cleaning
Vehicle/Equipment Repair and Maintenance
Fuel Dispensing Areas
Loading Docks
Fire Sprinkler Test Water
Miscellaneous Drain or Wash Water
Plazas, sidewalks, and parking lots
X Yes
X Yes
Yes
X Yes
X Yes
Yes
Yes
X Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
X Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
N/A
N/A
X N/A
N/A
N/A
X N/A
X N/A
N/A
X N/A
X N/A
X N/A
X N/A
X N/A
X N/A
X N/A
X N/A
N/A
PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2024
Discussion / justification if SC-6 not implemented. Clearly identify which sources of runoff pollutants are discussed. Justification must be provided for all "No" answers shown above.

PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2024
Site Design BMP Checklist
for All Development Projects
(Standard Projects and Priority Development Projects)
Form I-5
Model BMP Design
Manual
[August 31, 2015]
Project Identification
Project Name: Extra Space Storage - Santee
Permit Application Number: CUP-2024-0001
Site Design BMPs
All development projects must implement site design BMPs SD-1 through SD-8 where applicable and feasible. See Chapter 4 and Appendix E of the Model BMP Design Manual for information to implement site design BMPs shown in this checklist.

Answer each category below pursuant to the following.
• "Yes" means the project will implement the site design BMP as described in Chapter 4 and/or Appendix E of the Model BMP Design Manual. Discussion / justification is not required. • "No" means the BMP is applicable to the project but it is not feasible to implement. Discussion / justification must be provided.
• "N/A" means the BMP is not applicable at the project site because the project does not include the feature that is addressed by the BMP (e.g., the project site has no existing natural areas to conserve).

Discussion / justification may be provided.

Site Design Requirement Applied?
SD-1 Maintain Natural Drainage Pathways and Hydrologic Features Yes No X N/A Discussion / justification if SD-1 not implemented: The site is already developed SD-2 Conserve Natural Areas, Soils, and Vegetation Yes No X N/A Discussion / justification if SD-2 not implemented: The site is already developed SD-3 Minimize Impervious Area X Yes No N/A
Discussion / justification if SD-3 not implemented:

Impervious Area is limited to the proposed building and supporting site elements necessary to a functional development.

SD-4 Minimize Soil Compaction Yes No X N/A
Discussion / justification if SD-4 not implemented: Site is already developed SD-5 Impervious Area Dispersion Yes No X N/A
Discussion / justification if SD-5 not implemented: Limited landscape area not feasible for area dispersion
PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2024
Form I-5 Page 2 of 2, Form Template Date: August 31, 2015 Site Design Requirement Applied?
SD-6 Runoff Collection X Yes No N/A
Discussion / justification if SD-6 not implemented:

SD-7 Landscaping with Native or Drought Tolerant Species X Yes No N/A Discussion / justification if SD-7 not implemented:

SD-8 Harvesting and Using Precipitation Yes No X N/A Discussion / justification if SD-8 not implemented:

Refer to Form I-7, Attachment 1c of this SWQMP

PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2024
Summary of PDP Structural BMPs
Form I-6 (PDPs)
Model BMP Design Manual
[August 31, 2015]
Project Identification
Project Name: Extra Space Storage - Santee
Permit Application Number: CUP-2024-0001
PDP Structural BMPs
All PDPs must implement structural BMPs for storm water pollutant control (see Chapter 5 of the BMP Design Manual). Selection of PDP structural BMPs for storm water pollutant control must be based on the selection process described in Chapter 5. PDPs subject to hydromodification management requirements must also implement structural BMPs for flow control for hydromodification management (see Chapter 6 of the BMP Design Manual). Both storm water pollutant control and flow control for hydromodification management can be achieved within the same structural BMP(s).

PDP structural BMPs must be verified by the local jurisdiction at the completion of construction. This may include requiring the project owner or project owner's representative and engineer of record to certify construction of the structural BMPs (see Section 1.12 of the BMP Design Manual). PDP structural BMPs must be maintained into perpetuity, and the local jurisdiction must confirm the maintenance (see Section 7 of the BMP Design Manual).

Use this form to provide narrative description of the general strategy for structural BMP implementation at the project site in the box below. Then complete the PDP structural BMP summary information sheet (page 3 of this form) for each structural BMP within the project (copy the BMP summary information page as many times as needed to provide summary information for each individual structural BMP).

Describe the general strategy for structural BMP implementation at the site. This information must describe how the steps for selecting and designing storm water pollutant control BMPs presented in Section 5.1 of the BMP Design Manual were followed, and the results (type of BMPs selected). For projects requiring hydromodification flow control BMPs, indicate whether pollutant control and flow control BMPs are integrated or separate.

The building footprint encompasses a majority of the site, leaving minimal space to implement infiltration or partial retention BMPs for the entire site. Based on the geotechnical review letter included in Attachment 1d, the project site is classified as no infiltration condition; therefore bioretention basins were deemed infeasible. The harvest and reuse for toilet demand was considered infeasible per Attachment 1c. Therefore, the other effective BMP that is feasible to implement is a proprietary biofiltration unit. The BMP implemented for this project is the Modular Wetland System (MWS).

Per Section F.2.2 in Appendix F of the City of Santee BMP Design Manual, proprietary BMP 1 and BMP 2 sized as volume based. For the volume based BMPs, the minimum volume calculation for water quality treatment was determined using Worksheet B.6-1 in Attachment 1e of this report.

The calculated treatment volume was then used to select the appropriately sized model unit.

PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2024
The selected biofiltration unit has a small footprint and meets the requirements per Section B.6.3.

Runoff will be collected and conveyed to the biofiltration unit before flowing offsite via storm drain system.

Since the modular wetland system does not meet the minimum three percent surface area required, tree credit volume will be used to meet the volume retention requirements. Reference Attachment 1e for pollutant control worksheets.

The Modular Wetland Units will be maintained in accordance with manufacturer guidelines and conditions.

The proposed MWS will be for pollutant control only. The site is hydromod exempt. The proposed underground storage system is proposed to attenuate the increase in the 100-year flow rate prior to discharging to the proposed storm drain system that connects to the existing hydromod exempt storm drain system.
(Continue on page 2 as necessary.)

PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2024
Form I-6 Page 2 of 8, Form Template Date: August 31, 2015 (Page reserved for continuation of description of general strategy for structural BMP implementation at the site)
(Continued from page 1)

PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2024
Form I-6 Page 3 of 8 (Copy as many as needed) , Form Template Date: August 31, 2015 Structural BMP Summary Information
(Copy this page as needed to provide information for each individual proposed structural BMP) Structural BMP ID No. BMP 1
Construction Plan Sheet No. C3.0
Type of structural BMP:
Retention by harvest and use (HU-1)
Retention by infiltration basin (INF-1)
Retention by bioretention (INF-2)
Retention by permeable pavement (INF-3)
Partial retention by biofiltration with partial retention (PR-1) Biofiltration (BF-1)
Biofiltration with Nutrient Sensitive Media Design (BF-2) X Proprietary Biofiltration (BF-3) meeting all requirements of Appendix F Flow-thru treatment control with prior lawful approval to meet earlier PDP requirements (provide BMP type/description in discussion section below)
Flow-thru treatment control included as pre-treatment/forebay for an onsite retention or biofiltration BMP (provide BMP type/description and indicate which onsite retention or biofiltration BMP it serves in discussion section below)
Flow-thru treatment control with alternative compliance (provide BMP type/description in discussion section below)
Detention pond or vault for hydromodification management Other (describe in discussion section below)
Purpose:

X Pollutant control only
Hydromodification control only
Combined pollutant control and hydromodification control Pre-treatment/forebay for another structural BMP
Other (describe in discussion section below)
Who will certify construction of this BMP?
Provide name and contact information for the
party responsible to sign BMP verification forms if
required by the [City Engineer] (See Section 1.12 of
the BMP Design Manual)
Ware Malcomb
3911 Sorrento Valley Blvd, #120
San Diego, CA 92121
Attn: Samuel Bellomio, PE,
[email protected]
858.875.1069
Who will be the final owner of this BMP? Private owner: Extra Space Storage 2795 E. Cottonwood Parkway, Ste 400, Salt Lake
City, Utah 84121
Attn: Clint Kleppe, [email protected]
480.266.5263
Who will maintain this BMP into perpetuity? Private Owner What is the funding mechanism for maintenance? Private Financing PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2024
Form I-6 Page 4 of 8 (Copy as many as needed) , Form Template Date: August 31, 2015 Structural BMP ID No. BMP 1
Construction Plan Sheet No. C3.0
Discussion (as needed):

Modular Wetlands System MWS L-4-17-V treats stormwater from DMA 1.

PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2024
Form I-6 Page 5 of 8 (Copy as many as needed) , Form Template Date: August 31, 2015 Structural BMP Summary Information
(Copy this page as needed to provide information for each individual proposed structural BMP) Structural BMP ID No. BMP 2
Construction Plan Sheet No. C3.0
Type of structural BMP:
Retention by harvest and use (HU-1)
Retention by infiltration basin (INF-1)
Retention by bioretention (INF-2)
Retention by permeable pavement (INF-3)
Partial retention by biofiltration with partial retention (PR-1) Biofiltration (BF-1)
Biofiltration with Nutrient Sensitive Media Design (BF-2) X Proprietary Biofiltration (BF-3) meeting all requirements of Appendix F Flow-thru treatment control with prior lawful approval to meet earlier PDP requirements (provide BMP type/description in discussion section below)
Flow-thru treatment control included as pre-treatment/forebay for an onsite retention or biofiltration BMP (provide BMP type/description and indicate which onsite retention or biofiltration BMP it serves in discussion section below)
Flow-thru treatment control with alternative compliance (provide BMP type/description in discussion section below)
Detention pond or vault for hydromodification management Other (describe in discussion section below)
Purpose:

X Pollutant control only
Hydromodification control only
Combined pollutant control and hydromodification control Pre-treatment/forebay for another structural BMP
Other (describe in discussion section below)
Who will certify construction of this BMP?
Provide name and contact information for the
party responsible to sign BMP verification forms if
required by the [City Engineer] (See Section 1.12 of
the BMP Design Manual)
Ware Malcomb
3911 Sorrento Valley Blvd, #120
San Diego, CA 92121
Attn: Samuel Bellomio, PE,
[email protected]
858.875.1069
Who will be the final owner of this BMP? Private owner: Extra Space Storage 2795 E. Cottonwood Parkway, Ste 400, Salt Lake
City, Utah 84121
Attn: Clint Kleppe, [email protected]
480.266.5263
Who will maintain this BMP into perpetuity? Private Owner What is the funding mechanism for maintenance? Private Financing PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2024
Form I-6 Page 6 of 8 (Copy as many as needed) , Form Template Date: August 31, 2015 Structural BMP ID No. BMP -2
Construction Plan Sheet No. C3.0
Discussion (as needed):

Modular Wetlands System MWS L-8-8-V treats stormwater from DMA 2.

PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2024
Form I-6 Page 7 of 8 (Copy as many as needed) , Form Template Date: August 31, 2015 Structural BMP Summary Information
(Copy this page as needed to provide information for each individual proposed structural BMP) Structural BMP ID No. Underground Detention Vaults
Construction Plan Sheet No. C3.0
Type of structural BMP:
Retention by harvest and use (HU-1)
Retention by infiltration basin (INF-1)
Retention by bioretention (INF-2)
Retention by permeable pavement (INF-3)
Partial retention by biofiltration with partial retention (PR-1) Biofiltration (BF-1)
Biofiltration with Nutrient Sensitive Media Design (BF-2) Proprietary Biofiltration (BF-3) meeting all requirements of Appendix F Flow-thru treatment control with prior lawful approval to meet earlier PDP requirements (provide BMP type/description in discussion section below)
Flow-thru treatment control included as pre-treatment/forebay for an onsite retention or biofiltration BMP (provide BMP type/description and indicate which onsite retention or biofiltration BMP it serves in discussion section below)
Flow-thru treatment control with alternative compliance (provide BMP type/description in discussion section below)
Detention pond or vault for hydromodification management X Other (describe in discussion section below)
Purpose:

Pollutant control only
Hydromodification control only
Combined pollutant control and hydromodification control Pre-treatment/forebay for another structural BMP
X Other (describe in discussion section below)
Who will certify construction of this BMP?
Provide name and contact information for the
party responsible to sign BMP verification forms if
required by the [City Engineer] (See Section 1.12 of
the BMP Design Manual)
Ware Malcomb
3911 Sorrento Valley Blvd, #120
San Diego, CA 92121
Attn: Samuel Bellomio, PE,
[email protected]
858.875.1069
Who will be the final owner of this BMP? Private owner: Extra Space Storage 2795 E. Cottonwood Parkway, Ste 400, Salt Lake
City, Utah 84121
Attn: Clint Kleppe, [email protected]
480.266.5263
Who will maintain this BMP into perpetuity? Private Owner What is the funding mechanism for maintenance? Private Financing PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2024
Form I-6 Page 8 of 8 (Copy as many as needed) , Form Template Date: August 31, 2015 Structural BMP ID No. Underground Detention Vaults
Construction Plan Sheet No. C3.0
Discussion (as needed):

Underground Detention Vaults: for 100-year attenuation
Volume provided: 4,187 cf
Length: 104ft
Width: 16ft
Inside Height: 3ft
PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2024
ATTACHMENT 1

BACKUP FOR PDP POLLUTANT CONTROL BMPS
This is the cover sheet for Attachment 1.

Indicate which Items are Included behind this cover sheet:

Attachment
Sequence
Contents Checklist
Attachment 1a DMA Exhibit (Required)
See DMA Exhibit Checklist on the back of
this Attachment cover sheet.

X Included
Attachment 1b Tabular Summary of DMAs Showing
DMA ID matching DMA Exhibit, DMA
Area, and DMA Type (Required)*
*Provide table in this Attachment OR on
DMA Exhibit in Attachment 1a
X Included on DMA Exhibit in
Attachment 1a
Included as Attachment 1b, separate
from DMA Exhibit
Attachment 1c Form I-7, Harvest and Use Feasibility
Screening Checklist (Required unless the
entire project will use infiltration BMPs)
Refer to Appendix B.3-1 of the BMP
Design Manual to complete Form I-7.

X Included
Not included because the entire
project will use infiltration BMPs
Attachment 1d Form I-8, Categorization of Infiltration
Feasibility Condition (Required unless
the project will use harvest and use
BMPs)
Refer to Appendices C and D of the BMP
Design Manual to complete Form I-8.

X Included
Not included because the entire
project will use harvest and use
BMPs
Attachment 1e Pollutant Control BMP Design
Worksheets / Calculations (Required)
Refer to Appendices B and E of the BMP
Design Manual for structural pollutant
control BMP design guidelines
X Included

PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2024
Use this checklist to ensure the required information has been included on the DMA Exhibit:

The DMA Exhibit must identify:

X Underlying hydrologic soil group
X Approximate depth to groundwater
X Existing natural hydrologic features ( watercourses, seeps, springs, wetlands) X Critical coarse sediment yield areas to be protected
X Existing topography and impervious areas
X Existing and proposed site drainage network and connections to drainage offsite X Proposed demolition
X Proposed grading
X Proposed impervious features
X Proposed design features and surface treatments used to minimize imperviousness X Drainage management area (DMA) boundaries, DMA ID numbers, and DMA areas (square footage or acreage), and DMA type (i.e., drains to BMP, self-retaining, or self-mitigating) X Potential pollutant source areas and corresponding required source controls (see Chapter 4, Appendix E.1, and Form I-3B)
X Structural BMPs (identify location, type of BMP, and size/detail)

MWS 8-8
R SD
MWS 4-17

WOODSIDE AVENUE
(371)
(372)
(371)
(371)
(371)
(371)
375
380
375
380
383
383
382 383

SAN VICENTE FWY
375
380
371
372
373
374
376
377
378
379 UNDERGROUND DETENTION SEE DETAIL 374.00RIM/TOP 369.60 IE VOLUME PROVIDED: 4,187CF CURB OUTLET 371.53 RIM 370.27 IE DMA 2 DMA 5 DMA 3 DMA 4 DMA1 PROPOSED TRASH ENCLOSURE 3 PROP. CATCH BASIN W/ FULL TRASH CAPTURE
1 2 1 PROPOSED CATCH BASIN W/ FULL TRASH CAPTURE
1 2 1 EX. CONCRETE SWALE (TYPICAL FOR DMA 3) EX. CONCRETE SWALE (TYPICAL FOR DMA 3) TREE CREDIT VOLUME TO SATISFY RETENTION REQUIREMENTS TREE CREDIT VOLUME TO SATISFY RETENTION REQUIREMENTS TREE CREDIT VOLUME TO SATISFY RETENTION REQUIREMENTS TREE CREDIT VOLUME TO SATISFY RETENTION REQUIREMENTS 104' 16' BMP2 - MWS L-8-8-V W/ CURB INLET SEE DETAIL 1 ON SHEET 2 369.16 IE IN 367.83 IE OUT BMP1 - MWS L-4-17-V W/ CURB INLET SEE DETAIL 2 ON SHEET 2 371.35 IE IN 370.45 IE OUT PROP. 18" RCP
PROP. 18" RCP
EX. 18" STORM DRAIN ACCESS MANHOLE ACCESS MANHOLE
1 2
1 2 CAUTION: IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 24"x36" IT IS A REDUCED PRINT THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF WARE MALCOMB AND SHALL NOT BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK EXCEPT BY AGREEMENT WITH WARE MALCOMB. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED ON THE JOB SITE. ANY DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF WARE MALCOMB PRIOR TO T FOR AND ON BEHALF OF WARE MALCOMB SHEET PA / PM: JOB NO.: DESIGNED:

REMARKS DATE NO. Sheet of DATE: PLOT DATE:
3911 sorrento valley blvd.
suite 120
san diego, ca 92121
p 858.638.7277
waremalcomb.com

C I V I L E N G I N E E R I N G
ATTACHMENT 1a & 1b

DMA EXHIBIT

EXTRA SPACE STORAGE - SANTEE
1 1
2 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION09/05/24
0 SCALE: 1" = 15 30 60 30' PROJECT SITE INFO UNDERLYING HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP:

C APPROXIMATE DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER: 20 FT± EXISTING NATURAL HYDROLOGIC FEATURES (WATERCOURSES, SEEPS, SPRINGS, WETLANDS): NONE CRITICAL COARSE SEDIMENT YIELD AREAS TO BE PROTECTED: NONE TOTAL DISTURBED AREA 56,222 SF EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA: 18,423 SF EXISTING SEMI-PERVIOUS AREA: 30,720 SF EXISTING PERVIOUS AREA: 7,079 SF PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA: 47,878 SF PROPOSED PERVIOUS AREA: 8,344 SF PERMANENT STORMWATER BMP NOTES: PROPRIETARY BMP (BF-3, PROPRIETARY BIOFILTRATION) POLLUTANT CONTROL ONLY LEGEND PROPERTY LINE/RIGHT OF WAY STREET CENTERLINE EXISTING CONTOUR DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT AREA (DMA) LIMITS PROPRIETARY BIOFILTRATION UNIT, BF-3 DMA DESIGNATION FLOW ARROW PERVIOUS AREA (EX. AND PROPOSED) IMPERVIOUS AREA (EX. AND PROPOSED) BUILDING AREA (EX. AND PROPOSED) (95) DMA 1 MWS 4-13 DMA SUMMARY TABLE SITE DESIGN BMPS MINIMIZE IMPERVIOUS AREA RUNOFF COLLECTION LANDSCAPING WITH NATIVE OR DROUGHT TOLERANT SPECIES 123 SOURCE CONTROL BMPS SC-1 PREVENTION OF ILLICIT DISCHARGE INTO THE MS4 SC-2 STORM DRAIN STENCILING OR SIGNAGE SC-5 PROTECT TRASH STORAGE AREAS FROM RAINFALL, RUN-ON, RUNOFF AND WIND DISPERSAL 123 RESPONSIBLE PARTY: EXTRA SPACE STORAGE, OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE MWS UNITS, UNDERGROUND DETENTION SYSTEM, EXISTING CONCRETE SWALES, PROPOSED TREES TO MEET VOLUME RETENTION REQUIREMENTS, AND FULL TRASH CAPTURE DEVICES NOTE: EXISTING STORM DRAIN INLETS COSID 2241 & 2340 ON WOODSIDE AVENUE TO BE EQUIPPED WITH FULL TRASH CAPTURE DEVICE AS PART OF THE PROJECT'S CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CAUTION: IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 24"x36" IT IS A REDUCED PRINT THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF WARE MALCOMB AND SHALL NOT BE USED ON ANY OTHER WORK EXCEPT BY AGREEMENT WITH WARE MALCOMB. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED ON THE JOB SITE. ANY DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF WARE MALCOMB PRIOR TO T FOR AND ON BEHALF OF WARE MALCOMB SHEET PA / PM: JOB NO.: DESIGNED:

