Santee City Council
May 11, 2022

Table 7: Household Income Distribution, Santee and San Diego County (2010 and 2018) Household Income
2010 2018 Change in Proportion
Santee County Santee County Santee County
Less than $15,000 7.0% 11.0% 6.0% 9.0% -1.0% -2.0%
$15,000 - $29,999 12.0% 14.0% 10.0% 12.0% -2.0% -2.0%
$30,000 - $44,999 13.0% 14.0% 11.0% 12.0% -2.0% -2.0%
$45,000 - $59,999 12.0% 11.0% 12.0% 11.0% 0.0% 0.0%
$60,000 - $74,999 13.0% 10.0% 12.0% 10.0% -1.0% .0%
$75,000 - $99,999 16.0% 13.0% 17.0% 13.0% 1.0% 0.0%
$100,000 or more 27.0% 27.0% 32.0% 32.0% 5.0% -5.0%
TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.0% 0.0% -1.0%
Notes: SANDAG Estimates do not add up to 100 percent. SANDAG presents household distributions to the nearest whole number.

Source: SANDAG, Current Estimates, 2010, 2018. (Accessed 09/2020) Figure 5: Median Household Income (2018)
Note: Not adjusted for inflation. Source: SANDAG, Current Estimates, 2018. (Accessed 08/2020).

4. OVERCROWDING
An overcrowded housing unit is defined as a unit occupied by more than one person per room.1 Overcrowding can result when there are not enough adequately sized units within a community, when high housing costs relative to income force too many individuals to share a housing unit than it can adequately accommodate, and/or when families reside in smaller units than they need to devote income to other necessities, such as food and health care.

According to the 2014-2018 ACS, roughly 3.4% of Santee households experienced overcrowded living conditions in 2018 (Table 8). Of these, 39 percent were in owner-occupied households, and 61 percent

1 Based on the Census Bureau’s definition of “room,” which excludes bathrooms, porches, balconies, foyers, halls, or half-rooms.

were renters. This suggests that renters are disproportionately affected by overcrowding – as of 2018, only 29 percent of the households in Santee were renter-occupied, but they represent 61 percent of all overcrowded households.

Table 8: Overcrowding1(2018)
Overcrowded % of Overcrowded HH % of All Households2
Owner 257 38.6% 1.9%
Renter 408 61.4% 7.1%
Total Households 665 100.0% 3.4%
Note: 1. Overcrowding: 1.01 or more persons per bedroom. 2. Percent of households for that category. Total owner households= 13,871; total renter households= 5,779; total households = 19,650.

Source: American Community Survey, 2014-2018 Estimates.

This pattern often suggests an inadequate supply of larger rental units. While 66 percent of occupied housing units in the City had three or more bedrooms (the minimum size considered large enough to avoid most overcrowding issues for large households), only 18 percent of these units were occupied by renters.

5. COST BURDEN
State and federal standards for housing cost burden are based on an income-to-housing cost ratio of 30 percent and above. Households paying more than 30 percent of their income on housing have limited remaining income for other necessities. Upper income households generally are capable of paying a larger proportion of income for housing; therefore, estimates of housing cost burden generally focus on lower and moderate income households.

According to the most recent Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data, published by HUD, 36 percent of Santee households overpaid for housing in 2017 and housing cost burden affected a larger proportion of renters (48 percent) than owners (31 percent) (Table 9). While cost burden affected a smaller proportion of households in 2017 than 2010 (when 44 percent of households overpaid for housing), the trends in cost burden based on tenure have reversed. Since 2010, the proportion of cost burdened renter-households has increased from 43 to 48 percent. By contrast, the proportion of cost burdened owner-households decreased from 45 percent to 30 percent in seven years.

Cost burden affected a majority of lower and moderate income households in 2017 regardless of tenure; however, the incidence of cost burden was greatest among very low income homeowners (81 percent) and very low income renters (91 percent) (Figure 6). With a high prevalence of cost burden amongst lower income households, households may attempt to mitigate cost burden by taking in additional roommates or occupying smaller and presumably cheaper units, leading to overcrowding.

Table 9: Cost Burden by Tenure and Income Level (2010 and 2017) Income
Owners Renters Renters and
Owners
2010 2017 2010 2017 2010 2017
Extremely Low Income (<= 30% AMI) 83.7% 75.7% 75.8% 77.9% 79.9% 76.9% Very Low Income (30-50% AMI) 72.4% 59.4% 80.6% 90.5% 75.9% 74.9% Low Income (50-80% AMI) 55.5% 50.9% 50.9% 67.8% 53.9% 57.5% Moderate/Above Moderate Income (>80% AMI) 35.8% 19.5% 16.8% 15.7% 44.1% 18.6% All Households 44.6% 30.5% 42.7% 48.3% 44.1% 36.0%
Source: Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), 2006-2010 estimates and 2013-2017 estimates.

Figure 6: Cost Burden by Tenure and Income Category (2017) Source: HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) tabulations of 2013-2017 ACS data.

D. Special Needs Populations
Certain segments of the population may have more difficulty in finding decent, affordable housing due to their special needs. Special circumstances may be related to one’s employment and income, family characteristics, disability, or household characteristics, among other factors. Consequently, certain residents in Santee may experience a higher prevalence of housing overpayment (cost burden), overcrowding, or other housing problems.
“Special needs” groups include the following: senior households, single-parent households, large households, persons with disabilities, agricultural workers, students, and homeless (Table 10). This section provides a detailed discussion of the housing needs facing each particular group as well as programs and services available to address their housing needs.

Table 10: Special Needs Groups
Special Needs Group
Santee San Diego County
# % # %
Senior-Headed Households (65+) 4,826 24.6% 249,767 22.3% Single-Parent Households 1,634 8.3% 124,701 11.1%
Female-Headed Households with Children 1,072 5.5% 66,423 5.9% Large Households 1,843 9.4% 132,588 11.8%
Persons with Disabilities 5,964 10.8% 314,897 9.8%
Agricultural Workers1 13 0.0% 13,471 0.9%
Students2 4,019 7.0% 296,600 9.0%
Homeless 25 0.0% 7,619 0.2%

1. Category includes civilians employed in the "agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining" industry as reported in the ACS.

2. Population enrolled in college or graduate school
Source: Census, ACS, 2014-2018; and Regional Task Force on the Homeless, 2020.

1. SENIOR HEADED HOUSEHOLDS
Many senior-headed households have special needs due to their relatively low incomes, disabilities or limitations, and dependency needs. The population over 65 years of age is considered senior and has four main concerns: limited and often fixed income; poor health and associated high health care costs; mobility limitation and transit dependency; and high costs of housing.

From 2014 to 2018, seniors (age 65+) comprised 14 percent of Santee residents and 25 percent of households were headed by seniors. Of these households, the majority (84 percent) owned their homes, while the remainder (16 percent) rented. Aside from cost burden problems faced by seniors due to their relatively fixed incomes, many seniors are faced with various disabilities. Roughly, 34 percent of Santee’s senior population was reported as having one or more disabilities between 2014 and 2018 by the ACS. The need for senior housing can be expected to increase in Santee due to the changing demographics of the population. It will therefore be particularly important for the City to encourage and facilitate the development of housing that is affordable to seniors.

2. FEMALE-HEADED HOUSEHOLDS
Single-parent households require special consideration and assistance because of their greater need for day care, health care, and other facilities. Female-headed households with children in particular tend to have lower incomes, thus limiting housing availability for this group.

According to the 2014-2018 ACS, approximately eight percent of Santee households were headed by single parents. The large majority of these, 66 percent, were headed by females. According to the 2014-2018 ACS, 21 percent of single-parent households had incomes below the poverty level; 87 percent of those households were headed by women. City efforts to expand affordable housing opportunities will help meet the needs of single-parent households.

3. LARGE HOUSEHOLDS
Large households (with five or more members) are identified as a group with special housing needs based on the limited availability of adequately sized, affordable housing units. Large households are often of lower income, frequently resulting in the overcrowding of smaller dwelling units and in turn, accelerating unit deterioration.

About nine percent of Santee households were classified as “large households” by the 2014-2018 ACS.

About 37 percent of those households rented the units they occupied. The housing needs of larger households are typically met through larger units. While 25 percent of occupied housing units in the City had four or more bedrooms, only a small portion of these units (13 percent) were occupied by renters. Since only nine percent of Santee’s households are large households, Santee’s housing stock should be adequate to meet the needs of larger households. However, lower income large renter households may have greater difficulty securing adequately-sized units than other large renter households.

4. PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
Disability is a physical, mental, or developmental condition that substantially limits one or more major life activity. Disabilities can hinder access to housing units of conventional design, as well as limit the ability to earn adequate income. The 2014-2018 ACS estimated that 11 percent of Santee’s population over five years of age had a disability. The ACS also tallied the number of disabilities by type for residents with one or more disabilities; a person may have more than one disability. Among the disabilities tallied, 32 percent involved difficulty hearing, 20 reported cognitive difficulty, 55 percent were ambulatory disabilities, 38 percent made independent living difficult, 16 percent limited self-care ability, and 20 percent involved visual difficulty.

Four factors – affordability, design, location and discrimination – significantly limit the supply of housing available to households of persons with disabilities. The most obvious housing need for persons with disabilities is housing that is adapted to their needs. Most single-family homes are inaccessible to people with mobility and sensory limitations. Housing may not be adaptable to widened doorways and hallways, access ramps, larger bathrooms, lowered countertops and other features necessary for accessibility. The cost of retrofitting a home often prohibits homeownership, even for individuals or families who could otherwise afford a home. Furthermore, some providers of

basic homebuying services do not have offices or materials that are accessible to people with mobility, visual or hearing impairments.

Location of housing is also an important factor for many persons with disabilities, as they often rely upon public transportation. Furthermore, the 2020 San Diego Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice concluded housing choices for special needs groups were limited and thus an impediment to fair housing in the San Diego region.2
Services for persons with disabilities are typically provided by both public and private agencies. State and federal legislation regulate the accessibility and adaptability of new or rehabilitated multifamily apartment complexes to ensure accommodation for individuals with limited physical mobility.

Furthermore, the City updated the Zoning Ordinance in January 2013 to establish a ministerial reasonable accommodation process and to accommodate supportive housing in all residential zones.

Persons with Developmental Disabilities
A recent change in State law requires that the Housing Element discuss the housing needs of persons with developmental disabilities. As defined by State law, “developmental disability” means a disability that originates before an individual attains 18 years of age, continues, or can be expected to continue, indefinitely, and constitutes a substantial disability for that individual. Intellectual disability, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, and autism, are considered developmental disabilities. The term also includes disabling conditions found to be closely related to intellectual disability or to require treatment similar to that required for individuals with an intellectual disability, but does not include other handicapping conditions that are solely physical in nature.

The Census does not collect or report statistics for developmental disabilities and no other source is known to have this data for Santee. According to the State's Department of Developmental Services, as of June 2019, approximately 562 Santee residents with developmental disabilities were being assisted at the San Diego Regional Center. Most of these individuals (75 percent) were residing in a private home with their parent or guardian and 271 of these persons with developmental disabilities were under the age of 18.

Many developmentally disabled persons can live and work independently within a conventional housing environment. More severely disabled individuals require a group living environment where supervision is provided. The most severely affected individuals may require an institutional environment where medical attention and physical therapy are provided. Because developmental disabilities exist before adulthood, the first issue in supportive housing for the developmentally disabled is the transition from the person’s living situation as a child to an appropriate level of independence as an adult.

2 San Diego Regional Alliance for Fair Housing, San Diego Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, May 2020.

5. AGRICULTURAL WORKERS
Agricultural workers are traditionally defined as persons whose primary incomes are earned through permanent or seasonal agricultural labor. Permanent farm laborers work in the fields, processing plants, or support activities on a generally year-round basis. When workload increases during harvest periods, the labor force is supplemented by seasonal labor, often supplied by a labor contractor. For some crops, farms may employ migrant workers, defined as those whose travel distance to work prevents them from returning to their primary residence every evening. Determining the true size of the agricultural labor force is difficult. For instance, the government agencies that track farm labor do not consistently define farm-workers (e.g. field laborers versus workers in processing plants), length of employment (e.g. permanent or seasonal), or place of work (e.g. the location of the business or field). Further limiting the ability to ascertain the number of agricultural workers within Santee is the limited data available on the City due to its relatively small size.

According to the 2014-2018 ACS, 13 residents of Santee residents were employed in farming, forestry, or fishing occupations. Santee is an urbanized community with no undeveloped parcels zoned for agriculture as a principal use; however, some residential zones allow a range of agriculture and related uses. Santee’s farmworker population accounts for 0.01 percent of the County’s 13,471 population employed in agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining. However, the San Diego County’s Farm Bureau has a lower estimate of farmworkers in the San Diego region at approximately 5,000 farmers.

The Farm Bureau reports that San Diego County surpasses other urbanized counties in terms of average dollar value per acre. While it is the 19th largest farm economy among 3,000 counties in the country, prime farmland and farmland of statewide importance in San Diego region is concentrated in the northern portion of the County, according to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Department of Conservation. However, there is some grazing land and farmland of local importance located within the City limits as well as in nearby surrounding areas (but not adjacent to the City). More notably, most areas adjacent to Santee and the Southeast County are considered urban and built out. With major farming activities not being located near Santee, there is a limited need for farmworker housing in the City. Affordable housing for extremely low and very low income households would also address the housing needs of farmworkers in Santee, if any.

Figure 7: Important Farmland (2018)

6. STUDENTS
Santee includes a private college within its jurisdictional limits (San Diego Christian College) and is in relatively close proximity to Grossmont Community College and San Diego State University.

Approximately seven percent of Santee residents were enrolled in college between 2014-2018, which is slightly lower than the proportion of college students countywide (nine percent). San Diego State University is the largest university in the San Diego region, with approximately 34,000 students. The university provides housing for an estimated 19 percent of enrolled students. Typically, students have lower incomes and therefore can be impacted by a lack of affordable housing. Overcrowding within this special needs group is a common concern.

7. HOMELESS
According to HUD, the homeless population includes:
1) Individuals and families who lack a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence and includes a subset for an individual who is exiting an institution where he or she resided for 90 days or less and who resided in an emergency shelter or a place not meant for human habitation immediately before entering that institution; 2) Individuals and families who will imminently lose their primary nighttime residence;

3) Unaccompanied youth and families with children and youth who are defined as homeless under other federal statutes who do not otherwise qualify as homeless under this definition; or
4) Individuals and families who are fleeing, or are attempting to flee, domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking, or other dangerous or life-threatening conditions that relate to violence against the individual or a family member.

Assessing a region’s homeless population is difficult because of the transient nature of the population.

San Diego County’s leading authority on the region’s homeless population is the Regional Task Force on the Homeless (RTFH). Based on the 2020 Point-in-Time Count, the majority of the region’s homeless population is estimated to be in the urban areas, but a sizeable number of homeless persons make their temporary residence in rural areas (Table 11). RTFH estimates that all of Santee’s homeless population (25 people) was unsheltered in 2020.

Table 11: Homeless Population by Jurisdiction (2020)
Jurisdiction
Total Homeless
Total Percent
Unsheltered Unsheltered Emergency
Shelters Safe Haven Transitional Housing
Lemon Grove 18 0 0 0 18 100.0%
El Cajon 310 162 0 312 784 39.5%
La Mesa 52 0 0 0 52 100.0%
San Diego 2,283 1,759 36 809 4,887 46.7%
Santee 25 0 0 0 25 100.0%
Lakeside 24 0 0 0 24 100.0%
Source: San Diego Regional Task Force on the Homeless, 2020.

Homelessness is a regional issue that requires the coordination among regional agencies. Santee is part of the San Diego County Continuum of Care Consortium that covers the unincorporated County and all incorporated cities with the exception of the City of San Diego.

The City’s Supportive Services Program provides Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to homeless service providers to meet the immediate needs of homeless or near homeless in Santee. Services include the provision of food, temporary shelter, health care, and other social services. The City’s Zoning Ordinance was amended in January 2013 to update the requirements for emergency shelters and transitional housing pursuant to SB 2. The City has identified more than seven acres on eight parcels on Woodside Avenue within the General Industrial “IG” zoning designation where emergency shelters could be sited with ministerial permit approval. Transitional housing is allowed in all residential zones.

E. Housing Stock Characteristics
A community’s housing stock is defined as the collection of all housing units located within the jurisdiction. The characteristics of the housing stock, including growth, type, age and condition, tenure, vacancy rates, costs, and affordability are important in determining the housing needs for the community. This section details the housing stock characteristics of Santee to identify how well the current housing stock meets the needs of current and future residents of the City.

1. HOUSING UNIT GROWTH AND TYPE
Santee has experienced steady housing growth since 2000, when the City had 18,833 units. During the past Housing Element planning period, the City’s housing stock grew from 20,422 units in 2013 to an estimated 21,248 units as of January 2020, or approximately four percent (Table 12). The City’s housing growth outpaced that of nearby East County neighbors El Cajon, La Mesa, and Lemon Grove since 2013.

Table 12: San Diego Regional Housing Stock (2013 and 2020) Jurisdiction # of Units
January 2013
# of Units
January: 2020
% Increase
2013-2020
El Cajon 35,898 36,282 1.1%
La Mesa 26,482 26,929 1.7%
Lemon Grove 8,873 9,139 3.0%
San Diego 519,181 549,070 5.8%
Santee 20,422 21,248 4.0%
San Diego County 1,174,866 1,226,879 4.4%
Source: Census 2000; and California Department of Finance, 2013, 2020.

Santee maintains a diverse housing stock. In 2020, single-family homes comprised 65 percent of the housing stock, while multifamily units comprised 24 percent, and 11 percent of the housing stock consisted of mobile homes (Table 13). According to the 2020 California Department of Finance housing estimates, the City has a larger proportion of mobile homes in San Diego County.

Table 13: Housing Stock Composition (2020)
Housing Type
January 2020
# of Units % of Total
Single-Family Detached 11,871 55.9%
Single-Family Attached 1,930 9.1%
Multifamily 2-4 Units 1,247 5.9%
Multifamily 5+ Units 3,864 18.2%
Mobile homes 2,336 11.0%
Total Units 21,248 100.0%
Source: California Department of Finance, 2020.

Figure 8: Housing Stock Composition (2020)
Source: California Department of Finance, 2020

2. HOUSING AGE AND CONDITION
Housing that is 30 years or older is assumed to require some rehabilitation. Such features as electrical capacity, kitchen features, and roofs, usually need updating if no prior replacement work has occurred.

Santee’s housing stock is older than the County’s; 80 percent of the City’s housing stock was constructed prior to 1990, while only 72 percent of the County’s housing stock is more than 30 years old (Table 14).

Nearly 88 percent of the City’s existing housing stock will exceed 30 years of age by the end of this Housing Element planning period (built before 2000). The City estimates that about 0.05 percent of homes (10 units) in Santee are in substandard condition. The National Center for Healthy Housing, which measures “basic housing quality” throughout the nation, measured the San Diego Metropolitan Service Area’s basic housing quality statistic at 7.2 percent. The basic housing quality metric is based on the percentage of homes with “severe” or “moderate” housing problems. While the City does not offer a rehabilitation program due to lack of funding, the City utilizes Code Compliance to help prevent housing deterioration (Program 2).

Table 14: Age of Housing Stock
Santee San Diego
Less than 30 years old
Post-2010 622 3.0% 35,306 2.9%
2000-2009 1,752 8.5% 145,104 12.0%
1990-1999 1,670 8.1% 151,967 12.6%
Total 4,044 19.7% 332,377 27.6%
30 to 50 years old
1980-1989 3,958 19.3% 230,420 19.1%
1970-1979 7,194 35.1% 272,251 22.6%
Total 11,152 54.4% 502,671 41.7%
50 years or older
1960-1969 3,203 15.6% 144,647 12.0%
1950-1959 1,533 7.5% 130,316 10.8%
1940-1949 316 1.5% 41,844 3.5%
Pre-1939 258 1.3% 53,029 4.4%
Total 5,310 25.9% 369,836 30.7%
All housing units 20,506 100.0% 1,204,884 100.0%
Note: The total number of units in ACS is based on extrapolations from a 5% sample. The total number housing units from the State Department of Finance is based on updating the 100% census with annual building permit activities.

Source: ACS, 2014-2018.

3. HOUSING TENURE
The tenure distribution of a community's
housing stock (owner versus renter)
influences several aspects of the local
housing market. Residential stability is
influenced by tenure, with ownership
housing evidencing a much lower turnover
rate than rental housing. Housing cost
burden, while faced by many households,
is far more prevalent among renters.

Tenure preferences are primarily related to
household income, composition, and age
of the householder. Between 2014 and
2018, 71 percent of Santee residents owned the units they occupied, while 29 percent rented (Table 15). This rate of homeownership is the highest among all of neighboring communities and nearly 18 percentage points higher than the countywide rate.

Both owner- and renter-occupied households in Santee had similar household size, as evidenced by the almost identical average household sizes (Table 16). Among those who owned their homes between 2014 and 2018, 41 percent lived in homes with three or more persons per household, compared to 44 percent for the renter-households.

Table 15: Housing Tenure (2018)
Jurisdiction Percent
Owner-Occupied
Percent
Renter-Occupied
El Cajon 39.3% 60.7%
La Mesa 41.2% 58.8%
Lemon Grove 53.8% 46.2%
San Diego 46.9% 53.1%
Santee 70.6% 29.4%
San Diego County 53.1% 46.9%
Source: Census, ACS, 2014-2018.

Table 16: Tenure by Household Size (2018)
Households % of Total Units
Owner-Occupied
% of Total Units
Renter-Occupied
1-person 21.2% 20.6%
2-person 34.7% 30.1%
3-person 19.8% 23.1%
4-person 15.9% 14.4%
5+-person 5.6% 6.9%
Average household size 2.82 2.86
Source: Census, ACS, 2014-2018.

4. HOUSING VACANCY
A certain number of vacant units are needed to moderate the cost of housing, allow sufficient choice for residents, and provide an incentive for unit upkeep and repair. Specifically, vacancy rates of 1.5 to 2.0 percent for ownership housing and 5.0 to 6.0 percent for rental housing are considered optimal to balance demand and supply for housing.

Vacancy rates in Santee are lower than what is considered optimal for a healthy housing market.

According to the 2014-2018 ACS, the overall vacancy rate in Santee was 4.2 percent. Specifically, the vacancy rate for ownership housing was one percent, while the overall rental vacancy rate was 2.9 percent. Too low of a vacancy rate can force prices up, making it more difficult for low and moderate income households to find housing and increasing the incidence of overcrowding.

5. HOUSING COSTS AND AFFORDABILITY
The cost of housing is directly related to the extent of housing problems in a community. If housing costs are relatively high in comparison to household income, there will be a correspondingly higher prevalence of housing cost burden and overcrowding. This section summarizes the cost and affordability of the housing stock to Santee residents.

Homeownership Market
Median home sales prices in the surrounding areas of Santee ranged from $482,500 in Lemon Grove to $631,500 in the City of San Diego in 2020 (Table 17). Santee’s median home price is on the lower end of the spectrum at $535,000. However, median home sale prices increased the most in Santee, increasing by almost 50 percent between 2015 and 2020. All other surrounding cities also saw increases in their median home prices during this period but only ranging between 27 percent increase in La Mesa and 42 percent in Chula Vista.

Table 17: Median Home Sales Prices (2015 and 2020)
Jurisdiction March
2015
March
2020
% Change
2015-2020
Chula Vista $400,000 $566,000 41.5%
El Cajon $390,000 $540,500 38.6%
La Mesa $440,000 $557,000 26.6%
Lemon Grove $352,500 $482,500 36.9%
San Diego $486,000 $631,500 29.9%
Santee $365,000 $535,000 46.6%
San Diego County $455,000 $590,000 29.7%
Source: Corelogic, Home Sales Activity by City, March 2015 and March 2020.

The Zillow online database was also consulted in an effort to better understand the more current home sale market in Santee. Zillow listed 37 single-family homes and 21 condos/townhouses for sale in August 2020 (Table 18). The median asking price for a unit was $551,334, with a range of $117,000 to $1,355,000. Single-family homes were priced higher ($600,714 median) than condos/townhouses ($450,000 median).

Table 18: Home Asking Prices (August 2020)
Unit Type Number
for Sale Asking Price Range MedianAsking Price
Single-Family Homes 37 $117,000-$1,355,000 $600,714
2-Bedroom 4 $117,000-$149,900 $124,900
3-Bedroom 20 $445,912-$975,000 $596,947
4+-Bedroom 13 $552,668- $1,355,000 $667,956
Condos/Townhomes 21 $360,000- $599,000 $450,000
2-Bedroom 3 $360-000-$450,000 $369,000
3-Bedroom 17 $389,800-$599,000 $459,000
4+-Bedroom 1 $525,000 $525,000
All Homes 58 $117,000-$1,355,000 $551,334
Source: Zillow, August 26, 2020.

The home sale market continues to rise in Santee, as the median asking price of homes in August 2020 ($551,334) is significantly higher than the median sale price of homes in November 2012 ($275,000) as reported in the 2013-2021 Housing Element based on the online Multiple Listing Service (MLS) database.

Rental Market
With renters comprising approximately 30 percent of the City’s households, it is important to understand the rental market in Santee. Internet resources were consulted to understand the rental housing market in Santee (Table 19). Rental price information was collected for five apartment complexes within the City with units for rent advertised on Zillow.com in September 2020. At the time of the research, there were no studio apartment units available, while one-bedroom units rented

for $1,495+ to $1,891. Larger units were more expensive; two-bedroom units were offered at rents ranging from $1,925 to $2,300, while a three-bedroom unit was listed at $2,750.

Table 19: Apartment Rental Rates (September 2020)
Apartment Complex Rental Price Range
Oaks Apartments
1 BR $1,565-$1655
2 BR $1,925-$1,955
Santee Villas
1 BR $1,720-$1,755
2 BR $1,940-$1,975
Parc One
1 BR $1,880-$1891
2 BR $2,300
3 BR $2,750
Carlton Heights Villas
1 BR $1,500-$1,632
2 BR $1,990
Town Center Apartments
1 BR $1,495+
Source: Zillow.com, September 2020.

The San Diego County Apartment Association publishes quarterly rental market reports based on surveys conducted throughout the region. Fall average rents increased for units of all sizes in Santee between 2011 and 2019. The average price of three-bedroom units doubled during this period (up by 105.1 percent); while rental rates for one-bedroom and two-bedroom units increased significantly (69 and 63 percent, respectively) in Santee (Table 20). In general, average rents for units in Santee were slightly lower than average rents of similar units in neighboring jurisdictions (Table 20).

Table 20: Average Rental Rates by Jurisdiction Fall 2011 and Fall 2019 Jurisdiction # of
Rooms
Fall 2011
Average
rents
Fall 2019
Average
Rents
% Change
Fall 2011 to
Fall 2019
El Cajon
Studio $729 $1,000 37.2%
1 BR $857 $1,863 117.4%
2 Br $1,095 $1,941 77.3%
3BR $1,394 $2,270 62.8%
La Mesa
Studio $872 - -
1 BR $1,097 $1,798 63.9%
2 Br $1,437 $2,271 58.0%
3BR $1,739 $2,597 49.3%
San Diego
Studio $923 $1,526 65.3%
1 BR $1,211 $1,881 55.3%
2 Br $1,575 $2,241 42.3%
3BR $1,877 $2,460 31.1%
Santee
Studio -- - -
1 BR $988 $1,672 69.2%
2 Br $1,205 $1,963 62.9%
3BR $1,153 $2,365 105.1%
San Diego County
Studio $899 $1,342 49.3%
1 BR $1,090 $1,666 52.8%
2 Br $1,418 $2,013 42.0%
3BR $1,730 $2,483 43.5%
Source: San Diego County Apartment Association, Fall 2011 and Fall 2019.

Housing Affordability by Household Income
Housing affordability is dependent upon income and housing costs. Using set income guidelines, current housing affordability can be estimated. According to the HCD income guidelines for 2020, the Area Median Income (AMI) in San Diego County was $92,700 (adjusted for household size).

Assuming that the potential homebuyer has sufficient credit and down payment (10 percent) and spends no greater than 30 percent of their income on housing expenses (i.e. mortgage, taxes and insurance), the maximum affordable home price and rental price can be determined. The maximum affordable home and rental prices for residents of San Diego County are shown in Table 21.

Households in the lower end of each category can afford less by comparison than those at the upper end. The market-affordability of Santee’s housing stock for each income group is discussed below:

Extremely Low Income Households: Extremely low income households earn 30 percent or less of the AMI. The estimated maximum affordable rental payment ranges from $444 per month for a one-person household to $589 per month for a family of five (Table 21). The maximum affordable home purchase price for extremely low income households ranges from $60,846 for a one-person household to $68,801 for a five-person household. Extremely low income households generally cannot afford housing at market rate.

Very Low Income Households: Very low income households are classified as those earning 50 percent or less of the AMI. The estimated maximum affordable rental payment ranges from $847 per month for a one-person household to $1,213 per month for a family of five (Table 21). The maximum affordable home purchase price for very low income households ranges from $130,009 for a oneperson household to $175,652 for a five person household. Based on the rental data presented in Table 19 and Table 20, very low income households of all sizes would be unlikely to secure adequately sized and affordable rental housing in Santee.

Low Income Households: Low income households earn 51 to 80 percent of the County AMI. The estimated maximum home price a low income household can afford ranges from $233,862 for a oneperson household to $335,821 for a five-person family. Affordable rental rates for low income households would range from $1,454 for a one-person household to $2,148 for a five-person household.

As indicated by the data presented in Table 18, low income households could not afford adequately sized homes listed for-sale in August 2020. Low income households do not have better chance in securing an adequately sized and affordable rental housing unit as rental units range from $1,495-1,755 for one-bedroom units to $2,750 for three-bedroom units and are out of the affordable rent price (Table 19Table 20). Also, limited number of apartment complexes offering three-bedroom units in Santee at prices affordable to larger low-income households is indicative of the potential difficulty these households face.

Moderate Income Households: Moderate income households earn up to 120 percent of the County AMI. The estimated maximum affordable home price for moderate income households ranges from $290,392 for a one-person household to $422,971 for a family of five. A moderate income household can afford rental rates of $1,784 to $2,656 per month depending on household size.

Based on the rental and for-sale housing market data presented in Table 19 and Table 18, moderate income households can afford to rent some of the apartments advertised in September 2020 but not purchase adequately sized homes. For example, asking prices for a four-bedroom home (an adequately sized home to avoid overcrowding) range from $525,000 to $1.3 million (Table 18). This far exceeds the affordable purchase price for large households. Table 18 does include some single- family home and condo/townhome listings that meet the affordable price for large families, but they are twobedroom units.