REMARKS DATE NO. Sheet of DATE: PLOT DATE:
3911 sorrento valley blvd.
suite 120
san diego, ca 92121
p 858.638.7277
waremalcomb.com

C I V I L E N G I N E E R I N G
ATTACHMENT 1a & 1b

DMA EXHIBIT

EXTRA SPACE STORAGE - SANTEE
2 2
2 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION09/05/24 NOT TO SCALE BMP1 - CONTECH MODULAR WETLAND SYSTEM (PVT.) NOT TO SCALE UNDERGROUND DETENTION DETAIL - OLDCASTLE STORMCAPTURE (PVT.) NOT TO SCALE BMP2 - CONTECH MODULAR WETLAND SYSTEM (PVT.) NOT TO SCALE DETAIL - CATCH BASIN FULL TRASH CAPTURE INSERT 13 February 2016
Worksheet 0-2. Harvest and Use Feasibility Screening
Harvest and Use Feasibility Screening Worsksheet B.3-1

1. Is there a demand for harvested water (check all that apply) at the project site that is reliably present during the wet season?
Toilet and urinal flushing
Landscape irrigation
Other:______________

2. If there is a demand; estimate the anticipated average wet season demand over a period of 36 hours. Guidance for planning level demand calculations for toilet/urinal flushing and landscape irrigation is provided in Section B.3.2.
[Provide a summary of calculations here]

3. Calculate the DCV using worksheet B-2.1.
[Provide a results here]
3a. Is the 36-hour demand
greater than or equal to the
DCV?
Yes / No
3b. Is the 36-hour demand greater
than 0.25DCV but less than the full
DCV?
Yes / No
3c. Is the 36-hour
demand less than

0.25DCV?
Yes
Harvest and use appears to be
feasible. Conduct more detailed
evaluation and sizing
calculations to confirm that
DCV can be used at an adequate
rate to meet drawdown criteria.

Harvest and use may be feasible.

Conduct more detailed evaluation and
sizing calculations to determine
feasibility. Harvest and use may only
be able to be used for a portion of the
site, or (optionally) the storage may
need to be upsized to meet long term
capture targets while draining in
longer than 36 hours.

Harvest and use is
considered to be
infeasible.

Attachment 1c
5 employees x 7 gal/day (per Table B-3.1) = 35 gal/day = 4.68 cf/day x 1.5 days = 7.02 cf combined DCV = 3,706 Geocon Project No. G3177-42-01 - C- 1 - September 22, 2023

APPENDIX C

The USDA website also provides the Hydrologic Soil Group. Table C-1 presents the descriptions of the hydrologic soil groups.

TABLE C-1

Table C-2 presents the information from the USDA website for the property.

Attachment 1d
Geocon Project No. G3177-42-01 - C - 2 - September 22, 2023 TABLE C-2
USDA WEB SOIL SURVEY – HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP*
Map Unit Name
Map
Unit
Symbol
Approximate
Percentage
of Property
Hydrologic
Soil Group
kSAT of Most
Limiting Layer
(Inches/ Hour)
Ramona Sandy Loam, 2 to 5
Percent Slopes RaB 100 C 0.20 – 0.57
*The areas of the property that possess fill materials should be considered to possess a Hydrologic Soil Group D.

In Situ Testing
We performed constant-head infiltration tests at the locations shown on the Geologic Map, Figure 1.

TABLE C-3

TABLE C-4

Geocon Project No. G3177-42-01 - C - 4 - September 22, 2023

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Storm Water Evaluation Narrative
The in-place infiltration test locations were selected in areas likely used for potential infiltration devices.

We performed 2 infiltration tests within the underlying topsoil and granitic rock and the results indicate an average rate of 0.044 inches per hour (with an applied factor of safety of 2).

Geocon Project No. G3177-42-01 - C - 5 - September 22, 2023 TABLE C-5

SUITABILITY ASSESSMENT RELATED CONSIDERATIONS FOR INFILTRATION FACILITY

X
Provide basis:

We performed 2 Aardvark Permeameter tests at the site in areas where storm water devices may be installed. The following presents the results of the field infiltration tests:

X
Provide basis:

Geologic hazards do not exist at the site that would preclude infiltration.

X
Provide basis:

We do not expect infiltration will cause water balance issues such as seasonality of ephemeral streams or increased discharge of contaminated groundwater to surface waters.

Part 1
Result*
If all answers to rows 1 - 4 are “Yes” a full infiltration design is potentially feasible.

X
Provide basis:

We performed 2 Aardvark Permeameter tests at the site in areas where storm water devices may be installed. The following presents the results of the field infiltration tests:

A-1 at 4.5 feet: 0.136 inches/hour (0.068 inches/hour with FOS=2) A-2 at 4.0 feet: 0.039 inches/hour (0.020 inches/hour with FOS=2) These tests result in an average of 0.088 inches/hour (0.044 inches/hour with an applied factor of safety of 2); less than 0.05 inches per hour.
6 Can Infiltration in any appreciable quantity be allowed without increasing risk of geotechnical hazards (slope
stability, groundwater mounding, utilities, or other factors) that cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2.

X
Provide basis:

Geologic hazards do not exist at the site that would preclude infiltration.

X
Provide basis:

Groundwater was not encountered during our investigation. We expect groundwater is approximately 20 feet or greater below existing grade. Therefore, risk of groundwater contamination does not exist at the site that would preclude infiltration.
8 Can infiltration be allowed without violating downstream water rights? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3.

X
Provide basis:

We have not provided a study regarding water rights. However, these rights are not typical in the San Diego County area.

Part 2
Result*
If all answers from row 1-4 are yes then partial infiltration design is potentially feasible.

The feasibility screening category is Partial Infiltration.

If any answer from row 5-8 is no, then infiltration of any volume is considered to be infeasible within the drainage area. The feasibility screening category is No Infiltration.

TEST RESULTS
FIELD-SATURATED INFILTRATION RATE (IN/HR):

FACTORED INFILTRATION RATE (IN/HR):

0.136

0.068
STEADY FLOW RATE (IN3/MIN): 1.146

TEST DATA

AARDVARK PERMEAMETER TEST RESULTS
EXTRA SPACE STORAGE #1984
PROJECT NO.: G3177-42-01

TEST INFORMATION
BOREHOLE DIAMETER (IN): 4

4.5 375
FACTOR OF SAFETY: 2.0
BOREHOLE DEPTH (FT):

TEST/BOTTOM ELEVATION (MSL, FT):

MEASURED HEAD HEIGHT (IN):

CALCULATED HEAD HEIGHT (IN):

6.0 6.2

0.0 1.0

2.0 3.0

TEST RESULTS
FIELD-SATURATED INFILTRATION RATE (IN/HR):

FACTORED INFILTRATION RATE (IN/HR):

0.039

0.020
STEADY FLOW RATE (IN3/MIN): 0.329

TEST DATA

AARDVARK PERMEAMETER TEST RESULTS
EXTRA SPACE STORAGE #1984
PROJECT NO.: G3177-42-01

TEST INFORMATION
BOREHOLE DIAMETER (IN): 4

4.0 377
FACTOR OF SAFETY: 2.0
BOREHOLE DEPTH (FT):

TEST/BOTTOM ELEVATION (MSL, FT):

MEASURED HEAD HEIGHT (IN):

CALCULATED HEAD HEIGHT (IN):