Table 21: Housing Affordability Matrix San Diego County (2020) Annual Income
Affordable Housing
Cost Utilities, Taxes and Insurance Affordable Price
Rent Own Rent Own
Taxes/
Insurance/
HOA
Rent Purchase
Extremely Low Income (30% of AMI)
One Person $24,300 $608 $608 $164 $164 $213 $444 $60,846 Small Family $31,200 $780 $780 $240 $240 $273 $541 $70,498 Large Family $37,450 $936 $936 $348 $348 $328 $589 $68,801 Very Low Income (50% of AMI)
One Person $40,450 $1,011 $1,011 $164 $164 $354 $847 $130,009 Small Family $52,000 $1,300 $1,300 $240 $240 $455 $1,061 $159,576 Large Family $62,400 $1,560 $1,560 $348 $348 $546 $1,213 $175,652 Low Income (80% of AMI)
One Person $64,700 $1,618 $1,618 $164 $164 $566 $1,454 $233,862 Small Family $83,200 $2,080 $2,080 $240 $240 $728 $1,841 $293,192 Large Family $99,800 $2,495 $2,495 $348 $348 $873 $2,148 $335,821 Moderate Income (120% of AMI)
One Person $77,900 $1,948 $1,948 $164 $164 $682 $1,784 $290,392 Small Family $100,150 $2,504 $2,504 $240 $240 $876 $2,264 $365,782 Large Family $120,150 $3,004 $3,004 $348 $348 $1,051 $2,656 $422,971

1. Small family =3-person household

2. Large family= 5-person household.

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development, 2020 Income limits; and Veronica Tam and Associates.

Assumptions: 2020 HCD income limits; 30% gross household income as affordable housing cost; 35% of monthly affordable cost for taxes and insurance; 10.0% down payment; and 3.0% interest rate for a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage loan. Utilities based on the Housing Authority of the County of San Diego Utility Allowance, 2019 . Utility allowances based on the combined average assuming all electric and all natural gas appliances.

F. Project-Based Rental Housing Assistance

1. ASSISTED HOUSING INVENTORY
Existing housing that receives governmental assistance is often a significant source of affordable housing in many communities. Santee has six assisted housing developments that provide 612 affordable housing units (Table 22).

Table 22: Inventory of Assisted Rental Housing
Project Name Total
Units
Assisted
Units Funding Source Earliest Date of Conversion
# Units
At Risk
Cedar Creek Apartments 48 47
LIHTC Year 2025
47 Revenue Bond Year 2025
Redevelopment
Set-Aside Year 2065
Forester Square Apartments 44 43
LIHTC Year 2025
43 Revenue Bond Year 2025
Redevelopment
Set-Aside Year 2068
Laurel Park Senior Apartments 133 132 CDLAC Bond Year 2031 132 Woodglen Vista Apartments 188 188 HFDA/Section 8 12/31/2035 0 Carlton Country Club Villas 130 121 Section 236 ---
0 Section 8 4/30/2038
Shadow Hill Apartments 81 81 CDLAC Bond Year 2056 0
Total Assisted Units 624 612 222
Source: City of Santee, 2020; and the HUD Multifamily Assistance and Section 8 Contracts Database, as of 8/24/2020.

2. AT-RISK HOUSING
State law requires that the City identify, analyze, and propose programs to preserve existing affordable multifamily rental units that are eligible to convert to market rate uses due to termination of subsidy contract, mortgage prepayment, or expiring use restrictions during a 10-year period starting April 15, 2021. Consistent with State law, this section identifies publicly assisted housing units in Santee and analyzes their potential to convert to market rate housing uses.

During the 2021-2031 “at-risk” housing analysis period, three assisted housing projects in Santee are at risk of converting to market-rate housing. As of April 15, 2021, 222 units were at risk of converting to market rate rents. Of these units, 47 are within the Cedar Creek Apartments, 43 within the Forester Square Apartments, and 132 in the Laurel Park Senior Apartments. The Cedar Creek Apartments and Forester Square Apartments units are not in immediate risk of conversion. While the use of LIHTC gives them the relief option of converting to market-rate by 2025, because of the use of redevelopment set-aside funding, these projects are locked into a 55-year affordability period, ending in 2065. The City will continue to monitor these at-risk units and should a notice of intent to convert to market

rate be filed, work with potential purchasers to preserve the units, and ensure that tenants were properly notified of their rights under California law.

3. PRESERVATION OPTIONS
Preservation of the at-risk units can be achieved in several ways: 1) facilitate transfer of ownership of these projects to or purchase of similar units by nonprofit organizations; 2) purchase of affordability covenant; and 3) provide rental assistance to tenants using funding sources other than Section 8.

Transfer of Ownership
Long-term affordability of lower income units can be secured by transferring ownership of these projects to non-profit housing organizations. By doing so, these units would be eligible for a greater range of government assistance. Table 23 presents the estimated market value for the 222 units at Cedar Creek, Forester Square, and Laurel Park to establish an order of magnitude for assessing preservation costs. As shown, the total market value of these units is approximately $48,075,000.

Assuming a five-percent down payment is made on each project, at least $2,400,000 down payment cost would be required to transfer ownership of these buildings to non-profit organizations. Unless some form of mortgage assistance is available to interested nonprofit organizations, rental income alone from the lower income tenants would not likely be adequate to cover the mortgage payment, and rental subsidy would be required.

Table 23: Market Value of At-Risk Housing Units
Project Units Cedar Creek
Apartments
Forester Square
Apartments Laurel Park
1 BR 5 17 104
2 BR 18 12 28
3 BR 24 14 0
Total 47 43 132
Annual Operating Cost $280,035 $233,730 $612,990
Gross Annual Income $1,205,448 $1,021,080 $2,746,224
Net Annual Income $925,413 $787,350 $2,133,234
Market Value $11,567,663 $9,841,875 $26,665,425
Market value for each project is estimated with the following assumptions:

1. Average market rent for 1-BR is $1,672, 2-BR is $1,963, and $2,365 for a 3-BR (Table 20).

2. Average bedroom size for 1-BR assumed at 600 square feet, 750 square feet for 2-BR, and 900 square feet for a 3- BR.

3. Annual operating expenses per square foot = $7.35 (based on NAI San Diego’s Multifamily Market Report Q3, 2019. Figure represents average operating costs for three- and two-star buildings).

4. Market value = Annual net project income*multiplication factor

5. Multiplication factor for a building in good condition is 12.5.

Purchase of Affordability Covenant
Another option to preserve the affordability of at-risk projects is to provide an incentive package to the owners to maintain the projects as lower income housing. Incentives could include writing down the interest rate on the remaining loan balance, and /or supplementing the subsidy amount received to market levels.

Rent Subsidy
Tenant-based rent subsidies could be used to preserve the affordability of housing. Similar to Housing Choice Vouchers, the City through a variety of potential funding sources could provide a voucher to very low income households. The level of the subsidy required to preserve the at-risk affordable housing is estimated to equal the Fair Market Rent for a unit minus the housing cost affordable by a very low income household. Table 24 estimates the rent subsidies required to preserve the housing affordability for the residents of the 222 at-risk units. Based on the estimates and assumptions shown in this table, approximately $2,533,000 in rent subsidies would be required annually.

Table 24: Rent Subsidies Required
Project Units Cedar Creek
Apartments
Forester Square
Apartments Laurel Park
1 BR 5 17 104
2 BR 18 12 28
3 BR 24 14
Total 47 43 132
Total Monthly Rent Income Supported by Affordable
Housing Cost of Very Low Income Households $52,445 $44,113 $117,796 Total Monthly Rent Allowed by Fair Market Rents $113,952 $91,582 $219,900 Total Annual Subsidies Required $738,084 $569,628 $1,225,248 Average Annual Subsidy per Unit $15,704 $13,247 $9,282
Average Monthly Subsidy per Unit $1,309 $1,104 $774
Average subsidy per unit for each project is estimated with the following assumptions:

1. A 1-BR unit is assumed to be occupied by a 1-person household, a 2-BR unit by a 3-person household, and a 3-BR unit by a 5-person household.

2. Based on 2020 Area Median Income in San Diego County, affordable monthly housing cost for a 1-person very low income household is $847, $1,061 for a 3-person household, and $1,213 for a 5-person household (Table 21).

3. HUD 2020 Fair Market Rents in the San Diego MSA is $1,566 for a 1-BR, $2,037 for a 2-BR, and $2,894 for a 3-BR.

4. REPLACEMENT COSTS
The cost of developing new housing depends on a variety of factors such as density, size of units, location and related land costs, and type of construction. Assuming an average development cost of $300,000 per unit for multifamily rental housing, replacement of the 222 at-risk units would require approximately $66,600,000. This cost estimate includes land, construction, permits, on- and off-site improvements, and other costs.

5. COST COMPARISON
The cost to build new housing to replace the 222 at-risk units is high, with an estimated total cost of more than $66,600,000. This cost estimate is substantially higher than the cost associated with transfer of ownership ($48,075,000) and providing rent subsidies similar to Housing Choice Vouchers for 20 years ($50,6590,000).

G. Estimates of Housing Needs
The Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) developed by the Census for HUD provides detailed information on housing needs by income level for different types of households in Santee. Detailed CHAS data based on the 2013-2017 ACS is displayed in Table 25. Based on CHAS, housing problems in Santee include:
1) Units with physical defects (lacking complete kitchen or bathroom); 2) Overcrowded conditions (housing units with more than one person per room); 3) Housing cost burden, including utilities, exceeding 30 percent of gross income; or 4) Severe housing cost burden, including utilities, exceeding 50 percent of gross income.

Disproportionate Needs
The types of problems vary according to household income, type, and tenure. Some highlights include:
• Overall, housing problems affected roughly a greater proportion of renter-households (48 percent) than owner-households (31 percent).
• Elderly renters had the highest level of housing problems regardless of income level (64 percent).
• All extremely low income large renter families had housing problems; the CHAS estimates that all of these households paid more than 50 percent of their income on housing costs. • More than a third (36 percent) of all lower income households (<80 percent AMI), regardless of tenure, incurred a cost burden.
• Of the 1,615 extremely low income Santee households reported in the 2013-2017 CHAS, approximately 63 percent incurred a housing cost burden exceeding 50 percent of their monthly income.

Table 25: Housing Assistance Needs of Low and Moderate Income Households in Santee
Household by Type, Income &
Housing Problem
Renters Owners
Total
Elderly Households
Small
Families
Large
Families
Total
Renters Elderly
Total
Owners
Extremely Low Income (0-30% AMI) 240 290 65 855 500 760 1,615 % with any housing problem 83.3% 87.9% 46.2% 78.9% 80.0% 75.0% 77.1% % with cost burden >30% 83.3% 87.9% 46.2% 78.9% 80.0% 75.0% 77.1% % with cost burden > 50% 58.3% 77.6% 46.2% 63.7% 64.0% 62.5% 63.2% Very Low Income (31-50% AMI) 225 440 75 955 665 960 1,915 % with any housing problem 91.1% 90.9% 100.0% 89.5% 54.9% 60.4% 74.9% % with cost burden >30% 91.1% 90.9% 100.0% 89.5% 54.9% 59.9% 74.7% % with cost burden >50% 68.9% 43.2% 100.0% 57.1% 30.1% 37.5% 47.3% Low Income (51-80% AMI) 170 770 195 1,375 970 2,140 3,515 % with any housing problem 52.9% 71.4% 82.1% 69.5% 30.4% 52.1% 58.9% % with cost burden >30% 52.9% 71.4% 71.8% 68.0% 29.4% 51.1% 57.7% % with cost burden > 50% 8.8% 11.7% 5.1% 12.0% 13.4% 20.7% 17.3% Total Households 875 3,255 605 6,025 4,085 13,445 19,470 % with any housing problem 68.0% 48.5% 58.7% 51.5% 35.5% 32.0% 38.1% Source: HUD CHAS tabulations of 2013-2017 ACS data.

Section 3: Housing Constraints
Various nongovernmental factors, governmental regulations, and environmental issues pose constraints to the provision of adequate and affordable housing. These constraints may result in housing that is not affordable to lower and moderate income households or may render residential construction market prices economically infeasible for developers. This section addresses these potential constraints.

A. Nongovernmental Constraints
Locally and regionally there are several constraints that hinder the ability to accommodate Santee’s affordable housing demand. The high cost of land, rising development costs, and neighborhood opposition make it expensive for developers to build housing.

1. LAND AND DEVELOPMENT COSTS
High development costs in the region stifle potential affordable housing developments. Development costs (land, entitlement, and construction) for residential units have increased rapidly over the last decade, especially for the cost of land when vacant developable land is diminishing. Furthermore, neighborhood resistance to some developments lengthens development time, driving up costs. The difficulty of assembling and developing infill sites can also add to costs. The supply of construction materials is another factor. When construction material supply is low, costs increase as evidenced by the current market.

Reduction in amenities and the quality of building materials (above a minimum acceptability for health, safety, and adequate performance) could lower costs and associated sales prices or rents. In addition, prefabricated factory-built housing may provide for lower priced housing by reducing construction and labor costs. Another factor related to construction costs is the number of units built at one time.

As the number of units increases, overall costs generally decrease due to economies of scale.

The price of land and any necessary improvements or demolition of existing structures is a key component of the total cost of housing. The lack of vacant land for residential construction, especially land available for higher density residential development, has served to keep the cost of land high.

Based on listings at Zillow.com, land zoned for low density residential uses could capture about $800,000 per acre (or an average of $100,000 per unit). Land at the urban core that might be used for high density residential uses is priced around $1.75 million per acre.

2. LABOR SHORTAGE CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Another key component of construction cost is labor. California is 200,000 construction workers short to meet Governor Newsom’s housing goals. This number comes from a study for Smart Cities Prevail. The study finds that California lost about 200,000 construction workers since 2006. Many lost their jobs during the recession and found work in other industries. University of Southern California housing economist Gary Painter also says that California has “a shortage of construction workers at the price people want to pay.” However, the dilemma is that higher pay for construction workers would increase the overall construction costs for housing. In some cases, developers are “importing”

workers from out of state for the construction work and pay for their temporary housing during the construction periods.

One indicator of construction costs is Building Valuation Data compiled by the International Code Council (ICC). The unit costs compiled by the ICC include structural, electrical, plumbing, and mechanical work, in addition to interior finish and normal site preparation. The data are national and do not take into account regional differences, nor include the price of the land upon which the building is built. In 2020, according to the latest Building Valuation Data release, the national average for development costs per square foot for apartments and single-family homes in 2020 are as follows:
• Type I or II, R-2 Residential Multifamily: $148.82 to $168.94 per sq. ft. • Type V Wood Frame, R-2 Residential Multifamily: $113.38 to $118.57 per sq. ft. • Type V Wood Frame, R-3 Residential One and Two Family Dwelling: $123.68 to $131.34 per sq. ft.
• R-4 Residential Care/Assisted Living Facilities generally range between $143.75 to $199.81 per sq. ft.

In general, construction costs can be lowered by increasing the number of units in a development, until the scale of the project requires a different construction type that commands a higher per square foot cost.

3. CONSTRUCTION FINANCING
The financing of a residential project, particularly affordable housing, is quite complex. Construction loans are almost never available for over 75 percent of the future project value for multifamily developments. This means that developers must usually supply at least 25 percent of the project value.

Furthermore, no firm threshold determines what a lender considers to be an acceptable ‘return’ on investment, nor the maximum equity contribution at which an otherwise feasible project becomes infeasible. Upfront cash commitment may not be problematic for some developers as long as the project can generate an acceptable net cash flow to meet the acceptable returns. Although financing costs impact project feasibility, these problems are generally equal across jurisdictions and thus are not a unique constraint to housing production in Santee.

4. AVAILABILITY OF HOME FINANCING
Under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA), lending institutions are required to disclose information on the disposition of loan applications and the income, gender, and race of loan applicants.