6.0 6.1

0.0 1.0

2.0 3.0

4.0 5.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Q (in3/min)
Time (min)
Category # Description i ii iii iv v vi vii viii ix x Units 1 Drainage Basin ID or Name DMA 1 DMA 2 unitless2 85th Percentile 24-hr Storm Depth 0.48 0.48 inches3 Impervious Surfaces Not Directed to Dispersion Area (C=0.90) 32,602 68,795 sq-ft 4 Semi-Pervious Surfaces Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.30) sq-ft5 Engineered Pervious Surfaces Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.10) 2,304 10,906 sq-ft6 Natural Type A Soil Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.10) sq-ft 7 Natural Type B Soil Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.14) sq-ft 8 Natural Type C Soil Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.23) sq-ft9 Natural Type D Soil Not Serving as Dispersion Area (C=0.30) sq-ft 10 Does Tributary Incorporate Dispersion, Tree Wells, and/or Rain Barrels? Yes Yes No No No No No No No No yes/no11 Impervious Surfaces Directed to Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.90) sq-ft 12 Semi-Pervious Surfaces Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.30) sq-ft 13 Engineered Pervious Surfaces Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.10) sq-ft 14 Natural Type A Soil Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.10) sq-ft 15 Natural Type B Soil Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.14) sq-ft 16 Natural Type C Soil Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.23) sq-ft 17 Natural Type D Soil Serving as Dispersion Area per SD-B (Ci=0.30) sq-ft 18 Number of Tree Wells Proposed per SD-A 2 2 #19 Average Mature Tree Canopy Diameter 10 10 ft20 Number of Rain Barrels Proposed per SD-E #21 Average Rain Barrel Size gal22 Total Tributary Area 34,906 79,701 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 sq-ft23 Initial Runoff Factor for Standard Drainage Areas 0.85 0.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 unitless24 Initial Runoff Factor for Dispersed & Dispersion Areas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 unitless25 Initial Weighted Runoff Factor 0.85 0.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 unitless26 Initial Design Capture Volume 1,187 2,519 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet27 Total Impervious Area Dispersed to Pervious Surface 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 sq-ft28 Total Pervious Dispersion Area 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 sq-ft29 Ratio of Dispersed Impervious Area to Pervious Dispersion Area n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a ratio30 Adjustment Factor for Dispersed & Dispersion Areas 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ratio31 Runoff Factor After Dispersion Techniques 0.85 0.79 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a unitless32 Design Capture Volume After Dispersion Techniques 1,187 2,519 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet33 Total Tree Well Volume Reduction 80 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet34 Total Rain Barrel Volume Reduction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet35 Final Adjusted Runoff Factor 0.79 0.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 unitless36 Final Effective Tributary Area 27,576 60,573 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 sq-ft37 Initial Design Capture Volume Retained by Site Design Elements 80 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet38 Final Design Capture Volume Tributary to BMP 1,107 2,439 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet FalseFalse
Automated Worksheet B.1: Calculation of Design Capture Volume (V2.0) Dispersion
Area, Tree Well
& Rain Barrel
Inputs
(Optional)
Standard
Drainage Basin
Inputs
Results
Tree & Barrel
Adjustments
Initial Runoff
Factor
Calculation
Dispersion
Area
Adjustments
No Warning Messages
Attachment 1e
Category # Description i ii iii iv v vi vii viii ix x Units 1 Drainage Basin ID or Name DMA 1 DMA 2 - - - - - - - - unitless2 85th Percentile Rainfall Depth 0.48 0.48 - - - - - - - - inches3 Predominant NRCS Soil Type Within BMP Location C C unitless4 Is proposed BMP location Restricted or Unrestricted for Infiltration Activities? Restricted Restricted unitless5 Nature of Restriction Contam. Soil Contam. Soil unitless6 Do Minimum Retention Requirements Apply to this Project? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes yes/no7 Are Habitable Structures Greater than 9 Stories Proposed? No No yes/no8 Has Geotechnical Engineer Performed an Infiltration Analysis? No No yes/no9 Design Infiltration Rate Recommended by Geotechnical Engineer in/hr 10 Design Infiltration Rate Used To Determine Retention Requirements 0.000 0.000 - - - - - - - - in/hr11 Percent of Average Annual Runoff that Must be Retained within DMA 4.5% 4.5% - - - - - - - - percentage12 Fraction of DCV Requiring Retention 0.02 0.02 - - - - - - - - ratio13 Required Retention Volume 22 49 - - - - - - - - cubic-feet FalseFalse
Automated Worksheet B.2: Retention Requirements (V2.0)
Advanced
Analysis
Basic Analysis
Result
No Warning Messages
Category # Description i ii iii iv v vi vii viii ix x Units 1 Drainage Basin ID or Name DMA 1 DMA 2 - - - - - - - - sq-ft2 Design Infiltration Rate Recommended 0.000 0.000 - - - - - - - - in/hr3 Design Capture Volume Tributary to BMP 1,107 2,439 - - - - - - - - cubic-feet4 Is BMP Vegetated or Unvegetated? Vegetated Vegetated unitless5 Is BMP Impermeably Lined or Unlined? Lined Lined unitless6 Does BMP Have an Underdrain? Underdrain Underdrain unitless7 Does BMP Utilize Standard or Specialized Media? Standard Standard unitless8 Provided Surface Area 68 64 sq-ft 9 Provided Surface Ponding Depth inches
10 Provided Soil Media Thickness inches11 Provided Gravel Thickness (Total Thickness) inches12 Underdrain Offset inches13 Diameter of Underdrain or Hydromod Orifice (Select Smallest) inches14 Specialized Soil Media Filtration Rate in/hr15 Specialized Soil Media Pore Space for Retention unitless16 Specialized Soil Media Pore Space for Biofiltration unitless17 Specialized Gravel Media Pore Space unitless18 Volume Infiltrated Over 6 Hour Storm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet19 Ponding Pore Space Available for Retention 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 unitless20 Soil Media Pore Space Available for Retention 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 unitless21 Gravel Pore Space Available for Retention (Above Underdrain) 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 unitless22 Gravel Pore Space Available for Retention (Below Underdrain) 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 unitless23 Effective Retention Depth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 inches24 Fraction of DCV Retained (Independent of Drawdown Time) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ratio25 Calculated Retention Storage Drawdown Time 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 hours26 Efficacy of Retention Processes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ratio27 Volume Retained by BMP (Considering Drawdown Time) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet28 Design Capture Volume Remaining for Biofiltration 1,107 2,439 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet29 Max Hydromod Flow Rate through Underdrain 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 cfs30 Max Soil Filtration Rate Allowed by Underdrain Orifice 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 in/hr31 Soil Media Filtration Rate per Specifications 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 in/hr32 Soil Media Filtration Rate to be used for Sizing 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 in/hr33 Depth Biofiltered Over 6 Hour Storm 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 inches34 Ponding Pore Space Available for Biofiltration 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 unitless35 Soil Media Pore Space Available for Biofiltration 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 unitless36 Gravel Pore Space Available for Biofiltration (Above Underdrain) 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 unitless37 Effective Depth of Biofiltration Storage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 inches38 Drawdown Time for Surface Ponding >120 >120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 hours 39 Drawdown Time for Effective Biofiltration Depth #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 hours40 Total Depth Biofiltered 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 inches41 Option 1 - Biofilter 1.50 DCV: Target Volume 1,661 3,659 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet42 Option 1 - Provided Biofiltration Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet43 Option 2 - Store 0.75 DCV: Target Volume 830 1,829 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet44 Option 2 - Provided Storage Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cubic-feet45 Portion of Biofiltration Performance Standard Satisfied 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ratio46 Do Site Design Elements and BMPs Satisfy Annual Retention Requirements? Yes Yes - - - - - - - - yes/no47 Overall Portion of Performance Standard Satisfied (BMP Efficacy Factor) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ratio48 Deficit of Effectively Treated Stormwater -1,107 -2,439 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a cubic-feet Retention
Calculations
Automated Worksheet B.3: BMP Performance (V2.0)
FalseFalse
BMP Inputs
Biofiltration
Calculations
-This BMP does not fully satisfy the performance standards for pollutant control for the drainage area.- BMPs sized at <3% of the effective tributary areas must be accompanied by Reduced Size BMP Maintenance calculations (see last tab).-Vegetated BMPs with surface ponding drawdown times over 24 hours must be certified by a landscape architect or agronomist. All BMPs must have a surface ponding drawdown time of 96 hours or less.False Result
FalseFalseAttention!
45 February 2016
B.6.3 Sizing Flow-Thru Treatment Control BMPs:

Flow-thru treatment control BMPs shall be sized to filter or treat the maximum flow rate of runoff produced from a rainfall intensity of 0.2 inch of rainfall per hour, for each hour of every storm event. The required flow-thru treatment rate should be adjusted for the portion of the DCV already retained or biofiltered onsite as described in Worksheet B.6-1. The following hydrologic method shall be used to calculate the flow rate to be filtered or treated:

𝑄 = 𝐶 × 𝑖 × 𝐴
Where:

Q = Design flow rate in cubic feet per second
C = Runoff factor, area-weighted estimate using Table B.1-1. i = Rainfall intensity of 0.2 in/hr.

A = Tributary area (acres) which includes the total area draining to the BMP, including any offsite or onsite areas that comingle with project runoff and drain to the BMP. Refer to Section 3.3.3 for additional guidance. Street projects consult Section 1.4.3.

Worksheet 0-1: Flow-Thru Design Flows
Flow-thru Design Flows Worksheet B.6-1
1 DCV DCV cubic-feet
2 DCV retained DCVretained cubic-feet
3 DCV biofiltered DCVbiofiltered cubic-feet
4 DCV requiring flow-thru
(Line 1 – Line 2 – 0.67*Line 3) DCVflow-thru cubic-feet 5 Adjustment factor (Line 4 / Line 1)* AF= unitless
6 Design rainfall intensity i= 0.20 in/hr
7 Area tributary to BMP (s) A= acres
8 Area-weighted runoff factor (estimate using Appendix
B.2) C= unitless
9 Calculate Flow Rate = AF x (C x i x A) Q= cfs
1) Adjustment factor shall be estimated considering only retention and biofiltration BMPs located upstream of flow-thru BMPs. That is, if the flow-thru BMP is upstream of the project's retention and biofiltration BMPs then the flow-thru BMP shall be sized using an adjustment factor of 1. 2) Volume based (e.g., dry extended detention basin) flow-thru treatment control BMPs shall be sized to the volume in Line 4 and flow based (e.g., vegetated swales) shall be sized to flow rate in Line 9. Sand filter and media filter can be designed either by volume in Line 4 or flow rate in Line 9. 3) Proprietary BMPs, if used, shall provide certified treatment capacity equal to or greater than the calculated flow rate in Line 9; certified treatment capacity per unit shall be consistent with third party certifications.