Overall, 561 households applied for government-backed mortgage loans and 951 households applied for conventional home mortgage loans in Santee in 2017 (Table 26). However, approval rate was lower for conventional loans than for government-backed loans, and lower in 2017 than in 2012.

Refinancing loan applications were the most frequent type of mortgage loans with an approval rate of 62 percent, lower than the approval rate in 2012. Home improvement loans have the lowest approval rates among other types of financing.

Table 26: Disposition of Home Loans: 2017
Jurisdiction
Total Applicants Percent Approved Percent Denied Percent Other1 2012 2017 2012 2017 2012 2017 2012 2017
Government Backed
Purchase 536 561 78.4% 80.6% 11.2% 6.2% 10.4% 13.2%
Conventional Purchase 436 951 78.2% 73.9% 9.9% 9.3% 11.9% 16.8% Refinance 4,034 2,323 70.4% 61.5% 15.0% 16.1% 14.6% 22.4% Home Improvement 121 306 60.3% 61.8% 30.6% 26.8% 9.1% 11.4% Total 5,127 4,141 71.7% 67.0% 14.6% 14.0% 13.8% 19.1%
Source: www.lendingpatterns.com, 2020

5. TIMING AND DENSITY
Non-governmental market constraints can also include timing between project approval and requests for building permits. In most cases, this may be due to developers’ inability to secure financing for construction. In Santee, the average time between project approval and request for building permit is typically one to two years.

As described in the Housing Resources section of this Housing Element, development projects proposed in Santee’s multi-family districts (R-7, R-14, and R-22) have historically been approved at the upper end of the allowable density. However, the City did identify some sites where development was unfeasible due to density constraints through meetings with stakeholders and property owners.

As part of its Program 9, the City will be downzoning a limited number of sites where specific site conditions are not conducive to high-density development, and up-zoning about 20 sites where development has been constrained by low density.

6. EFFORTS TO ADDRESS NONGOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
The City has taken into consideration the nongovernmental constraints in the development of the sites inventory by selecting sites with characteristics similar to those that have been developed recently.

In addition, as described later in this Housing Element, the City’s identification of potential sites for future residential development was performed with extensive stakeholder feedback. Sites that developers identified as not feasible for high-density development are proposed to be downzoned. At the same time, the City is upzoning sites near transit and in areas where density bonuses, incentives, and concessions may also be more feasible. Density bonuses, together with the incentives and/or concessions, and location in high resource areas result in a lower average per-unit cost of land and increase opportunity for funding for affordable housing. High resource areas in the context of the Housing Element are those areas with high access to jobs, low unemployment, low poverty rates, high education attainment, high median home values, and low pollution levels as shown in joint mapping from the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee and California Department of Housing and Community Development. The City’s rezone program (Program 9) attempts to mitigate market constraints resulting from density.

B. Governmental Constraints
Local policies and regulations can impact the price of housing and, in particular, affordable housing.

Local policies and regulations may include land use controls, site improvement requirements, fees and exactions, permit processing procedures, and other issues. This section discusses potential governmental constraints to housing investment as well as measures to mitigate potential impacts.

1. LAND USE CONTROLS
The Land Use Element of the Santee General Plan sets forth policies for residential development. These land use policies, combined with zoning regulations, establish the amount and distribution of land to be allocated for different uses. Housing supply and costs are affected by the amount of land designated for residential use, the density at which residential development is permitted, and the standards that govern the character of development. This Housing Element update is for the State-required Sixth Cycle update that will cover the period beginning on April 15, 2021 and ending on April 15, 2029.An Urban Residential land use designation that permits 30 units per gross acre was added in 2010.

The Land Use Element provides for the following land use designations which allow for residential development:
• Hillside Limited (HL): 0-1 dwelling units per gross acre • Low Density Residential (R-1): 1-2 dwelling units per gross acre • Low Density Residential Alternative (R-1-A): 2-4 dwelling units per gross acre (1/4-acre lot minimum)
• Low-Medium Density Residential (R-2): 2-5 dwelling units per gross acre • Medium Density Residential (R-7): 7-14 dwelling units per gross acre • Medium High Density Residential (R-14): 14-22 dwelling units per gross acre • High Density Residential (R-22): 22-30 dwelling units per gross acre • Urban Residential (R-30): 30 dwelling units per gross acre In addition to the above residential land use categories, the Town Center Specific Plan area, and the Planned Development District, designated in the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance, allow residential uses. The Residential-Business District was added to the Zoning Code in 2003 and is consistent with the General Plan. This designation is intended to allow for a single-family residential use or a compatible low-intensity commercial and office use, or a combination of residential/nonresidential uses within existing residences and auxiliary structures. It is intended to encourage a mix of appropriate land uses within transitional neighborhoods that are adjacent to more intensive commercial, office and industrial areas.

The City’s residential land use designations provide for the development of a wide range of housing types including single-family dwellings, mobile homes, townhomes, condominiums, accessory dwelling units, and multifamily units at various densities. In 2010, the City adopted the high density residential land use designation, R-30 Urban Residential with a Mixed Use Overlay. The R-30 designation is intended to provide land for development characterized by mid-rise apartment and condominium development that utilizes innovative site planning and building design to provide onsite recreational amenities and open space and be located in close proximity to major community

facilities, business centers and streets of a least major capacity and to be internally consistent. The Mixed Use Overlay for the R-30 designation provides an option for ground-floor commercial uses that promote a variety of services that are conveniently located for residents and the public. However, no development has occurred on the R-30 designation. As part of this Housing Element update, the rezone program will be revising this designation to provide a density range (30 – 36 dwelling units per acre) to facilitate development in this designation.

Measure N
At the November 2020 election, City voters adopted Measure N, an initiative measure which establishes a voter approval requirement for certain legislative actions that would increase residential density or otherwise intensify land use over that currently permitted by the General Plan and zoning.

Measure N is a governmental constraint because it has the effect of limiting project applicants’ ability to increase the residential density on or intensify the use of a parcel without a citywide vote. The City will continue to monitor implementation of Measure N in accordance with state and other laws.

Referenda and Initiatives
Local referenda and initiatives can affect the price and availability of housing; and therefore they may also constitute governmental constraints on housing. State law, including SB 330, may preempt certain initiatives or referenda. The City will continue to monitor local referenda and initiatives in accordance with state and other laws.

Gillespie Field Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) The City of Santee is located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) of Gillespie Field. State law requires each local agency having jurisdiction over land uses within the AIA to either: (1) modify its General Plan, zoning ordinance or other applicable land use regulation(s) to be consistent with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP); or (2) overrule all or part of the ALUCP within 180 days of adoption of the ALUCP. If the City of Santee fails to take either action, the City is required to submit all land use development proposals to the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for consistency review until such time as the ALUC deems the City’s General Plan consistent with the ALUCP.

At the present time, land use proposals within the AIA are subject to land use compatibility determinations by the ALUC. The City is responsible for submitting the Application for a Consistency Determination to the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority. Airport staff would review and make recommendations to the ALUC as to the appropriate determination. The ALUC must act upon an application for a determination of consistency with an ALUCP within 60 days of the ALUC deeming such application complete. The City may override an ALUC determination of inconsistency by a two-thirds vote of the City Council if it can make certain findings and provide a 45-day notice of the same to the ALUC and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) per Public Utilities Code Section 21676.5(a). Where possible conflict between the residential density provisions mandated by State law and Airport Safety Zones are identified with a specific land use proposal, the ALUCP density limitations shall apply unless overridden by the City Council. Since this process is not unique to the City of Santee, it does not constitute a distinct or unusual constraint. The Gillespie Field Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan was adopted on January 25, 2010, and is posted on the San Diego Regional Airport Authority’s website.3

3 http://www.san.org

Approximately 43.9 acres of the residential sites inventory are located within the boundaries of Safety Zones 1-5 of the Gillespie Field ALUCP. These sites are denoted in the Sites Inventory Table in Appendix C. The City selected these sites as the safety zones are also close to the trolley stop and have higher density potential. As part of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to be prepared for the rezoning, the City will evaluate the constraints and risks associated with residential development in these areas. Furthermore, the City will monitor development on sites identified in the Housing Element to comply with the “no net loss” requirement pursuant to Government Code Section 65863.

Should an approval of development result in a reduction of capacity below the residential capacity needed to accommodate the remaining need, the City will identify and rezone sufficient sites to accommodate the shortfall and ensure “no net loss” in capacity to accommodate the RHNA.

Town Center Specific Plan
In October 1986, the City of Santee completed a focused effort to plan for the development of property in its geographic core. The Town Center Specific Plan established guidelines for creating a people- and transit-oriented hub for commercial, civic and residential uses along the San Diego River.

Residential Business District
The Residential Business District (RB) designation allows for a single-family residential use or a compatible low-intensity commercial and office use, or a combination of residential/nonresidential uses within existing residences and auxiliary structures. It is intended to encourage a mix of appropriate land uses within transitional neighborhoods that are adjacent to more intensive commercial, office and industrial areas. This designation allows low intensity commercial and office uses that would not result in significant land use compatibility impacts, but that would be greater than otherwise permitted through home occupation regulation. Properties with the RB designation permit all uses allowed in the R-2 designation plus a list of “low-impact” office and commercial uses.

2. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
The City’s Zoning Ordinance implements the General Plan. It contains development standards for each zoning district consistent with the land use designations of the General Plan. Santee’s Zoning Ordinance provides for the following residential districts:
• Hillside/Limited Residential (HL) -- (0-1 dwelling units/gross acre): This designation is intended for residential development in areas that exhibit steep slopes, rugged topography and limited access. Residential uses are characterized by rural large estate lots with significant permanent open space area, consistent with the constraints of slope gradient, soil and geotechnical hazards, access, availability of public services and other environmental concerns. • Low Density Residential (R-1) -- (1-2 dwelling units/gross acre): This designation is intended for residential development characterized by single-family homes on one-half acre lots or larger that is responsive to the natural terrain and minimizes grading requirements. The intent of this designation is to provide development of a semi-rural character through the use of varying setbacks and dwelling unit placement on individual parcels.

• Low-Density Residential Alternative (R-1-A) -- (2-4 dwelling units/gross acre): This designation is intended for residential development characterized by single-family homes on one-quarter acre lots or larger which provide a transitional option between the R-2 (6,000 square foot lot) and the larger R-1 (20,000 square foot lot) zones. • Low-Medium Density Residential (R-2) -- (2-5 dwelling units/gross acre): This designation is intended for residential development characterized by single-family homes in standard subdivision form. It is normally expected that the usable pad area within this designation will be a minimum of 6,000 square feet.
• Medium Density Residential (R-7) -- (7-14 dwelling units/gross acre): This designation is intended for a wide range of residential development types including attached and detached single-family units at the lower end of the density range and multifamily attached units at the higher end of the density range. Areas developed under this designation should exhibit adequate access to streets of at least collector capacity and be conveniently serviced by neighborhood commercial and recreational facilities.
• Medium High Density Residential (R-14) -- (14-22 dwelling units/gross acre): This designation is intended for residential development characterized at the lower end of the density range by multifamily attached units and at the upper end of the density range by apartment and condominium buildings. It is intended that this category utilize innovative site planning, provide on-site recreational amenities and be located in close proximity to major community facilities, business centers and streets of at least major capacity. • High Density Residential (R-22) -- (22-30 dwelling units/gross acre): This designation is intended for residential development characterized by mid-rise apartment and condominium buildings characteristic of urban high density development in close proximity to community facilities and services, public transit services, and major streets. It is intended that this category utilize innovative site planning and building design to provide on-site recreational amenities and open space.
• Urban Residential (R-30) -- (30 dwelling units/gross acre): This designation is intended for residential development characterized by mid-rise apartment and condominium development typical of urban development at higher densities than R-22. This designation is intended for architecturally designed residential development, up to four stories, with parking facilities integrated in the building design. Areas developed under this designation would be located in close proximity to major community facilities, commercial and business centers and streets of at least major capacity. Development amenities would include on-site business centers, fitness and community rooms, and indoor and outdoor recreation facilities. Site design would implement pedestrian-friendly design concepts, including separated sidewalks, landscaped parkways, traffic calming measures, and enhanced access to transit facilities and services.

Measures that reduce energy and water consumption are required.

As part of this Housing Element update, the rezone program will be revising this designation to provide a density range (30 – 36 dwelling units per acre) to facilitate development in this designation.

Santee’s Zoning Ordinance establishes residential development standards for each zone to ensure quality of development in the community. Site Development Criteria as specified in Section 13.10.040 of the Zoning Ordinance are presented in Table 27.

Table 27: Basic Residential Development Standards
Characteristic of
Lot, Location &
Height
HL R-1 R-1-A R-2 R-7 R-14 R-22 R-30
Minimum Net Lot
Area (square feet)
Avg.
40,000
Min.
30,000
Avg.
20,000
Min.
15,000
Avg.
10,000
Min.
8,000
6,000 none
Density Ranges
(du/gross acre) 0-1 1-2 2-4 2-5 7-14 14-22 22-30 30 (no range) Minimum Lot
Dimensions
(width/depth)
150’1/
150’
100’1/
100’
80’1/
100’
60’/
90’ none
Minimum Flag Lot
Frontage 20’ 36’
Maximum Lot
Coverage 25% 30% 35% 40% 55% 60% 70% 75%
Setbacks2
Front3
Exterior side yard
Interior side yard
Rear
30’
15’
10’
25’
20’
15’
10’
20’
20’
15’
8’
20’
20’
10’
5’
2’
20’
10’
10’
10’
10’
10’
10’
10’
10’
10’
10’
10’
10’
10’
10’ or 15’4
10’ or 15’4
Maximum Height 35’ (2 stories) 35’ (2
stories)
45’
(4 stories)
55’
(5 stories)
55’
(5 stories)
Private Open Space
(sq. ft. per unit) -- -- -- -- 100 100 60 60
Parking
Requirements
(off-street)
2 spaces in a garage
(all single-family, detached homes)
The following applies to multifamily,
townhomes, duplexes, zero lot line, etc.

Resident spaces:

Studio & One-bedroom unit:

1.5 spaces/unit,
with 1/unit in a garage or carport
R-30 zone: 1 space/unit
Two or more bedroom unit:
2 spaces/unit,
With 1/unit in a garage or carport
plus, Guest Spaces:
1 space/4 units
R-30 Zone: 1 space/10 units
Source: City of Santee, October 2019.

Notes: 1For lots located on cul-de-sacs and knuckles, see SMC Zoning Ordinance Table 13.l0.040.A, note 1. 2 All Setbacks are measured in feet from the property line, not a street, sidewalk, or fence line. 3Setbacks adjacent to Major, Prime or Collector roads may be greater (SMC Table 13.10.040.B). 415 feet when abutting a single-family residential zone and buildings exceed 35 feet (two stories).

Lot Standards
The minimum lot sizes for residential lots in Santee range from 6,000 for the R-2 zone, 8,000 for the R-1-A zone, 15,000 for the R-1 zone, to 30,000 for Hillside/Limited Residential (HL) zone. Minimum lot widths range from 60’ for the R-2 zone, 80’ for the R-1-A zone, 100’ for the R-1 zone, and 150’ for the HL zone. There are no minimum lot sizes or minimum lot widths for the R-7, R-14, R-22 or R-30 zones. These minimum lot size standards are typical, cover the majority of the City, and do not constrain residential development.

Lot Coverage
The Zoning Ordinance establishes a range of maximum lot coverage, by zone. The largest hillside lots have the smallest maximum lot coverage at 25 percent. Maximum lot coverage for the R-1, R-1-A, and R-2 zones increase by 5, or 30, 35, and 40 percent respectively. The zones which permit greater density also permit greater maximum lot coverage: R-7 permits 55 percent maximum lot coverage, R14 permits 60 percent, R-22 permits 70 percent, and R-30 permits 75 percent maximum lot coverage.

The City’s lot coverage standards are typical and the larger the lot, the more feasible to achieve the maximum allowable density.

Yard Setbacks
All residential zones have a 10’ – 30’ front setbacks. Side yard setbacks range from 5’ – 15’, and rear yard setbacks range from 10’ to 25’. Detached accessory structures, including accessory dwelling units have side and rear setbacks of 4’. These setbacks are intended to provide a safe and visually cohesive aesthetic to the residential development throughout the city.

Height Limits
Santee allows building heights up to 35’ or three stories in most residential zones in the City. The R14 residential zone allows heights of up to 45’, or four stories, and the R-22 and R-30 zones allow heights of up to 55’, or five stories. The four and five-story height limits allow the achievement of higher densities in the R-14 and R-22 residential zones.

Parking Standards
In addition to the development standards above, Santee requires a certain number of parking spaces to be provided for each new residential unit. The Santee Zoning Code requires two parking spaces in a garage for all single-family residential zones, including in HL, R-1, R-1-A, and R-2. Parking standards for the multi-family zones are established primarily by the number of bedrooms in the dwelling unit.

For Studio and one-bedroom units, 1.5 spaces/unit with 1/unit in a garage or carport are required.

For two or more bedroom units, 2 spaces/unit are required with 1/unit in a garage or carport. Guest spaces are required at 1 space/4 units. The R-30 Zone allows for reduced resident and guest parking.

Santee’s parking requirements are designed to accommodate vehicle ownership rates associated with different residential uses. The cost associated with parking construction (particularly covered parking) can be viewed as a constraint to affordable housing development, particularly for multifamily housing.

Santee complies with the State Density Bonus provisions for senior and affordable housing, and consistent with State law, provides additional reductions in parking requirements if the project is located close to public transportation. In addition, as part of the adoption of the Art & Entertainment District Overlay in the City’s Town Center, parking requirements have been reduced.

3. FLEXIBILITY FROM DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Santee provides several mechanisms to maintain flexibility in development standards. This flexibility is an important means to address limitations inherent at a specific site (e.g., topographic, geographic, physical, or otherwise), as well as provide a means to address other important goals and objectives of the City Council, such as providing affordable housing for all income groups.

Planned Development District
The Planned Development District is intended for select properties within the City where a variety of development opportunities may be viable and where the City wishes to encourage innovative and very high quality development in a manner which may not be possible under standard land use designations and their corresponding zones. This designation provides for mixed-use development potential including employment parks, commercial, recreational and various densities of residential development pursuant to a development plan and entitlements being approved by the City Council.

More specifically, single family dwellings, single family attached units and multi-family are all permitted uses in the Planned Development District, with approval of a Development Review Permit.

Variance and Minor Exception
The purpose of a variance is to provide flexibility from the strict application of development standards when special circumstances pertaining to the property such as size, shape, topography, or location deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and in the same district, consistent with the objectives of the development code.

The purpose of a minor exception is to provide flexibility necessary to achieve the objectives of the development code. Selected site development regulations and applicable off-street parking requirements are subject to administrative review and adjustment in those circumstances where such adjustment will be compatible with adjoining uses or is necessary to provide reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities, and consistent with state or federal law, and consistent with the goals and objectives of the general plan and the intent of the code.

Density Bonus Ordinance
On June 12, 2019, the City of Santee updated the City’s Density Bonus Ordinance. The substance of the density bonus program was removed from the municipal code because the program is governed by state law, that is explicitly applicable to charter cities, such as Santee. Revisions refer to state law to avoid the need to modify the code in response to each state law amendment. The Density Bonus Ordinance provides incentives to developers for the production of housing affordable to lower income households, moderate income households and senior citizens. However, new changes to the density bonus law passed in 2019 and 2020 may necessitate a review of the City’s Density Bonus Ordinance to ensure continued compliance with State law.

4. PROVISIONS FOR A VARIETY OF HOUSING TYPES
Housing Element law specifies that jurisdictions must identify sites to be made available through appropriate zoning and implement development standards to encourage and facilitate the development of housing for all economic segments of the community. This includes single-family units, multifamily units, accessory dwelling units, manufactured housing, mobile home parks, residential care facilities, transitional and supportive housing, single-room occupancy (SRO) buildings, farm worker housing, and housing for the homeless. Santee provides for a wide range of housing types throughout the community. Table 28summarizes the housing types permitted in each of the City’s primary residential zones. Each residential use is designated by a letter denoting whether the use is permitted by right (P), requires a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), or is not permitted (--).

Table 28: Use Regulations in Residential Districts
USES HL R-1 R-1-A R-2 R-7 R-14 R-22 R-30 IG
Single-family Dwellings P P P P P -- --
-- --
Multifamily Dwellings -- -- -- -- P P P P --
Manufactured Housing P P P P P P* P* -- --
Mobile Home Parks CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP -- --
Accessory Dwelling Units P P P P P P P P --
Residential Care Facilities
-Accessory Use: 6 or fewer
-Non-Accessory Use: 7 or more
P
--
P
--
P
--
P
CUP
P
CUP
P
CUP
P
CUP
P
CUP
--
--
Transitional and Supportive
Housing P P P P P P P P --
Single Room Occupancy (SRO) -- -- -- -- P P P P --
Emergency Shelters -- -- -- -- -- -- --
-- P
Source: City of Santee Municipal Code, 2020.

Notes: P = Permitted; CUP = Conditional Use Permit.
*Permitted within a mobile home park.

Single-family Dwellings
Single-family homes are allowed in the following residential zones: Hillside/Limited (HL), Low Density (R-1), Low-Alternative (R-1A), Low-Medium Density (R-2), and Medium Density (R-7). The HL zone allows up to one dwelling unit /gross acre. It is intended for areas with steep slopes, rugged topography and limited access. Parcels zoned HL are found in the northern part of the City, and also in the southwest and southeast corners of the City. The R-1 zone permits 1 - 2 dwelling units/acre, intended for residential development on one-half acre lots or larger. Parcels zoned R-1 can be found in the north, southwest and eastern and southeastern areas of the City. The R-1A zone permits 2 - 4 dwelling units/acre. Lot sizes are 10,000 square feet or larger. This designation is intended to provide a transition between areas of denser development in the R-2 designation, and lower density larger lot size development in the R-1 and HL land use designations.

R-2 allows 2 - 5 dwelling units per acre and is intended for single-family homes in standard subdivision form characterized by lots of a minimum of 6,000 square feet. It covers the largest portion of the City planned for residential uses and is typically found on level terrain. R-7 is medium density residential

zone that allows 7 – 14 units/acre. The R-7 zone is intended for a wide range of residential development including attached and detached single-family units at the lower end of the density range.

Areas developed under this zone should be close to streets of at least collector size, and should be conveniently served by neighborhood commercial and recreational facilities.

Multifamily Units
Multifamily units are dwellings that are part of a structure containing one or more other dwelling units, or a non-residential use. An example of the latter is a mixed-use project where, for example, one or more dwelling units are part of a structure that also contains one or more commercial uses (retail, office, etc.). Multifamily dwellings include: duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes (buildings under one ownership with two, three or four dwelling units, respectively, in the same structure), apartments (five or more units under one ownership in a single building); condominiums, townhouse development (three or more attached dwellings where no unit is located over another unit), and other building types containing multiple dwelling units (for example, courtyard housing, rowhouses, stacked flats, etc.).

Multifamily Units are allowed in the upper density range of the Medium Density (R-7) zone, and in the Medium High Density (R-14), High Density (R-22), and Urban Residential (R-30) zone. The R-7 zone permits up to 14 units per gross acre while up to 22 units per gross acre are permitted in the R14 zone. Up to 30 units per gross acre are permitted in the R-22 zone and the density for the R-30 zone is 30 units per gross acre. As part of this Housing Element update, the rezone program will be revising this designation to provide a density range (30 – 36 dwelling units per acre) to facilitate development in this designation.

Accessory Dwelling Units
An accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is an attached or a detached residential dwelling unit that provides permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation complete independent living facilities for one or more persons, is located on a lot with an existing or proposed main house, and includes an entrance separate from the main house. An ADU can include a manufactured home.

A junior accessory dwelling unit (JADU) is a residential unit, no more than 500 square feet in size, that has an efficiency kitchen, is contained entirely within an existing or proposed single-family main house or attached garage, and has a separate entrance. It can either have its own bathroom or share with the main house. An efficiency kitchen is a kitchen that contains the following: (a) a cooking facility with appliances; (b) a food prep counter(s) with at least 15 square feet in area; and (c) food storage cabinets totaling at least 30 square feet of shelf space. ADUs and JADUs may be an alternative source of affordable housing for lower income households and seniors.

The City updated its ADU/JADU guidelines in 2019 to comply with changes in state law.

ADUs/JADUs are only permitted on lots zoned Residential, and in some circumstances Mixed Use zones. ADUs/JADUs meeting certain criteria can apply for a building permit only. All other ADUs must first go through a separate ministerial ADU Permit process, prior to submitting for a building permit, to ensure it conforms to the development standards contained in Section 13.10.045 of the Zoning Code.

As a measure to increase the supply of affordable housing, the City of Santee took action to waive Development Impact Fees for the construction of ADUs for a five-year period, effective September 2019. ADUs can provide needed affordable housing for residents of Santee and can also meet the

need for multi-generational housing. The City believes that the waiving of Development Impact Fees will spur the construction of additional ADUs in Santee.

Manufactured Housing/Mobile Home Parks
Manufactured housing and mobile homes offer an affordable housing option to many low and moderate income households. According to the California Department of Finance, there were 2,336 mobile homes in the City in January 2020. The City permits manufactured housing placed on a permanent foundation in all residential zones that allow single-family housing and within mobile home parks in accordance with the Santee Zoning Ordinance.

The Zoning Ordinance also contains a Mobile Home Park Overlay District to accommodate mobile home parks in the City. According to Section 13.22.030, the Mobile Home Park Overlay District may be applied in combination with any other residential district with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The Overlay District establishes specific development standards for a mobile home park and is applied over the base residential district. A Mobile Home Park Overlay district is indicated on the zoning district map by the letters "MHP."
Residential Care Facilities
Residential care facilities can be described as any State-licensed family home, group care facility or similar facility for 24-hour non-medical care of persons in need of personal services, supervision, or assistance essential for sustaining the activities of daily living. In accordance with State law, Santee permits residential care facilities serving six or fewer persons within all residential zones, subject to the same development review and permit processing procedures as traditional single-family or multifamily housing. Residential care facilities serving more than six persons are permitted with approval of a CUP within the R-2, R-7, R-14, R-22, and R-30 zones. Potential conditions for approval may include hours of operation, security, loading requirements, and management. Conditions would be similar to those for other similar uses in the same zones and would not serve to constrain the development of such facilities. Larger residential care facilities are not allowed in R-1, R-1A, and R-2 zones, as these areas are located in the periphery of the City and have a more rural character. These zones are adjacent to hillsides and have limited infrastructure and lack access to services and transit.

In addition, parking requirements for these facilities would encroach on sensitive habitat. Occupancy standards for residential care facilities are the same as occupancy standards for all other residential uses. The City has not adopted a spacing requirement for residential care facilities.

Transitional and Supportive Housing
The Zoning Ordinance definition for “transitional housing” references the State’s definition contained in Health and Safety Code Section 50675.2, which defines “transitional housing” and “transitional housing development” as “buildings configured as rental housing developments, but operated under program requirements that call for the termination of assistance and recirculation of the assisted unit to another eligible program recipient at some predetermined future point in time, which shall be no less than six months.”
The definition for “supportive housing” in the Zoning Ordinance also references the State’s definition contained in Health and Safety Code Section 50675.14(b), which defines the use as “housing with no limit on length of stay, that is occupied by the target population, and that is linked to onsite or offsite services that assist the supportive housing resident in retaining the housing, improving his or her health status, and maximizing his or her ability to live and, when possible, work in the community.”

“Target population” is defined in the same subsection of the Health and Safety Code Section as “persons, including persons with disabilities, and families who are ‘homeless,’ as that term is defined by Section 11302 of Title 42 of the United States Code, or who are ‘homeless youth,’ as that term is defined by paragraph (2) of subdivision (e) of Section 12957 of the Government Code.” The City permits transitional and supportive housing that meets applicable Health and Safety Code definitions in all residential zones, consistent with State law. The same development standards and permit process that applies to single-family or multifamily housing applies to transitional and supportive housing.

AB 2162 (September 2018) and AB 2988 (May 2020) require that supportive housing meeting specific criteria to be permitted by right in zones where multi-family and mixed-use developments are permitted. Specific criteria include the size of the project and percentage set aside for target population, and specified amount of floor area for supportive services, among others. The Santee Zoning Code will be amended to include the requirements of AB 2162 and AB 2988.

Single Room Occupancy Buildings
SRO buildings are defined in the Santee Zoning Ordinance as “a building providing single-room units for one or more persons with or without shared kitchen and bath facilities, including efficiency units per Health and Safety Code Section 17958.1.” SRO buildings are considered suitable to accommodate the housing needs of extremely low income households. This housing type is permitted in all multifamily zones, subject to all Municipal Code and other standards applicable to any new multifamily residential building, including, but not limited to, density, height, setback, on-site parking, lot coverage, development review, compliance with the California Building Code, building fees, charges and other requirements generally applicable to a proposed multifamily development in the Zone District in which a property is located.

Farm Worker and Employee Housing
The California Employee Housing Act requires that housing for six or fewer employees be treated as a regular residential use. The City’s Zoning Code was updated in 2019 to add Agricultural Employee Housing. This housing, as defined in Section 13.04.140, is allowed in residential districts pursuant to Health and Safety Code Sections 17021.5 and 17021.6 and is subject to regulations that apply to other residential dwelling of the same type in the same zone.

Emergency Shelters
The Zoning Ordinance definition for “emergency shelter” references the State’s definition contained in Health and Safety Code Section 50801(e), which defines the use as “housing with minimal supportive services for homeless persons that is limited to occupancy of six months or less by a homeless person. No individual or household may be denied emergency shelter because of an inability to pay.” Although no emergency shelters are currently located within Santee, these facilities are permitted and without discretionary review on more than seven acres on eight parcels on Woodside Avenue within the General Industrial “IG” zone.
• Vacant or underutilized parcels within the IG zone are presented in Appendix D. These parcels are considered underutilized because they are currently vacant or being used for outdoor storage or fleet storage with limited or no site improvements. The undeveloped and underutilized IG-zoned parcels could accommodate an emergency shelter to accommodate at

least 25 homeless individuals (which represents the number of identified unsheltered homeless population in Santee as of 2020 by the Regional Task Force on the Homeless) and at least one year-round emergency shelter. The IG zone is suitable for emergency shelters because shelters are compatible with a range of uses that are common in suburban communities and allowed in the IG zone (e.g., motels/hotels, office buildings, religious institutions, athletic or health clubs, public buildings, educational facilities, etc.); • The IG-zoned parcels on Woodside Avenue are located approximately one mile from public bus service that connects to regional transit, including trolley service; • Existing uses in the IG zone are primarily light industrial, warehousing, and office uses – no heavy industrial uses are present; and
• The parcels are not known to be constrained by the presence of hazardous materials either on or adjacent to the properties.

Emergency shelters are subject to ministerial Development Review Permit approval. The following specific and objective development standards are established in the Municipal Code and apply to emergency shelters:
• An emergency shelter shall not be located within three hundred feet of another shelter; and • The agency or organization operating the shelter shall submit a Facility Management Plan containing facility information, including the number of persons who can be served nightly, the size and location of onsite waiting and intake areas, the provision of onsite management, exterior lighting details, and onsite security during hours of operation.