BMP 1 1,187 0
0 1
TREATMENT FLOW RATE REQUIRED = DCV x 1.5 = 0.136 x 1.5 = 0.204 cfs 1,187 0.80 0.85 0.136

PLAN VIEW

ELEVATION VIEW RIGHT END VIEW

STANDARD DETAIL

STORMWATER BIOFILTRATION SYSTEM
MWS-L-4-17-V

FOR PATENT INFORMATION, GO TO
www.ContechES.com/IP

LEFT END VIEW

INSTALLATION NOTES

SITE SPECIFIC DATA

1.0 _____ (CFS) * PRELIMINARY ONLY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PEDESTRIAN 2.1 GPM/SF

1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.65 3.70 3.75 3.80 3.85 3.90 3.95 MWS‐L‐4‐4 6.70 1.0 0.022 0.023 0.025 0.026 0.028 0.029 0.031 0.032 0.034 0.035 0.037 0.038 0.040 0.042 0.043 0.045 0.046 0.048 0.049 0.051 0.052 0.054 0.055 0.056 0.057 0.058 0.058 0.059 0.060 0.061 MWS‐L‐3‐6 10.06 1.0 0.032 0.035 0.037 0.039 0.042 0.044 0.046 0.048 0.051 0.053 0.055 0.058 0.060 0.062 0.065 0.067 0.069 0.072 0.074 0.076 0.078 0.081 0.083 0.084 0.085 0.087 0.088 0.089 0.090 0.091MWS‐L‐4‐6 9.30 1.0 0.030 0.032 0.034 0.036 0.038 0.041 0.043 0.045 0.047 0.049 0.051 0.053 0.055 0.058 0.060 0.062 0.064 0.066 0.068 0.070 0.073 0.075 0.077 0.078 0.079 0.080 0.081 0.082 0.083 0.084MWS‐L‐4‐8 14.80 1.0 0.048 0.051 0.054 0.058 0.061 0.065 0.068 0.071 0.075 0.078 0.082 0.085 0.088 0.092 0.095 0.099 0.102 0.105 0.109 0.112 0.115 0.119 0.122 0.124 0.126 0.127 0.129 0.131 0.132 0.134 MWS‐L‐4‐13 18.40 1.0 0.059 0.063 0.068 0.072 0.076 0.080 0.084 0.089 0.093 0.097 0.101 0.106 0.110 0.114 0.118 0.122 0.127 0.131 0.135 0.139 0.144 0.148 0.152 0.154 0.156 0.158 0.160 0.163 0.165 0.167MWS‐L‐4‐15 22.40 1.0 0.072 0.077 0.082 0.087 0.093 0.098 0.103 0.108 0.113 0.118 0.123 0.129 0.134 0.139 0.144 0.149 0.154 0.159 0.165 0.170 0.175 0.180 0.185 0.188 0.190 0.193 0.195 0.198 0.200 0.203MWS‐L‐4‐17 26.40 1.0 0.085 0.091 0.097 0.103 0.109 0.115 0.121 0.127 0.133 0.139 0.145 0.151 0.158 0.164 0.170 0.176 0.182 0.188 0.194 0.200 0.206 0.212 0.218 0.221 0.224 0.227 0.230 0.233 0.236 0.239MWS‐L‐4‐19 30.40 1.0 0.098 0.105 0.112 0.119 0.126 0.133 0.140 0.147 0.153 0.160 0.167 0.174 0.181 0.188 0.195 0.202 0.209 0.216 0.223 0.230 0.237 0.244 0.251 0.255 0.258 0.262 0.265 0.269 0.272 0.276MWS‐L‐4‐21 34.40 1.0 0.111 0.118 0.126 0.134 0.142 0.150 0.158 0.166 0.174 0.182 0.189 0.197 0.205 0.213 0.221 0.229 0.237 0.245 0.253 0.261 0.268 0.276 0.284 0.288 0.292 0.296 0.300 0.304 0.308 0.312 MWS‐L‐6‐8 18.80 1.0 0.060 0.065 0.069 0.073 0.078 0.082 0.086 0.091 0.095 0.099 0.104 0.108 0.112 0.116 0.121 0.125 0.129 0.134 0.138 0.142 0.147 0.151 0.155 0.157 0.160 0.162 0.164 0.166 0.168 0.170MWS‐L‐8‐8 29.60 1.0 0.095 0.102 0.109 0.115 0.122 0.129 0.136 0.143 0.149 0.156 0.163 0.170 0.177 0.183 0.190 0.197 0.204 0.211 0.217 0.224 0.231 0.238 0.245 0.248 0.251 0.255 0.258 0.262 0.265 0.268 MWS‐L‐8‐12 44.40 1.0 0.143 0.153 0.163 0.173 0.183 0.194 0.204 0.214 0.224 0.234 0.245 0.255 0.265 0.275 0.285 0.296 0.306 0.316 0.326 0.336 0.346 0.357 0.367 0.372 0.377 0.382 0.387 0.392 0.397 0.402MWS‐L‐8‐16 59.20 1.0 0.190 0.204 0.217 0.231 0.245 0.258 0.272 0.285 0.299 0.312 0.326 0.340 0.353 0.367 0.380 0.394 0.408 0.421 0.435 0.448 0.462 0.476 0.489 0.496 0.503 0.509 0.516 0.523 0.530 0.537MWS‐L‐8‐20 74.00 1.0 0.238 0.255 0.272 0.289 0.306 0.323 0.340 0.357 0.374 0.391 0.408 0.425 0.442 0.459 0.476 0.493 0.509 0.526 0.543 0.560 0.577 0.594 0.611 0.620 0.628 0.637 0.645 0.654 0.662 0.671 MWS‐L‐10‐20 or
MWS‐L‐8‐24

88.80 1.0 0.285 0.306 0.326 0.346 0.367 0.387 0.408 0.428 0.448 0.469 0.489 0.509 0.530 0.550 0.571 0.591 0.611 0.632 0.652 0.673 0.693 0.713 0.734 0.744 0.754 0.764 0.774 0.785 0.795 0.805 4'x'4 media cage 14.80 1.0 0.048 0.051 0.054 0.058 0.061 0.065 0.068 0.071 0.075 0.078 0.082 0.085 0.088 0.092 0.095 0.099 0.102 0.105 0.109 0.112 0.115 0.119 0.122 0.124

MWS MODEL SIZE

WETLAND

PERMITER
LENGTH

LOADING
RATE
GPM/SF

HGL HEIGHT

SHALLOW MODELS STANDARD HEIGHT MODEL HIGH CAPACITY MODELS MWS Linear 2.0 HGL Sizing Calculations
45 February 2016
B.6.3 Sizing Flow-Thru Treatment Control BMPs:

𝑄 = 𝐶 × 𝑖 × 𝐴
Where:

Q = Design flow rate in cubic feet per second
C = Runoff factor, area-weighted estimate using Table B.1-1. i = Rainfall intensity of 0.2 in/hr.

BMP 2 2,519 2,519 0
0 1
TREATMENT VOLUME REQUIRED = DCV x 1.5 = 2,519 x 1.5 = 3,779 cf

PLAN VIEW

ELEVATION VIEW RIGHT END VIEW

STANDARD DETAIL

STORMWATER BIOFILTRATION SYSTEM
MWS-L-8-8-V

LEFT END VIEW

INSTALLATION NOTES

SITE SPECIFIC DATA
SDG23-4007
Extra Space Storage
Santee, CA
BMP2

0.000

1.0 _____ (CFS)
* PRELIMINARY ONLY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

PEDESTRIAN

3.0 GPM/SF
INCH/HR GPM/SF 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50 7.00 CF 939 1006 1073 1140 1207 1274 1342 1409 1476 1543 1610 1677 1744 1811 1878 1945 2012 2079 2146 2214 2281 2348 2415 2683 3018 3354 3689 4025 4360 4695 DISCHARGE RATE GPM 2.439 2.613 2.787 2.961 3.136 3.310 3.484 3.658 3.832 4.007 4.181 4.355 4.529 4.703 4.878 5.052 5.226 5.400 5.574 5.749 5.923 6.097 6.271 6.968 7.839 8.710 9.581 10.452 11.323 12.194 CF 1303 1397 1490 1583 1676 1769 1862 1955 2048 2141 2235 2328 2421 2514 2607 2700 2793 2886 2979 3073 3166 3259 3352 3724 4190 4655 5121 5586 6052 6517 DISCHARGE RATE GPM 3.385 3.627 3.869 4.111 4.352 4.594 4.836 5.078 5.320 5.561 5.803 6.045 6.287 6.529 6.770 7.012 7.254 7.496 7.738 7.979 8.221 8.463 8.705 9.672 10.881 12.090 13.299 14.508 15.717 16.926 CF 2074 2223 2371 2519 2667 2815 2963 3112 3260 3408 3556 3704 3852 4001 4149 4297 4445 4593 4741 4890 5038 5186 5334 5927 6668 7408 8149 8890 9631 10372 DISCHARGE RATE GPM 5.387 5.772 6.157 6.542 6.926 7.311 7.696 8.081 8.466 8.850 9.235 9.620 10.005 10.390 10.774 11.159 11.544 11.929 12.314 12.698 13.083 13.468 13.853 15.392 17.316 19.240 21.164 23.088 25.012 26.936 CF 2579 2763 2947 3132 3316 3500 3684 3868 4053 4237 4421 4605 4789 4974 5158 5342 5526 5711 5895 6079 6263 6447 6632 7368 8289 9211 10132 11053 11974 12895 DISCHARGE RATE GPM 6.698 7.176 7.654 8.133 8.611 9.090 9.568 10.046 10.525 11.003 11.482 11.960 12.438 12.917 13.395 13.874 14.352 14.830 15.309 15.787 16.266 16.744 17.222 19.136 21.528 23.920 26.312 28.704 31.096 33.488 CF 3140 3364 3588 3812 4037 4261 4485 4709 4934 5158 5382 5606 5831 6055 6279 6503 6728 6952 7176 7400 7625 7849 8073 8970 10092 11213 12334 13455 14577 15698 DISCHARGE RATE GPM 8.154 8.736 9.318 9.901 10.483 11.066 11.648 12.230 12.813 13.395 13.978 14.560 15.142 15.725 16.307 16.890 17.472 18.054 18.637 19.219 19.802 20.384 20.966 23.296 26.208 29.120 32.032 34.944 37.856 40.768 CF 3700 3965 4229 4493 4757 5022 5286 5550 5815 6079 6343 6608 6872 7136 7400 7665 7929 8193 8458 8722 8986 9251 9515 10572 11894 13215 14537 15858 17180 18501 DISCHARGE RATE GPM 9.610 10.296 10.982 11.669 12.355 13.042 13.728 14.414 15.101 15.787 16.474 17.160 17.846 18.533 19.219 19.906 20.592 21.278 21.965 22.651 23.338 24.024 24.710 27.456 30.888 34.320 37.752 41.184 44.616 48.048 CF 4261 4565 4870 5174 5478 5783 6087 6391 6696 7000 7304 7609 7913 8217 8522 8826 9130 9435 9739 10043 10348 10652 10957 12174 13696 15217 16739 18261 19783 21304 DISCHARGE RATE GPM 11.066 11.856 12.646 13.437 14.227 15.018 15.808 16.598 17.389 18.179 18.970 19.760 20.550 21.341 22.131 22.922 23.712 24.502 25.293 26.083 26.874 27.664 28.454 31.616 35.568 39.520 43.472 47.424 51.376 55.328 CF 4822 5166 5510 5855 6199 6543 6888 7232 7577 7921 8265 8610 8954 9299 9643 9987 10332 10676 11021 11365 11709 12054 12398 13776 15498 17220 18942 20664 22386 24108 DISCHARGE RATE GPM 12.522 13.416 14.310 15.205 16.099 16.994 17.888 18.782 19.677 20.571 21.466 22.360 23.254 24.149 25.043 25.938 26.832 27.726 28.621 29.515 30.410 31.304 32.198 35.776 40.248 44.720 49.192 53.664 58.136 62.608 CF 2635 2823 3011 3200 3388 3576 3764 3953 4141 4329 4517 4705 4894 5082 5270 5458 5646 5835 6023 6211 6399 6588 6776 7529 8470 9411 10352 11293 12234 13175 DISCHARGE RATE GPM 6.843 7.332 7.821 8.310 8.798 9.287 9.776 10.265 10.754 11.242 11.731 12.220 12.709 13.198 13.686 14.175 14.664 15.153 15.642 16.130 16.619 17.108 17.597 19.552 21.996 24.440 26.884 29.328 31.772 34.216 CF 4149 4445 4741 5038 5334 5630 5927 6223 6519 6816 7112 7408 7705 8001 8297 8594 8890 9187 9483 9779 10076 10372 10668 11854 13335 14817 16299 17780 19262 20744 DISCHARGE RATE GPM 10.774 11.544 12.314 13.083 13.853 14.622 15.392 16.162 16.931 17.701 18.470 19.240 20.010 20.779 21.549 22.318 23.088 23.858 24.627 25.397 26.166 26.936 27.706 30.784 34.632 38.480 42.328 46.176 50.024 53.872 CF 6223 6668 7112 7557 8001 8446 8890 9335 9779 10224 10668 11113 11557 12002 12446 12891 13335 13780 14224 14669 15113 15558 16002 17780 20003 22225 24448 26671 28893 31116 DISCHARGE RATE GPM 16.162 17.316 18.470 19.625 20.779 21.934 23.088 24.242 25.397 26.551 27.706 28.860 30.014 31.169 32.323 33.478 34.632 35.786 36.941 38.095 39.250 40.404 41.558 46.176 51.948 57.720 63.492 69.264 75.036 80.808 CF 8297 8890 9483 10076 10668 11261 11854 12446 13039 13632 14224 14817 15410 16002 16595 17188 17780 18373 18966 19558 20151 20744 21336 23707 26671 29634 32597 35561 38524 41487 DISCHARGE RATE GPM 21.549 23.088 24.627 26.166 27.706 29.245 30.784 32.323 33.862 35.402 36.941 38.480 40.019 41.558 43.098 44.637 46.176 47.715 49.254 50.794 52.333 53.872 55.411 61.568 69.264 76.960 84.656 92.352 100.048 107.744 CF 10372 11113 11854 12594 13335 14076 14817 15558 16299 17039 17780 18521 19262 20003 20744 21485 22225 22966 23707 24448 25189 25930 26671 29634 33338 37042 40747 44451 48155 51859 DISCHARGE RATE GPM 26.936 28.860 30.784 32.708 34.632 36.556 38.480 40.404 42.328 44.252 46.176 48.100 50.024 51.948 53.872 55.796 57.720 59.644 61.568 63.492 65.416 67.340 69.264 76.960 86.580 96.200 105.820 115.440 125.060 134.680 CF 12446 13335 14224 15113 16002 16891 17780 18669 19558 20447 21336 22225 23114 24003 24892 25782 26671 27560 28449 29338 30227 31116 32005 35561 40006 44451 48896 53341 57786 62231 DISCHARGE RATE GPM 32.323 34.632 36.941 39.250 41.558 43.867 46.176 48.485 50.794 53.102 55.411 57.720 60.029 62.338 64.646 66.955 69.264 71.573 73.882 76.190 78.499 80.808 83.117 92.352 103.896 115.440 126.984 138.528 150.072 161.616 MWS Linear 2.0 HGL Volume Sizing Matrix - 48 Hour Draindown

MWS MODEL SIZE

WETLAND

PERIMETER
LENGTH
(FEET)

LOADING RATE
DRAIN
DOWN
(HOURS)

AVALIABLE TREATMENT HGL HEIGHT (FEET)

SHALLOW MODELS STANDARD HEIGHT MODEL HIGH CAPACITY MODELS MWS‐L‐4‐4 6.70 26 0.26 48
MWS‐L‐4‐6 9.30 26 0.26 48
MWS‐L‐4‐8 14.80 26 0.26 48
MWS‐L‐4‐13 18.40 26 0.26 48
MWS‐L‐4‐15 22.40 26 0.26 48
MWS‐L‐4‐17 26.40 26 0.26 48
MWS‐L‐4‐19 30.40 26 0.26 48
MWS‐L‐4‐21 34.40 26 0.26 48
MWS‐L‐6‐8 18.80 26 0.26 48
MWS‐L‐8‐8 29.60 26 0.26 48
MWS‐L‐8‐12 44.40 26 0.26 48
MWS‐L‐8‐16 59.20 26 0.26 48
MWS‐L‐8‐20 74.00 26 0.26 48MWS‐L‐8‐24 88.80 26 0.26 48
PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2024
ATTACHMENT 2

BACKUP FOR PDP HYDROMODIFICATION CONTROL MEASURES
This is the cover sheet for Attachment 2.

X Mark this box if this attachment is empty because the project is exempt from PDP hydromodification management requirements.

Indicate which Items are Included behind this cover sheet:

Attachment
Sequence
Contents Checklist
Attachment 2a Hydromodification Management Exhibit
(Required)
Included
See Hydromodification Management
Exhibit Checklist on the back of this
Attachment cover sheet.

Attachment 2b Management of Critical Coarse Sediment
Yield Areas (WMAA Exhibit is required,
additional analyses are optional)
See Section 6.2 of the BMP Design
Manual.

Exhibit showing project drainage
boundaries marked on WMAA Critical
Coarse Sediment Yield Area Map
(Required)
Optional analyses for Critical Coarse
Sediment Yield Area Determination
6.2.1 Verification of Geomorphic
Landscape Units Onsite
6.2.2 Downstream Systems
Sensitivity to Coarse Sediment
6.2.3 Optional Additional Analysis of
Potential Critical Coarse Sediment
Yield Areas Onsite
Attachment 2c Geomorphic Assessment of Receiving
Channels (Optional)
See Section 6.3.4 of the BMP Design
Manual.

Not performed
Included
Submitted as separate stand-alone
document
Attachment 2d Flow Control Facility Design, including
Structural BMP Drawdown Calculations
and Overflow Design Summary
(Required)
See Chapter 6 and Appendix G of the
BMP Design Manual
Included
Submitted as separate stand-alone
document
Attachment 2e Vector Control Plan (Required when
structural BMPs will not drain in 96
hours)
Included
Not required because BMPs will
drain in less than 96 hours
PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2024
Use this checklist to ensure the required information has been included on the Hydromodification Management Exhibit:

The Hydromodification Management Exhibit must identify:
Underlying hydrologic soil group
Approximate depth to groundwater
Existing natural hydrologic features ( watercourses, seeps, springs, wetlands) Critical coarse sediment yield areas to be protected
Existing topography
Existing and proposed site drainage network and connections to drainage offsite Proposed grading
Proposed impervious features
Proposed design features and surface treatments used to minimize imperviousness Point(s) of Compliance (POC) for Hydromodification Management Existing and proposed drainage boundary and drainage area to each POC (when necessary, create separate exhibits for pre-development and post-project conditions) Structural BMPs for hydromodification management (identify location, type of BMP, and size/detail)

PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2024
ATTACHMENT 3
Structural BMP Maintenance Information
This is the cover sheet for Attachment 3.

Indicate which Items are Included behind this cover sheet:

Attachment
Sequence
Contents Checklist
Attachment 3a Structural BMP Maintenance Thresholds
and Actions (Required)
X Included
See Structural BMP Maintenance
Information Checklist on the back of
this Attachment cover sheet.

Attachment 3b Draft Maintenance Agreement (when
applicable)
X Included
Not Applicable

PDP SWQMP Template Date: February 2016
PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: February 2024
Use this checklist to ensure the required information has been included in the Structural BMP Maintenance Information Attachment:

X Preliminary Design / Planning / CEQA level submittal:

Attachment 3a must identify:

X Typical maintenance indicators and actions for proposed structural BMP(s) based on Section 7.7 of the BMP Design Manual
Attachment 3b is not required for preliminary design / planning / CEQA level submittal. Final Design level submittal:

Attachment 3a must identify:
Specific maintenance indicators and actions for proposed structural BMP(s). This shall be based on Section 7.7 of the BMP Design Manual and enhanced to reflect actual proposed components of the structural BMP(s)
How to access the structural BMP(s) to inspect and perform maintenance Features that are provided to facilitate inspection (e.g., observation ports, cleanouts, silt posts, or other features that allow the inspector to view necessary components of the structural BMP and compare to maintenance thresholds)
Manufacturer and part number for proprietary parts of structural BMP(s) when applicable
Maintenance thresholds specific to the structural BMP(s), with a location-specific frame of reference (e.g., level of accumulated materials that triggers removal of the materials, to be identified based on viewing marks on silt posts or measured with a survey rod with respect to a fixed benchmark within the BMP)
Recommended equipment to perform maintenance
When applicable, necessary special training or certification requirements for inspection and maintenance personnel such as confined space entry or hazardous waste management
Attachment 3b: For private entity operation and maintenance, Attachment 3b shall include a draft maintenance agreement in the local jurisdiction's standard format (PDP applicant to contact the [City Engineer] to obtain the current maintenance agreement forms).

ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS
Modular Wetlands® Linear Operatons &
Maintenance Manual
2 MODULAR WETLANDS LINEAR

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE MANUAL

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Overview ........................................................................................................................................................................ 3 Safety Notice & Personal Safety Equipment ................................................................................................................. 4 Modular Wetlands Linear Components List ................................................................................................................. 5 Inspection Summary & Equipment List ......................................................................................................................... 6 Inspection & Maintenance Notes .................................................................................................................................. 7 Inspection Process ......................................................................................................................................................... 7 Maintenance Indicators ................................................................................................................................................. 9 Maintenance Summary & Equipment List..................................................................................................................... 9 Maintenance Instructions .............................................................................................................................................11 Replacing Biofiltration Media if Required ....................................................................................................................14 Replacing Drain Down Filter Media (Only on Older California Models) .....................................................................16 Notes .............................................................................................................................................................................17 Inspection Report .........................................................................................................................................................18 Cleaning & Maintenance Report ..................................................................................................................................19 3 OVERVIEW
This operation and maintenance (O&M) manual is for the Modular Wetlands Linear Biofilter (MWL). Please read the instructions and equipment lists closely prior to starting. It is important to follow all necessary safety procedures associated with state and local regulations. Please contact Contech for more information on pre-authorized third-party service providers who can provide inspection and maintenance services in your area. For a list of service providers in your area, please visit www.conteches.com/maintenance.

PLACEHOLDER FOR MARKETING PHOTO

WARNING
Confined space entry may be required. Contractor to obtain all equipment and training to meet applicable local and OSHA regulations regarding confined space entry. It is the Contractor’s or entry personnel’s responsibility to always proceed safely. 4 SAFETY NOTICE & PERSONAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT
Job site safety is a topic and a practice addressed comprehensively by others. The inclusions here are merely reminders to whole areas of Safety Practice that are the responsibility of the Owner(s), Manager(s), and Service Provider(s). OSHA and Canadian OSH, Federal, State/Provincial, and Local Jurisdiction Safety Standards apply on any given site or project.

The knowledge and applicability of those responsibilities is the Service Provider’s responsibility and outside the scope of Contech Engineered Solutions.

Safety Boots Gloves Hard Hat Eye Protection
Maintenance and Protection
of Traffic Plan
5 MODULAR WETLANDS LINEAR COMPONENTS LIST
The MWL system comes in multiple sizes and configurations, including side by side or end to end layouts, both as open planters or underground systems. See shop drawings (plans) for project specific details.

The standard MWL system is comprised of the following components:
6 INSPECTION SUMMARY & EQUIPMENT LIST
Stormwater regulations require BMPs be inspected and maintained to ensure they are operating as designed to allow for effective pollutant removal and provide protection to receiving water bodies. It is recommended that inspections be performed multiple times during the first year to assess the site-specific loading conditions. The first year of inspections can be used to set inspection and maintenance intervals for subsequent years to ensure appropriate maintenance is provided.
 Inspect pre-treatment, biofiltration, and discharge chambers an average of once every six to twelve months. Varies based on site specific and local conditions.  Average inspection time is approximately 15 minutes. Always ensure appropriate safety protocol and procedures are followed.

The following is a list of equipment required to allow for simple and effective inspection of the MWL:

Modular Wetlands Linear
Inspection Form
Flashlight Tape Measure Access Cover Hook
Ratchet
& 7/16” Socket
(if required for older pre-filter
cartridges that have two
bolts holding the lids on)
7 INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE NOTES

1. Following maintenance and/or inspection, it is recommended that the maintenance operator prepare a maintenance/inspection record. The record should include any maintenance activities performed, amount and description of debris collected, and condition of the system and its various filter mechanisms.

2. The owner should keep maintenance/inspection record(s) for a minimum of five years from the date of maintenance. These records should be made available to the governing municipality for inspection upon request at any time.

3. Transport all debris, trash, organics, and sediments to approved facility for disposal in accordance with local and state requirements.

4. Entry into chambers may require confined space training based on state and local regulations.

5. No fertilizer shall be used in the biofiltration chamber.

6. Irrigation should be provided as recommended by manufacturer and/or landscape architect. Amount of irrigation required is dependent on plant species. Some plants may not require irrigation after initial establishment.

INSPECTION PROCESS

1. Prepare the inspection form by writing in the necessary information including project name, location, date & time, unit number and other information (see inspection form).

2. Observe the inside of the system through the access covers. If minimal light is available and vision into the unit is impaired, utilize a flashlight to see inside the system and all chambers.

3. Look for any out of the ordinary obstructions in the inflow pipe, pre-treatment chamber, biofiltration chamber, discharge chamber or outflow pipe. Write down any observations on the inspection form.

4. Through observation and/or digital photographs, estimate the amount of trash, debris accumulated in the pretreatment chamber. Utilizing a tape measure or measuring stick, estimate the amount of sediment in this chamber. Record this depth on the inspection form.

5. Through visual observation, inspect the condition of the pre-filter cartridges. Look for excessive build-up of sediment on the cartridges, any build-up on the tops of the cartridges, or clogging of the holes. Record this information on the inspection form. The pre-filter cartridges can be further inspected by removing the cartridge tops and assessing the color of the BioMediaGREEN filter cubes (requires entry into pre-treatment chamber - see notes previous notes regarding confined space entry). Record the color of the material. New material is a light green color. As the media becomes clogged, it will turn darker in color, eventually becoming dark brown or black. The closer to black the media is the higher percentage that the media is exhausted and in need of replacement.
8 6. The biofiltration chamber is generally maintenance-free due to the system’s advanced pre-treatment chamber.

For units which have open planters with vegetation, it is recommended that the vegetation be inspected. Look for any plants that are dead or showing signs of disease or other negative stressors. Record the general health of the plants on the inspection form and indicate through visual observation or digital photographs if trimming of the vegetation is required.

7. The discharge chamber houses the control riser (if applicable), drain down filter (only in California - older models), and is connected to the outflow pipe. It is important to check to ensure the orifice is in proper operating condition and free of any obstructions. It is also important to assess the condition of the drain down filter media which utilizes a block form of the BioMediaGREEN. Assess in the same manner as the cubes in the pre-filter cartridge as mentioned above.

8. Finalize the inspection report for analysis by the maintenance manager to determine if maintenance is required. 9 MAINTENANCE INDICATORS
Based upon the observations made during inspection, maintenance of the system may be required based on the following indicators:
 Missing or damaged internal components or cartridges.  Obstructions in the system or its inlet and/or outlet pipes.  Excessive accumulation of floatables in the pre-treatment chamber in which the length and width of the chamber is fully impacted more than 18”.
 Excessive accumulation of sediment in the pre-treatment chamber of more than 6” in depth.  Excessive accumulation of sediment on the BioMediaGREEN media housed within the pretreatment cartridges.

When media is more than 85% clogged, replacement is required. The darker the BioMediaGREEN, the more clogged it is and in need of replacement.
 Excessive accumulation of sediment on the BioMediaGREEN media housed within the drain down filter (California only - older models).
 Overgrown vegetation.

MAINTENANCE SUMMARY & EQUIPMENT LIST
The time has come to maintain your MWL. All necessary pre-maintenance steps must be carried out before maintenance occurs. Once traffic control has been set up per local and state regulations and access covers have been safely opened, the maintenance process can begin. It should be noted that some maintenance activities require confined space entry.

All confined space requirements must be strictly followed before entry into the system. In addition, the following is recommended:
 Prepare the maintenance form by writing in the necessary information including project name, location, date & time, unit number and other info (see maintenance form).  Set up all appropriate safety and maintenance equipment.  Ensure traffic control is set up and properly positioned.  Prepared pre-checks (OSHA, safety, confined space entry) are performed. o A gas meter should be used to detect the presence of any hazardous gases prior to entering the system.

If hazardous gases are present, do not enter the vault. Following appropriate confined space procedures, take steps such as utilizing a venting system to address the hazard. Once it is determined to be safe, enter the system utilizing appropriate entry equipment such as a ladder and tripod with harness.
10 The following is a list of equipment required for maintenance of the MWL:

Modular Wetlands Linear
Maintenance Form
Flashlight Access Cover Hook Ratchet
& 7/16” Socket
(if required for older pre-filter
cartridges that have two
bolts holding the lids on)
Vacuum Assisted Truck with
Pressure Washer
Replacement
BioMediaGREEN
(If Required)
(order BioMediaGREEN from Contech’s Maintenance Team members at https://www.conteches.com/maintenance) 11 MAINTENANCE INSTRUCTIONS

1. ACCESS COVER REMOVAL
Upon determining that the vault is safe for entry, remove all access cover(s) and position the vacuum truck
accordingly.

2. PRESSURE WASH SYSTEM CHAMBERS
With the pressure washer, spray down pollutants
accumulated on the walls and floors of the pretreatment and discharge chambers. Then wash any accumulated sediment from the pre-filter cartridge(s).