AB 139 changes the way local governments can regulate parking requirements for emergency shelters.

Parking requirements can be set to be adequate for shelter staff, but the overall parking requirements for shelters may not exceed the requirements for residential and commercial uses in the same zone.

The Santee Zoning Code will be amended to include these requirements.

5. HOUSING FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
Both the federal Fair Housing Amendment Act (FHAA) and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act direct local governments to make reasonable accommodations (i.e. modifications or exceptions) in their zoning laws and other land use regulations when such accommodations may be necessary to afford disabled persons an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.

The City conducted an analysis of the Zoning Ordinance as part of this Housing Element update, permitting procedures, development standards, and building codes to identify potential constraints for housing for persons with disabilities. The City’s policies and regulations regarding housing for persons with disabilities are described below.

Zoning and Land Use
Under State Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act (aka Lanterman Act), small Statelicensed residential care facilities for six or fewer persons must be treated as regular residential uses and permitted in all residential districts; Santee is compliant with the Lanterman Act. The Land Use Element and Zoning Ordinance provide for the development of multifamily housing in the R-7, R14, R-22, and R-30 zones. Traditional multifamily housing for persons with special needs, such as apartments for seniors and the disabled, are considered regular residential uses permitted in these zones. The City’s land use policies and zoning provisions do not constrain the development of such housing. State-licensed residential care facilities for more than six persons are conditionally permitted in the R-2, R-7, R-14, R-22, and R-30 zones. Potential conditions for approval may include hours of operation, security, loading requirements, and management. Conditions would be similar to those for other similar uses in the same zones and would not serve to unduly constrain the development of residential care facilities for more than six persons. Occupancy standards for residential care facilities are the same as occupancy standards for all other residential uses. The City has not adopted a spacing requirement for residential care facilities.

The Santee Zoning Code includes provisions for transitional and supportive housing. These facilities may serve persons with disabilities. Consistent with State law, transitional and supportive housing facilities as defined in the Health and Safety Code are permitted in all residential zones.

The City also accommodates persons with disabilities in group care facilities. Group care facilities serve mentally disabled, mentally disordered or otherwise handicapped persons regardless of whether they are living together as a single household unit. These facilities are separate from State-licensed residential care facilities and require approval of a CUP in all residential zones. Group care facilities are subject to the same review process, approval criteria, and findings as all other uses that require a CUP, including large residential care facilities.

It may also be reasonable to accommodate requests from persons with disabilities to waive a setback requirement or other standard of the zoning ordinance to ensure that homes are accessible for the mobility impaired. Whether a particular modification is reasonable depends on the circumstances, and must be decided on a case-by-case basis. Consistent with the State’s model Reasonable Accommodation Ordinance, the Santee Zoning Code includes a ministerial procedure for handling requests for reasonable accommodation. When a request for reasonable accommodation is filed with the Department of Development Services, it is referred to the Development Services Director (Director) for review and consideration. The Director must consider the following criteria when determining whether a requested accommodation is reasonable:

1. The Applicant making the request for reasonable accommodation is an individual protected under the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988.

2. The accommodation is necessary to make a specific dwelling unit(s) available to an individual protected under the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988.

3. The requested accommodation would not impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the City.

4. The requested accommodation would not require a fundamental alteration in the nature of a program, policy, and/or procedure.

If necessary to reach a determination on the request for reasonable accommodation, the Director may request further information from the applicant consistent with the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, specifying in detail what information is required. Not more than 30 days after receiving a written request for reasonable accommodation, the Ordinance requires the Director to issue a written determination on the request. In the event that the Director requests further information pursuant to the paragraph above, this 30-day period is suspended. Once the Applicant provides a complete response to the request, a new 30-day period begins.

Building Codes
The City enforces Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations that regulates the access and adaptability of buildings to accommodate persons with disabilities. No unique restrictions are in place that would constrain the development of housing for persons with disabilities. Compliance with provisions of the Code of Regulations, California Building Standards Code, and federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is assessed and enforced by the Building Services Division of the Department of Development Services as a part of the building permit submittal.

Government Code Section 12955.1(b) requires that 10 percent of the total dwelling units in multifamily buildings without elevators consisting of three or more rental units or four or more condominium units are subject to the following building standards for persons with disabilities:

1. The primary entry to the dwelling unit shall be on an accessible route unless exempted by site impracticality tests.

2. At least one powder room or bathroom shall be located on the primary entry level served by an accessible route.

3. All rooms or spaces located on the primary entry level shall be served by an accessible route.

Rooms and spaces located on the primary entry level and subject to this chapter may include but are not limited to kitchens, powder rooms, bathrooms, living rooms, bedrooms, or hallways.

4. Common use areas shall be accessible.

5. If common tenant parking is provided, accessible parking spaces are required.

Permit Processing
Requests for reasonable accommodation with regard to zoning, permit processing, and building codes are reviewed and processed by the Building Services Division of the Department of Development Services within 30 days of receipt and without the requirement for payment of a fee. The reasonable accommodation procedures are based on the State’s model ordinance, and they clearly state how to apply for and obtain reasonable accommodation; therefore, they do not represent a constraint on the development or improvement or housing for persons with disabilities.

Definition of Family
A “family” is defined in the Santee Zoning Ordinance as one or more individuals living together as a single household unit. The City’s Ordinance does not regulate residency by discriminating between biologically related and unrelated persons nor does it regulate or enforce the number of persons constituting a family. In conclusion, Santee’s definition of “family” does not restrict access to housing for persons with disabilities.

Conclusion
The City fully complies with ADA requirements and provides reasonable accommodation for housing intended for persons with disabilities on a case-by-case basis.

6. DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PROCEDURES AND PROCESSING TIMES
The evaluation and review process required by local jurisdictions often contributes to the cost of housing in that holding costs incurred by developers are ultimately reflected in the units selling price.

Santee’s development review process is designed to encourage site and architectural development, which exemplify the best professional design practices. The Development Review Permit process helps ensure that each new project achieves the intent and purpose of the General Plan land use designation and zone in which the project is located. Together, the following figures and tables show the type of approvals required for the most common types of residential development as well as the reviewing authority.

Residential projects subject to the Development Review process follow two distinct review paths, depending on the scope of the project. The City Council reviews larger projects during a noticed public hearing. The City Council functions as the Planning Commission and therefore approval of applications in Santee is not subject to two discretionary bodies. This streamlined review process saves a considerable amount of time when compared to processes of many other jurisdictions that require separate Planning Commission and City Council approval of large residential projects. Other projects are reviewed by the Director. A summary of the two review processes are listed below.

Table 29: Development Review Bodies
Director Review City Council Review
1) New construction on vacant property
2) One or more structural additions or new buildings,
either with a total floor area of one thousand square
feet or more.
3) Construction of an accessory dwelling unit.
4) Reconstruction or alteration of existing buildings on sites when the alteration significantly affects the
exterior appearance of the building or traffic
circulation of the site.
5) Development in the Hillside Overlay zone.
1) Any multi-family residential project
2) Any single family residential project where a tentative map or tentative subdivision map is required.
3) The conversion of residential, commercial or
industrial buildings to condominiums.

A single-family dwelling, on an existing parcel located in a zone that permits single-family residential development (HL, R-1, R-1-A, R-2, and R-7 zones) that does not contain environmental constraints such as any natural slopes greater than 10 percent and is not located in a biological resource area, on a ridgeline, or in a similar type of visually prominent location, is subject to a building permit to ensure compliance with zoning regulations and the building and fire codes. Approval of a building permit for a single-family dwelling meeting these criteria is ministerial. Processing time is approximately six weeks, but highly dependent on the quality of the initial submittal.

If the proposed single-family project does not conform to the development regulations of the zone or does not meet the above criteria, it requires an administrative discretionary action. Examples of an administrative discretionary approval include an administrative Development Review Permit (DRP) or Variance. An administrative Variance requires a public hearing before the Director while an

administrative Development Review Permit does not. Approval is based on findings as outlined in the zoning regulations. Processing time for a hearing before the Director or non-hearing decision is approximately six weeks but may extend to two months or more when processing involves compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

A single-family project, which includes a minor or major subdivision, requires approval of a Development Review Permit and subdivision map by the City Council at a public hearing. The basis for approval is consistency with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and subdivision regulations.

The length of time required to process a subdivision map is variable, based on the size and complexity of the project. In most cases, the approval process can be completed in six months to a year.

Figure 9: Permitting process for single-family detached housing

Multifamily housing on an existing parcel in any multi-family residential zone (R-7, R-14, R-22, and R-30) is subject to a discretionary City Council approval of a Development Review Permit. Processing time is approximately six months but varies on the size of the project and quality of the initial submittal.

If the multifamily housing is proposed as a condominium, or planned unit development, the approval process also includes a subdivision map. The subdivision map and Development Review Permit are processed concurrently. Processing time is approximately six months and the project is also subject to discretionary review by the City Council.

Single-family
residence
No environmental
constraints
Ministerial, building
permit
(approx. 6 weeks)
With environmental
constraints
Administrative
discretionary action,
either DRP or
Variance (approx. 6-8
weeks)
DRP has no hearing
requirement
Variance requires
hearing with Dir of
Development
Services
Single-family Major
or Minor Subdivision
DRP and Subdivision
map at City Council
hearing (6-12
months)

Figure 10: Permit process for multifamily housing
Design considerations for all residential projects
The Development Review Permit (DRP) process stipulates that the following items should be evaluated when designing a project:
• Relationship of building and site to surrounding area o Evaluate the project’s fringe effects on adjacent parcels o Evaluate the project’s proximity to transportation (including active) facilities o Evaluate the project’s relationship to the surrounding area • Site design
o Setbacks
o Evaluate building placement for adequate ventilation
o Consider topography and other on-site natural features in the design o Evaluate pedestrian and vehicle circulation
• Landscaping
o Choose plant palette to ensure water efficiency
o Approved street trees
• Grading
o Lessen proposed grading
• Signs
o On site plan plot all proposed free-standing signs
o Provide details for all free standing signs
• Lighting
o Provide sufficient lighting for the proposed use
o Keep all site lighting facing downward to minimize impacts on neighbors • Architectural design
o Visual relief from long elevations through wall plane offsets o Use of colors and materials
o Variations in vertical setbacks to reduce mass of larger buildings Multifamily housing
Proposed on an existing
parcel
Condominium or
Planned Unit
Development
DRP and Subdivision
Map at City Council
Hearing (approx. 6
months)
DRP at City Council
Hearing (approx. 6
months)

Pre-Application process for projects that require City Council review Single-family major and minor subdivisions and multifamily housing proposals typically go through a Pre-Application. The Pre-Application process is designed to identify issues which may impact the design of the project early in the approval process. The process entails submitting a Pre-Application, supporting documents, and the Pre-Application fee. Approximately four weeks from the date of the submittal, a Design Conference (pre-application meeting), is held at City Hall to provide the applicant the opportunity to meet with the reviewing City staff. This early identification of issues is intended to limit possible delays and plan revisions.

Table 30: Approval Required
Housing Type HL R-1 R-1-A R-2 R-7 R-14 R-22 R-30
Single-family
detached Permitted by right Not permitted
Single-family
attached Not permitted Permitted by right Not permitted Single-family major
and minor
subdivisions
Not
permitted
DRP and Subdivision map
required
Not
Permitted Not permitted
Multifamily Not permitted DRP required
Variances
The City of Santee has a process to offer variances to provide flexibility from the strict application of development standards when special circumstances pertaining to a property such as size, shape, topography, or location deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and in the same district, consistent with the objectives of the development code. Any variance granted is subject to such conditions as will assure that the authorized adjustment does not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and district in which the property is situated.

For residential development, the Director is authorized to grant variances with respect to development standards such as, but not limited to, fences, walls, hedges, screening, and landscaping; site area, width, and depth; setbacks; lot coverage; height of structures; usable open space; performance standards; and to impose reasonable conditions. Conditions may include, but shall not be limited to, requirements for setbacks, open spaces, buffers, fences, walls, and screening; requirements for installation and maintenance of landscaping and erosion control measures and other improvements, requirements for street improvements and dedications, regulation of vehicular ingress and egress, and traffic circulation; establishment of development schedules or time limits for performance or completion; requirements for periodical review by the Director; and such other conditions as the Director may deem necessary to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses, to preserve the public health, safety, and welfare, and to enable the Director to make the findings outlined in the paragraph below. Variances may be granted in conjunction with conditional use permits and development review permits. Such variances do not require a separate application or a separate public hearing.

An application for a variance is filed with the Department in a form prescribed by the Director, who holds a public hearing on each application. Before granting a variance, the Director must make the following findings:

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

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

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

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

The review and approval of a variance typically requires 6 months.

Conditional Use Permits and Minor Conditional Use Permits The purpose of the regulations for the City of Santee that govern conditional use permits and minor conditional use permits are to provide for flexibility when special circumstances exist, regulate uses that have the potential to adversely affect adjacent properties, ensure land use consistency with the General Plan, and promote a visually attractive community. An application for a conditional use permit or minor conditional use permit is filed with the Development Services Department. Conditional use permits are approved by the City Council, and minor conditional use permits are approved by the Director, following a public hearing with the appropriate body. The conditional use permit and minor conditional use permit processes are intended to afford an opportunity for broad public review and evaluation of these requirements and characteristics, to provide adequate mitigation of any potentially adverse impacts, and to ensure that all site development regulations and performance standards are provided in accordance with the zoning ordinance. Generally, review and approval of a conditional use permit requires approximately 6 months.

Reasonable conditions that may be granted through the use of these permits that relate to residential development include, but are not limited to, the following: setbacks, open spaces, buffers, fences, walls, and screening; requirements for installation and maintenance of landscaping, erosion control measures, and other improvements; requirements for street improvements and dedications, regulation of vehicular ingress and egress; establishment of development schedules or time limits for performance or completion; requirements for periodic review; and such other conditions as the City Council or the Director, as appropriate, may deem necessary to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses, to preserve the public health, safety, and welfare, and to enable the City Council or the Director, to make the required findings.

For residential development, the required findings for conditional use permits and minor conditional use permits are:

1. That the proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the zoning ordinance, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located.

2. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.

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

7. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT FEES
Planning Fees
Housing construction imposes certain short- and long-term costs upon local government, such as the cost of providing planning services and inspections. In addition, long-term costs related to the maintenance and improvement of the community’s infrastructure, facilities, parks, and streets are also imposed. Proposition 13 has severely constrained the amount of property tax revenue that a city in California receives. As a result, Santee charges various planning and development fees to recoup costs and ensure that essential services and infrastructure are available when needed. Santee is sensitive to the issue that excessive fees may hinder development and strives to encourage responsible and affordable development. The City is also addressing the cost constraints for affordable housing by waiving ADU impact fees for a five-year period, effective September 2019.

In 2020, the City Council adopted a new fee schedule, which reflects minor upward adjustments for some fees (Table 31Table 31). Permit and development fees for Santee and neighboring jurisdictions are summarized in Table 32.

Table 31: Residential Development Fees
Permit Issuance
Fee
Single-family
development
(SFD)
Multifamily
(townhome)
Multifamily (250 units
in 1 building)
Apartment
(assume 25
units/bldg.)
Permit Fees
Building Permit
Average Total
$6,864 $5,831 $3,327 $2,514
Plan Check Fee1 $3,432 $2,915 $1,663 $1,257
Base Fee $5,002 $3,159 $2,061 $882
Misc. Additions2 $1,786 $2,611 $1,220 $1,620
SB1473 $8 $5 $21 $4
SMIP $26 $15 $14 $14
Permit Issuance Fee $42 $41 $11 $4

Table 31: Residential Development Fees
Permit Issuance
Fee
Single-family
development
(SFD)
Multifamily
(townhome)
Multifamily (250 units
in 1 building)
Apartment
(assume 25
units/bldg.)
Impact/Capacity Fees
Sewer (Padre Dam) $15,876 $12,987 $12,987 $10,589
Water (Padre Dam) $22,930 $21,210 $21,210 $18,917
Public Facilities $6,923 $6,243 $6,243 $6,243
Traffic $3,808 $2,435 $2,435 $2,435
Traffic Signal $402 $252 $252 $252
Parks $8,334 $7,598 $7,598 $7,598
Drainage/Flood $3,093 $2,115 $2,115 $2,115
School3 $7,328 $6,412 $5,496 $4,580
Traffic SANDAG
(RTCIP)
$2,583.82 $2,583.82 $2,583.82 $2,583.82
Total $78,142 $67,667 $64,247 $57,827
Notes:

1. Plan check fee is ½ of the building permit fee

2. Includes mechanical, electrical, plumbing fees and fees for additions such as garages and balconies.

3. Santee Elementary School District 2021 Developer Fee is $3.38/sq. ft.; Grossmont Union High School District 2021 Developer Fee is $1.20/sq. ft. – Calculations based on typical 1,600 sq. ft. single-family home, 1,400 sq. ft. townhome, 1,200 sq. ft condo unit, and 1,000 sq. ft. apartment unit.

Source: City of Santee Fee Schedule FY2020-21; Padre Dam Municipal Water District Sewer and Water Capacity Fee Schedule 2021; Santee Elementary School District Developer Fees 2021; Grossmont Union High School District Developer Fees 2021 Table 32: Fee Comparisons (2019-2020)
Jurisdictions
Per Unit Permit and Impact Fees
Single Family
Townhome
(Type V
Construction)
Condominium
(Type III
Construction)
Apartment
(Type V
Construction)
Carlsbad $42,616.78 $23,012.02 $17,086.21 $16,762.04
Chula Vista $57,167.97 $42,481.32 $38,577.18 $38,596.86 Encinitas $22,932.15 $15,984.48 --- $15,233.65
Escondido $37,044.15 $31,185.86 $29,360.35 $29,360.35
Imperial Beach $15,161.22 $11,262.71 $9,832.14 $21,010.37 La Mesa $27,442.49 $19,242.63 $14,248.72 $12,906.75
Lemon Grove $13,563.65 $6,259.63 $4,870.52 $5,106.55
National City $15,025.99 $5,655.93 $4,175.54 $4,175.54
Oceanside $68,235.30 $25,089.74 $17,254.33 $17,178.01
Poway $26,528.05 $21,194.22 $2,059.13 $20,898.17
San Diego $155,367.00 $103,121.73 $95,731.81 $97,461.70 San Marcos $30,761.34 $25,588.10 $23,410.80 $14,184.14
Santee $78,142.00 $67,667.00 $64,247.00 $57,827.00
San Diego County $21,797.00 $12,793.00 $10,900.00 $11,156.00 Vista $27,546.37 $20,804.79 $23,176.90 $18,608.86

Source: BIA 2019-2020 Fees Study for San Diego County; City of Santee Fee Schedule FY2020-21 Transparency in Development Process
To increase transparency and certainty in the development application process as required by law, the City has a variety of tools available for developers. The City’s Developmental Services Department home page has links to the City’s zoning ordinance, zoning map, and planning and zoning services forms. Direct links are also provided below:
• Zoning Code: http://qcode.us/codes/santee/view.php?topic=17&frames=on • Zoning Map: https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument?id=8549 • Forms: https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/government/departments/developmentservices/planning-zoning-services-forms • Master Fee Schedule (Development Fees):
https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/government/departments/finance/consolidated-feeschedule

8. ON- AND OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS
Another factor adding to the cost of new construction is the provision of adequate infrastructure to support municipal services for new resident development. In many cases, these improvements are dedicated to the City, which is then responsible for their maintenance. The cost of these facilities is borne by developers, added to the cost of new housing units, and eventually passed in various degrees to the property owner or homebuyer.

Santee has one sizeable undeveloped areas for which new development is planned: Fanita Ranch in the northern portion of the city. On-and off-site infrastructure improvements/requirements are assessed based on the merit need of each project during discretionary project review, and for larger projects may be determined through the environmental review process. Typically, the following are required for new construction and new subdivisions:
• Install city standard sidewalk, curb and gutter.
• Install reclaimed water system for landscaping irrigation. • Install storm water retention system for on-site storm water management.

For new homes within existing neighborhoods, the following are typically required:
• Install storm water retention system.
• Repair sidewalk, curb and gutter if damaged or unsafe. If repair is necessary, the applicable fee for curb/gutter or sidewalk encroachment permit would apply.

The City has a booklet available called “Standard Improvements” for developers. The City’s required site improvements follows regional trends for requirements. Developers are aware of the requirements.

9. BUILDING CODES AND ENFORCEMENT
Building and safety codes, while adopted to preserve public health and safety ensure the construction of safe and decent housing, have the potential to increase construction costs and impact the affordability of housing. These include the following building codes, accessibility standards, and other related ordinances.

California Building Code
The City of Santee adopted the California Building Code (CBC) which includes the International Building Code. The City adopted the CBC with minor administrative changes and one amendment related to minimum roof covering classifications for increased fire protection. The fire-related amendment applies uniformly to all construction types throughout the City and is intended to enhance public health and safety. Although this amendment to the CBC may result in an increase in the cost of construction, such cost increase is minor relative to the overall cost of construction. Furthermore, developers have not indicated that the amended roof covering classifications constrain or otherwise limit development opportunities in Santee. Enforcement of applicable building codes requires inspections at various stages of construction to ensure code compliance. The CBC prescribes minimum insulation requirements to reduce noise and promote energy efficiency.

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
The City’s building code requires new residential construction to comply with ADA requirements.

State law requires new residential construction to comply with ADA requirements. State law requires buildings consisting of three or more units to incorporate design features, including: 1) adaptive design features for the interior of the unit; 2) accessible public and common use portions; and 3) sufficiently wider doors to allow wheelchair access. These codes apply to all jurisdictions and are enforced by federal and state agencies.

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
As the permit holder of a Municipal Storm Water Permit, the City must implement an Urban Runoff Management Program to reduce the discharge of pollutants into the storm sewer system. Prior to issuance of a building permit of any discretionary land use approval or permit, the applicant must submit a storm water mitigation plan and implement Best Management Practices in accordance with state and local regulations.

Code Compliance
The City’s Department of Development Services and Code Compliance staff are responsible for enforcing local and state property maintenance codes. Inspections of unsafe buildings are made on a complaint or referral basis. The City of Santee actively pursues reported code violations in the City.

Substandard housing conditions within the City’s existing housing stock are abated primarily through code compliance. Identification of code violations is based on resident complaints. The City then advises property owners on proper corrective action. The City has also adopted the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings to require the repair or removal of any structure deemed a threat to public health and safety.

Page A 63
Section 4: Housing Resources
This section summarizes the resources available for the development, rehabilitation, and preservation of housing in Santee. The analysis includes an evaluation of the adequacy of the City’s land inventory to accommodate Santee’s regional housing needs goals for the 2021-2029 planning period. Financial resources available to support housing activities and the administrative resources available to assist in implementing the City’s housing programs are also analyzed in this section.

A. Available Sites for Housing
State law requires communities to play an active role in ensuring that enough housing is available to meet expected population growth in the San Diego region. Periodically as set forth by State statutory timeframe, the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) is authorized to set forth specific goals for the amount of new housing that should be planned for in each jurisdiction over a specified time period, in this case June 30, 2020 through April 15, 2029. This section discusses how Santee will plan for the provision of housing for all economic segments through 2029.

1. FUTURE HOUSING NEED
SANDAG developed a Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) based on the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) determination for the region’s “fair share” of statewide forecasted growth through April 15, 2029. Overall, the region needs to plan for an additional 171,685 units. Santee’s share of the regional housing need for the 2021-2029 RHNA period is allocated by SANDAG based on a number of factors, including recent growth trends, income distribution, and capacity for future growth.

Santee was assigned a future housing need of 1,219 units for the 2021-2029 RHNA period, representing 0.7 percent of the total regional housing need. Of the 1,219 units allocated to Santee, the City must plan for units affordable to all income levels, specifically: 203 extremely low income, 203 very low income, 200 low income, 188 moderate income, and 425 above-moderate income units.4

4 The City has a RHNA allocation of 406 very low income units (inclusive of extremely low income units). Pursuant to State law (AB 2634), the City must project the number of extremely low income housing needs based on Census income distribution or assume 50 percent of the very low income units as extremely low. Assuming an even split, the City’s RHNA allocation of 406 very low income units may be divided into 203 very low and 203 extremely low income units. However, for purposes of identifying adequate sites for the RHNA allocation, State law does not mandate the separate accounting for the extremely low income category.

Table 33: RHNA Housing Needs for 2021-2029
Income Category (% of County AMI) Number of Units Percent Extremely Low (30% or less) 203 16.7%
Very Low (31-50%) 203 16.7%
Low (51-80% AMI) 200 16.4%
Moderate (81%-120% AMI) 188 15.4%
Above Moderate (>120% AMI) 425 34.9%
Total 1,219 100.0%
Source: Final Regional Housing Needs Allocation, SANDAG, August 2020.

AMI = Area Median Income
Note: The City has a RHNA allocation of 406 very low income units (inclusive of extremely low income units. Pursuant to State law (AB 2634), the City must project the number of extremely low income housing needs based on Census income distribution or assume 50 percent of the very low income units as extremely low. Assuming an even split, the City’s RHNA allocation of 406 very low income units may be divided into 203 very low and 203 extremely low income units. However, for purposes of identifying adequate sites for the RHNA allocation, State law does not mandate the separate accounting for the extremely low income category

2. CREDITS TOWARDS THE RHNA
Since the RHNA uses June 30, 2020 as the baseline for growth projections for the Housing Element planning period, jurisdictions may count the number of new units issued building permits or certificates of occupancy since June 30, 2020 toward their RHNA. This section describes the applicability of the rehabilitation and new construction credits, while latter sections discuss the availability of land to address the remaining RHNA. TABLE 34 summarizes Santee’s RHNA credits and the remaining housing need through April 15, 2029. With the anticipated ADUs, entitled projects, projects under review, and Fanita Ranch, the City has adequate capacity to accommodate its moderate and above moderate income RHNA. The City must accommodate the remaining RHNA of 605 lower income units with vacant and nonvacant sites that are appropriately zoned and have near-term development potential.

Table 34: RHNA Credits and Remaining Need
Income Category (% of County AMI) RHNA Potential
ADU Entitled Under Review
Fanita
Ranch
Remaining
Need
Extremely Low/Very Low (<50% AMI) 406 0 0 1 0 405
Low (51-80% AMI) 200 0 0 0 0 200
Moderate (81%-120% AMI) 188 80 0 0 435 0
Above Moderate (>120% AMI) 425 0 128 435 2,514 0
Total 1,219 80 128 436 2,949 605
Potential ADU
New State laws passed since 2017 have substantially relaxed the development standards and procedures for the construction of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). However, the City has seen slight increases in ADUs in the community, with only one unit permitted in 2018, four units in 2019, and 14 units in 2020. While this trend yielded an annual average of nine units per year between 2018 and 2020, the City Council adopted a policy to waive development impact fees for ADUs for five years effective September 2019. This incentive resulted in a significant increase in ADU activities (more than tripled between 2019 and 2020). Therefore, the City anticipates permitting at least 80

ADUs in the eight-year planning period between 2021 and 2029. Given the lack of housing affordability data available, the City expects that all new ADUs to be affordable to moderate income households.

Active Entitlements
As of July 1, 2020, the City entitled a total of 138 housing units, including condominiums and singlefamily homes. As with units under review, new construction condominiums and single-family homes are considered affordable only to above moderate-income households. Active entitlement projects are separate from the sites inventory and counted as credit units, not as potential sites. The income distribution of the active entitlements is based on market rates and proposals by developers.

Under review
As of July 1, 2020, a total of 436 units were at various stages of review and approval. All units were considered affordable only to above moderate households, with the exception of one very low income unit in the Atlas View Drive project in exchange for a density bonus.

Table 35: Projects Under Review
Project Type Total Units
Carlton Oaks Golf Course SFH/Condo 285
Atlas View Drive Condo 12
Mast Blvd Condo 125
Tyler Street SFH 14
Total Units 436
Fanita Ranch
On September 23, 2020, City Council approved the Fanita Ranch project.5 Fanita Ranch will be a master planned community consisting of up to 2,949 units with a school, or 3,008 units without a school. As part of the Fanita Ranch project approval, the General Plan land use designation of the site was amended from PD (Planned Development), R-1 (Low Density Residential) and HL (Hillside/Limited Residential) to SP (Specific Plan) and the Fanita Ranch Specific Plan was adopted.

Development will be distributed into three villages named according to their designed theme: Fanita Commons, Vineyard Village, and Orchard Village. Table 36 shows the permitted uses and

5 The project approval included approval of Resolution 094-2020, which adopted the General Plan Amendment (GPA 2017-2) that is necessary for the development Fanita Ranch project. On October 29, 2020, a referendum against Resolution 094-2020 was submitted to the City Clerk’s office. On January 13, 2021, the referendum petition was certified as including the required number of signatures, and the City Council voted to place the referendum on the November 2022 ballot. Due to the referendum, the effective date of Resolution 094-2020 is suspended, which means that the developer cannot move forward with actual construction of the Fanita Ranch project until the referendum is resolved.

Even if the referendum passes, the City has adequate capacity in its sites inventory to meet the RHNA moderate income unit needs. As shown in Table 34, the City has a RHNA need of 188 moderate units. Only 435 of the Fanita units were considered affordable to moderate households. Table 37 shows the sites inventory has enough capacity for at least 587 moderate units. However, rezoning is still needed for the units in the rezone program. The City plans to introduce the rezoning sites as a package.

development regulations for each proposed land use designation and village as established by the Fanita Ranch Specific Plan.
• Village Center land use designation would apply to approximately 36.5 acres of the project site and would allow development of approximately 435 residential units. It would allow for a mix of residential, commercial (retail, service, and office), civic, and recreational uses in a walkable mixed-use configuration with a maximum building height of 55 feet. When uses are mixed, they may be combined horizontally (side by side or adjacent to one another) or vertically (residential, office above retail, or combination of both). • Medium Density Residential land use designation would apply to approximately 67 acres of the project site and would allow development of approximately 866 residential units. It would establish areas for residential uses in a variety of attached, detached, and semi-detached building typologies at densities ranging from 8 to 25 residential units per acre. • Low Density Residential land use designation would apply to approximately 240.8 acres of the project site and would allow development of approximately 1,203 residential units.

Building types would include single-family detached residences, detached cluster residences, and community buildings (buildings that would serve as landmarks such as churches), with a maximum building height of 45 feet.
• Active Adult land use designation would apply to approximately 31 acres within Fanita Commons and would allow development of approximately 445 residential units. It would establish areas for age-restricted residential uses in a variety of building types with densities ranging from 5 to 25 residential units per acre and a maximum building height of 55 feet.

Building types would include single-family detached residences, detached cluster residences, attached/semi-detached residences, and community buildings with a maximum building height of 55 feet.