3. VACUUM SYSTEM CHAMBERS
Vacuum out pre-treatment and discharge chambers and
remove all accumulated pollutants including trash,
debris, and sediments. Be sure to vacuum the pretreatment floor until the pervious pavers are visible and clean. (MWL systems outside of California may or may
not have pervious pavers on the floor in the pretreatment chamber) If pre-filter cartridges require media replacement, proceed to Step 4. If not, replace the access cover(s) and proceed to Step 7.
12 4. PRE-FILTER CARTRIDGE LID REMOVAL
After successfully cleaning out the pre-treatment
chamber, enter the chamber and remove the lid(s) from
the pre-filter cartridge(s) by removing the two thumb
screws. (Older pre-filter cartridges have two bolts
holding the lids on that require a 7/16” socket to remove)

5. VACUUM EXISTING PRE-FILTER MEDIA
Utilize the vacuum truck hose or hose extension to
remove the filter media from each of the individual
media cages. Once filter media has been sucked out, use a pressure washer to spray down the inside of the
cartridge and its media cages. Remove cleaned media
cages and place to the side. Once removed, the vacuum
hose can be inserted into the cartridge to vacuum out
any remaining material near the bottom of the cartridge.

6. PRE-FILTER MEDIA REPLACEMENT
Reinstall media cages and fill with new media from the
manufacturer or outside supplier. Manufacturer will
provide specification of media and sources to purchase.

The easiest way to fill the media cages is to utilize a refilling tray that can also be sourced from the
manufacturer. Place the refilling tray on top of the
cartridge and fill with new bulk media shaking it down
into the cages. Using your hands, lightly compact the
media into each filter cage. Once the cages are full (each cartridge will hold five heaping 5gal buckets of bulk
media), remove the refilling tray and replace the
cartridge top, ensuring fasteners are properly tightened. 13 7. MAINTAINING VEGETATION
In general, the biofiltration chamber is maintenance-free with the exception of maintaining the vegetation. The
MWL utilizes vegetation similar to surrounding
landscape areas, therefore, trim vegetation to match
surrounding vegetation. If any plants have died, replace them with new ones.

8. INSPECT UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM
Each vertical under drain on the biofiltration chamber
has a removable threaded cap that can be taken off to
check for any blockages or root growth. Once removed,
a jetting attachment to the pressure washer can be used to clean out the under drain and orifice riser if needed.

9. REPLACE ACCESS COVERS
Once maintenance is complete, replace all access
cover(s)
14 REPLACING BIOFILTRATION MEDIA IF REQUIRED
As with all biofilter systems, at some point the biofiltration media will need to be replaced, either due to physical clogging or sorptive exhaustion (for dissolved pollutants) of the media ion exchange capacity (to remove dissolved metals and phosphorous). The general life of this media is 10 to 20 years based on site specific conditions and pollutant loading, so replacing the biofiltration media should not be a common occurrence. In the event that the biofiltration media requires replacement, contact one of Contech’s Maintenance Team members at https://www.conteches.com/maintenance to order new biofiltration media. The quantity of media needed can be determined by providing the model number and unit depth. Media will be provided in super sacks for easy installation.

Each sack will weigh between 1,000 and 2,000 lbs. Biofiltration media replacement can be done following the steps below:

1. VACUUM EXISTING BIOFILTRATION MEDIA
Remove the mulch and vegetation to access the
biofiltration media, and then position the vacuum truck accordingly. Utilize the vacuum truck to vacuum out all the media. Once all media is removed, use the pressure
washer to spray down all the netting and underdrain
systems on the inside of the media containment cage.

Vacuum out any remaining debris after spraying down
netting. Inspect the netting for any damage or holes. If the netting is damaged, it can be repaired or replaced
with guidance by the manufacturer.

2. INSTALLING NEW BIOFILTRATION MEDIA
Ensure that the chamber is fully cleaned prior to
installation of new media into the media containment
cage(s). Media will be provided in super sacks for easy installation. A lifting apparatus (forklift, backhoe, boom truck, or other) is recommended to position the super
sack over the biofiltration chamber. Add media in lifts to ensure that the riser pipes remain vertical. Be sure to only fill the media cage(s) up to the same level as the old media.
15 3. REPLANT VEGETATION
Once the media has been replaced, replant the
vegetation and cover biofiltration chamber with
approved mulch (if applicable). If the existing vegetation is not being reused, and new vegetation is being
planted, you will need to acquire new plant
establishment media that will be installed just below the mulch layer at each plant location. (see plan drawings for details). Contact one of Contech’s Maintenance Team
members at https://www.conteches.com/maintenance
to order new plant establishment media.
16 REPLACING DRAIN DOWN FILTER MEDIA (ONLY ON OLDER CALIFORNIA MODELS) NOTE: The drain down filter is only found on units installed in California prior to 2023 If during inspection it was determined that the drain down filter media requires replacement, contact one of Contech’s Maintenance Team members at https://www.conteches.com/maintenance to order new media.

1. REMOVE EXISTING DRAIN DOWN MEDIA
Pull knob back to unlock the locking mechanism and lift the drain down filter housing to remove the used
BioMediaGREEN filter block.

2. INSTALL NEW DRAIN DOWN MEDIA
Ensure that the chamber and housing are fully cleaned
prior to installation of new media, and then insert the new BioMediaGREEN filter block. The media filter block
should fit snugly between the chamber walls and be
centered under the filter housing. Lower the housing
over the filter block and secure the locking mechanism. 17 NOTES
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ 18 For Office Use Only
(city) (Zip Code) (Reviewed By)
Owner / Management Company
(Date)
Contact Phone ( ) _
Inspector Name Date / / Time AM / PM
Weather Condition Additional Notes
Yes
Depth:

Yes No
Modular Wetland System Type (Curb, Grate or UG Vault): Size (22', 14' or etc.):

Other Inspection Items:

Type of Inspection Routine Follow Up Complaint Storm Storm Event in Last 72-hours? No Yes Office personnel to complete section to
the left.

Inspection Report
Modular Wetlands Linear
Is the filter insert (if applicable) at capacity and/or is there an accumulation of debris/trash on the shelf system? Does the cartridge filter media need replacement in pre-treatment chamber and/or discharge chamber? Any signs of improper functioning in the discharge chamber? Note issues in comments section.

Chamber:

Is the inlet/outlet pipe or drain down pipe damaged or otherwise not functioning properly? Structural Integrity:

Working Condition:

Is there evidence of illicit discharge or excessive oil, grease, or other automobile fluids entering and clogging the unit?
Is there standing water in inappropriate areas after a dry period? Damage to pre-treatment access cover (manhole cover/grate) or cannot be opened using normal lifting pressure?
Damage to discharge chamber access cover (manhole cover/grate) or cannot be opened using normal lifting pressure?
Does the MWS unit show signs of structural deterioration (cracks in the wall, damage to frame)? Project Name
Project Address
Inspection Checklist
No Comments
Does the depth of sediment/trash/debris suggest a blockage of the inflow pipe, bypass or cartridge filter? If yes, specify which one in the comments section. Note depth of accumulation in in pre-treatment chamber.

Is there a septic or foul odor coming from inside the system? Is there an accumulation of sediment/trash/debris in the wetland media (if applicable)? Is it evident that the plants are alive and healthy (if applicable)? Please note Plant Information below.

Sediment / Silt / Clay
Trash / Bags / Bottles
Green Waste / Leaves / Foliage
Waste: Plant Information
No Cleaning Needed
Recommended Maintenance
Additional Notes:

Damage to Plants
Plant Replacement
Plant Trimming
Schedule Maintenance as Planned
Needs Immediate Maintenance

ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS
19 For Office Use Only
(city) (Zip Code) (Reviewed By)
Owner / Management Company
(Date)
Contact Phone ( ) _
Inspector Name Date / / Time AM / PM
Weather Condition Additional Notes
Site
Map #
Comments:

Inlet and Outlet
Pipe Condition
Drain Down Pipe
Condition
Discharge Chamber
Condition
Drain Down Media
Condition
Plant Condition
Media Filter
Condition
Long:

MWS
Sedimentation
Basin
Total Debris
Accumulation
Condition of Media
25/50/75/100
(will be changed
@ 75%)
Operational Per
Manufactures'
Specifications
(If not, why?)
Lat: MWS
Catch Basins
GPS Coordinates
of Insert
Manufacturer /
Description / Sizing
Trash
Accumulation
Foliage
Accumulation
Sediment
Accumulation
Type of Inspection Routine Follow Up Complaint Storm Storm Event in Last 72-hours? No Yes Office personnel to complete section to
the left.

Project Address
Project Name
Cleaning and Maintenance Report
Modular Wetlands Linear ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS

SUPPORT
DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE AVAILABLE AT WWW.CONTECHES.COM © 2024 CONTECH ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS LLC, A QUIKRETE COMPANY 800-338-1122
WWW.CONTECHES.COM
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. PRINTED IN THE USA.

CONTECH ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS LLC PROVIDES SITE SOLUTIONS FOR THE CIVIL ENGINEERING INDUSTRY. CONTECH’S PORTFOLIO INCLUDES BRIDGES, DRAINAGE, SANITARY SEWER, STORMWATER AND EARTH STABILIZATION PRODUCTS. FOR INFORMATION ON OTHER CONTECH DIVISION OFFERINGS, VISIT CONTECHES.COM OR CALL 800-338-1122.

ModWetLinear OM Manual 03/24
NOTHING IN THIS CATALOG SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AS A WARRANTY. APPLICATIONS

SUGGESTED HEREIN ARE DESCRIBED ONLY TO HELP READERS MAKE THEIR OWN EVALUATIONS

AND DECISIONS, AND ARE NEITHER GUARANTEES NOR WARRANTIES OF SUITABILITY FOR ANY APPLICATION. CONTECH MAKES NO WARRANTY WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, RELATED TO THE APPLICATIONS, MATERIALS, COATINGS, OR PRODUCTS DISCUSSED HEREIN. ALL IMPLIED

WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED BY CONTECH. SEE CONTECH’S CONDITIONS OF SALE (AVAILABLE AT WWW.CONTECHES.COM/COS) FOR MORE INFORMATION.

ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS

ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS
BioClean® Full Capture Grate Inlet Filter
Maintenance Manual
®
®

••••••••

Santee City CouncilMay 14, 2025

Santee City Council
May 14, 2025