Table 36: Fanita Ranch Land Use Summary*
Fanita
Commons
Orchard
Village
Vineyard
Village Total
Village Center (up to 50 du/ac) 323 33 79 435
Medium Density (8-25 du/ac) 0 368 498 866
Low Density Residential (4-10 du/ac) 0 454 749 1,203
Active Adult Residential (5-25 du/ac) 445 0 0 445
Total 768 855 1,326 2,949
Source: Fanita Ranch Project Draft Revised EIR, May 2020. *“With School” Scenario Units in the Village Center are considered feasible for housing affordable to moderate income households due to the high density allowed of up to 50 du/acre. All other units are considered affordable only to above moderate-income households.

The conceptual phasing plan for the project will be divided into four phases. The plan’s objective is to coordinate the provision of public facilities and services with the anticipated sequence pattern of

development. The phasing of development and implementation of public facilities may be modified as long as the required public improvements are provided at the time of need. The conceptual phases for the proposed project include the following:
• Phase 1: Fanita Commons and the easterly portion of Orchard Village, off-site and on-site improvements to Fanita Parkway and Cuyamaca Street, sewer infrastructure through the Phase 2 area, and water infrastructure in the Special Use area. • Phase 2: Westerly portion of Orchard Village and dead-end street improvements. • Phase 3: Connections to and construction of the southerly half of Vineyard Village and water infrastructure through the Phase 4 area, and off-site improvements to Magnolia Avenue. • Phase 4: Northerly half of Vineyard Village.

Each phase would take approximately 2 to 4 years to complete. Once construction begins, build-out of the project is anticipated within 10 to 15 years. Fanita Commons, which includes the majority of the Village Center high density residential use, is planned for Phase 1 of development.

3. RESIDENTIAL SITES INVENTORY
Because the RHNA period extends from June 30, 2020 to April 15, 2029, a jurisdiction may meet the RHNA requirement using potential development on suitable vacant and/or nonvacant sites within the community. A jurisdiction must document how zoning and development standards on the sites facilitate housing to accommodate the remaining RHNA identified in TABLE 34 on page 64. Santee currently has adequate land capacity to meet the needs of all income groups. The following TABLE 37 is a summary of the detailed parcel data included in Appendix C, Sites Inventory.

Sites are suitable for residential development if zoned appropriately and available for residential use during the planning period. In order to accommodate the RHNA for each income category, the City identified some sites for rezoning to be included in the Housing Element implementation program.

Appendix C, Sites Inventory, shows the sites that will be rezoned to accommodate RHNA. Of the 34 sites identified in the inventory, 25 are being rezoned to accommodate RNHA. Most sites are proposed to be upzoned, with the exception of three sites in the Town Center Residential area, which are to be downzoned to be consistent with the surrounding residential development.

Table 37: Residential Sites Inventory (Summary)
Affordability Level and
Zoning
Density
Factor
Site
Count Acreage Average Parcel Size Capacity Status
Lower Income
R-22 (22-30 dua) 22 dua 5 15.53 3.11 297 Nonvacant
TC-R-22 (22-30 dua) 22 dua
2 8.32 4.12 183 Nonvacant
1 5.26 5.26 115 Vacant
TC-R-30 (30-36 dua) 30 dua
1 10.00 10.0 300 Nonvacant
1 11.11 11.11 333 Vacant
Low Income Subtotal 10 52.25 5.03 1,228
Moderate Income
R-14 (14-22 dua) 14 dua 2 4.17 2.09 58 Nonvacant
TC-R-14 (14- 22 dua) 14 dua 4 44.82 11.21 529 Vacant
Moderate Income Subtotal 6 48.99 8.16 587
Above Moderate Income
R-7 (7-14 dua)
7 dua 15 27.28 1.82 165 Nonvacant
7 dua 2 1.4 0.70 8 Vacant
POS/R-7 (7-14 dua) 7 dua 1 47.45 47.45 122 Vacant
Above Moderate Income Subtotal 18 76.13 4.23 295
Total 34 175.37 5.16 2,110
Residential uses proposed on sites counted toward meeting Santee’s RHNA for very low, low, moderate, and/or moderate income needs shall be approved if developed in accordance with the applicable development standards of the Municipal Code. The Development Review process (Section 3) will be used to ensure that subdivisions and/or multifamily projects on these sites comply with development regulations and design requirements, but shall not be used to deny a permit for residential development based on the use itself.

Realistic Capacity Assumptions
Most residential zone districts in Santee establish a range of allowable density. For example, density within the R-14 zone may range between 14 and 22 dwelling units per acre (dua) and between 22 and 30 dua is allowed within the R-22 zone. For purposes of calculating the realistic capacity of sites in Appendix C, Sites Inventory, the minimum of allowable density was used in these districts. This is considered a highly conservative assumption as development projects proposed in Santee’s multifamily districts (R-7, R-14, and R-22) have historically been approved at the upper end of the allowable density. The TC-R-14, TC-R-22 and TC-R-30 districts within the Town Center Specific Plan (TCSP) have density ranges of 14-22 du/ac, 22-30 du/ac, and 30-36 du/ac, respectively. As part of the rezone program, the City will be creating a new R-30 zone that provides a range of 30 to 36 units per acre. The R-30 zone will also apply to TC-R-30.

Affordability, Suitability, and Availability Analysis
This subsection describes the assumptions applied to each parcel in Appendix C, Sites Inventory, to determine affordability level and establish the suitability and availability for development within the planning period. When determining which sites are best suited to accommodate lower income RHNA, the City also considered proximity to transit, access to amenities such as parks and services, locational

scoring criteria for Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (TCAC) Program funding, and proximity to available infrastructure and utilities in addition to “default” density.

Government Code Section 65583.2(c)(3)(B) allows local governments to utilize a “default” numerical density standard for establishing adequate zoning to accommodate lower income housing. The City’s four R-22, R-30, TC-R-22, and TC-R-30 zones have density ranges that include the default density of 30 dua, can accommodate an estimated 1,278 lower income units.

The housing market analysis in the Community Profile of this Housing Element demonstrates that moderate income households can afford to a wide range of rental options and purchase some of the condos in Santee. As such, the City assumes that sites in R-14 and TC-R-14 (density ranges 14-22 dua) zones can accommodate 587 moderate income units. The least dense sites (and R-7) sites can facilitate 312 above moderate income units.

Suitability of Nonvacant Sites
Vacant sites cannot accommodate Santee’s entire share of the regional housing need and the City relies on underutilized properties to demonstrate sufficient capacity during the planning period. This section demonstrates that the underutilized sites are suitable for redevelopment within the planning period.

All the sites identified include marginal uses such as underused commercial uses or marginal operations and small homes on large lots. All of the existing structures were built before 1990 and are over 30 years old and 65 percent of structures are over 70 years old. Structures that are in fair condition are on lots that are highly underutilized based on the allowable zoning. Figure 11 depicts typical existing conditions on underutilized sites in the commercial and residential zones. Details for each site selected for the RHNA are provided in Appendix C, Sites Inventory.

Feasibility for Development
The City considered potential sites mostly between 0.5 to 10 acres and minimally constrained by topography, airport safety zones, wildlands, infrastructure, hydrology. The City identified two potential opportunity zones: Summit Avenue (10 sites) and Town Center (nine sites) along with other infill lots scattered throughout the City.
• Summit Ave sites are larger, relatively flat parcels possibly for small lot subdivisions in the 7 to 14 units per acre range. With potential lot sizes of about 4,000 sq. ft., these lots would be consistent with Santee’s past development patterns.
• Town Center sites are large, flat vacant parcels near transit that could support higher densities and mixed-uses.

Five of the 34 sites identified have property owner support and interest in developing at the higher density allowed following the rezoning of the properties. Three of these sites with owner interest have been identified for accommodating lower income households. In addition, nine of the 11 sites identified for lower income housing are considered competitive for affordable housing funding since they are located in areas of high resources according to the 2021 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Area Maps.

Figure 11: Typical Existing Conditions of Underutilized Sites Site 25: Underutilized commercial site (trucking) to be rezoned to R-14; adjacent to single-family homes.

Site 29: Underutilized commercial site. Commercial space in front parcel vacant as of November 2020.

Site 4: Underutilized residential site to be rezoned to R-7 with single-family home built in 1940.

Site 33: Underutilized residential parcel with single-family home built in 1958. Site is adjacent to another underutilized site with single-family home built in 1954

4. INFRASTRUCTURE AVAILABILITY
No significant public service or infrastructure constraints have been identified in the City. Public infrastructure improvements required of new developments, impact fees, and planned city improvements of facilities help ensure that services and facilities are available to both current and future residents. Parks, schools, emergency services facilities, and other public facilities are also extended in this manner. All vacant and nonvacant sites identified in Appendix C, Sites Inventory, as suitable for lower and moderate income households can be readily served by existing infrastructure and services. While water and sewer services are not provided by the City, the City estimates that there is enough infrastructure capacity to meet RHNA needs. Once the Housing Element is adopted, the City will forward the adopted Housing Element to its service providers to emphasize priority for affordable housing. Substantial new infrastructure would need to be built to serve the Fanita Ranch property; however, provision for infrastructure required to serve future development on the property is assured by conditions of project approval.

5. ADEQUACY OF SITES TO MEET REGIONAL FAIR SHARE ALLOCATION Table 38 summarizes the City’s accommodation of the RHNA for all income groups during the planning period. After accounting for development credits and the realistic capacity of vacant and nonvacant sites, the City has identified adequate capacity for its RHNA for the planning period. While Fanita Ranch is included in the Housing Element, capacity available on Fanita Ranch is not needed to meet the City’s RHNA (see note 1 in Table 38).

Table 38: Adequacy of Sites to Accommodate RHNA
Income Level RHNA Credits
Remaining
RHNA
Sites Inventory
Capacity Surplus
Very Low (<50% AMI) 406 1 405
1,228 +623
Low (51-80% AMI) 200 0 200
Lower income (<80% AMI) 606 1 605 1,228 +623
Moderate (81%-120% AMI) 188 515 0 587 +914
Above Moderate (>120% AMI) 425 3,077 0 295 +2,964
Total 1,219 3,593 605 2,100 + 4,484
Note 1. Fanita Ranch credit units were 453 for moderate income and 2,514 for above moderate income. Without these units, there is still a surplus of moderate (+461 units) and above moderate (+450 units) for a total surplus of +1,552 units.

6. DISPLACEMENT RISKS
The City used both vacant and underutilized sites for its sites inventory since it cannot accommodate its entire share of the regional housing on vacant sites. The City identified two potential opportunity zones: Summit Avenue (10 sites) and Town Center (nine sites) along with other infill lots scattered throughout the City. In selecting non-vacant sites, the City identified sites with marginal uses such as underused commercial uses or marginal operations and small homes on large lots. All of the existing structures were built before 1990 and are over 30 years old and 65 percent of structures are over 70 years old. Structures that are in fair condition are on lots that are highly underutilized based on the allowable zoning. Since these sites do not have existing high residential density, there is a low potential for displacement. While there is a potential for displacement when existing neighborhoods are being

recycled into higher density, the risk is low in the City. Of the 175 acres in the sites inventory, only 41 acres (24 percent) come from underutilized residential sites that will be upzoned.

Additionally, housing units of all income levels in the sites inventory can be accommodated throughout the City and across moderate and high resource areas. By locating high density, lower income units near transportation corridors and other resources, low income units are located in high resource opportunity areas. Table 39 shows that of the over 85 percent of units in the sites inventory are located in high resource areas. More importantly, 91 percent of lower income units are located in high resource areas.

Table 39: Location of Sites by TCAC Designation
Resource Category
Total
Income Level
Moderate Resource High Resource
Units % Units %
Lower 105 8.6% 1,123 91.4% 1,228
Moderate 58 9.9% 529 90.1% 587
Above Moderate 137 46.4% 158 53.6% 295
Total 300 14.2% 1,810 85.8% 2,110

Figure 12: Location of Residential Sites Inventory by TCAC Resource Category Designation

B. Financial Resources
The City of Santee has access to several federal and local resources to achieve its housing and community development goals. Specific funding sources will be utilized based on the eligibility and requirements of each project or program. The City leverages, to the maximum extent feasible, local funds with federal and State funds in meeting its housing and community development objectives.

1. SB2 GRANTS
In 2017, Governor Brown signed a 15-bill housing package aimed at addressing the State’s housing shortage and high housing costs. Specifically, it included the Building Homes and Jobs Act (SB 2, 2017), which establishes a $75 recording fee on real estate documents to increase the supply of affordable homes in California. Because the number of real estate transactions recorded in each county will vary from year to year, the revenues collected will fluctuate.

The first year of SB 2 funds are available as planning grants to local jurisdictions. The City of Santee received $160,0000 for planning efforts to facilitate housing production. The funds were applied toward the purchase and implementation of a state-of-the-art permitting system that streamlines plan submittal and review process and accelerate housing production. For the second year and onward, 70 percent of the funding will be allocated to local governments for affordable housing purposes. A large portion of year two allocations will be distributed using the same formula used to allocate federal Community Development Block Grants (CDBG). HCD is in the process of closing out the Year One planning grant allocations and has not begun the process of allocating the Year Two affordable housing funds.

2. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG)
The CDBG Program is administered by HUD. Through this program, the federal government provides monies to cities to undertake certain kinds of community development and housing activities.

Activities proposed by the City must meet the objectives and eligibility criteria of CDBG legislation.

The primary CDBG objective is the development of viable urban communities, including decent housing and a suitable living environment, and expanding economic opportunity, principally for persons of lower income (<80 percent AMI). Each activity must meet one of the three broad national objectives of:
• Benefit to lower income families
• Aid in the prevention of elimination of slums or blight • Meet other community development needs having a particular urgency because existing conditions pose a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community Santee’s CDBG funding allocation has declined steadily in recent years. The City’s FY 2020 allocation is approximately $275,000. A portion of these funds are frequently used to assist non-profit organizations that support affordable housing opportunities to low income households.

3. HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP ACT (HOME)
The HOME program provides federal funds for the development and rehabilitation of affordable rental and ownership housing for lower income households (<80 percent of AMI). The program gives local governments the flexibility to fund a wide range of affordable housing activities through housing partnerships with private industry and non-profit organizations. HOME funds can be used for activities that promote affordable rental housing and homeownership by low income households, including:
• Building acquisition
• New construction and reconstruction
• Moderate or substantial rehabilitation
• Homebuyer assistance
• Rental Assistance
Strict requirements govern the use of HOME funds. Two major requirements are that the funds must be: 1) used for activities that target lower income families; and 2) matched 25 percent by non-federal funding sources.

The City does not receive HOME funds directly, but participates in the HOME Consortium, which is operated by the County of San Diego. In the past, Santee secured approximately $170,000 per annum in dedicated HOME resources to foster homeownership support for income eligible households. While these resources remain available through the San Diego County HOME Consortia, they are distributed competitively through the HOME Downpayment and Closing Costs Assistance Program and the HOME Housing Development Program and the level of resource availability to the City is not definite.

4. HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHER ASSISTANCE
In the course of the Housing Element cycle, the City has participated in the Housing Choice Voucher program, which extends rental subsidies to very low income (up to 50 percent of AMI) family and seniors who spend more than 30 percent of their income on rent. The subsidy represents the difference between the excess of 30 percent of the monthly income and the actual rent. Rental assistance is issued to the recipients as vouchers, which permit tenants to locate their own housing and rent units beyond the federally determined fair market rent in an area, provided the tenants pay the extra rent increment. The City of Santee contracts with the San Diego County Housing Authority to administer the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program.

C. Administrative Resources
A variety of public and private sector organizations have been involved in housing and community development activities in Santee. These agencies are involved in the improvement of the housing stock, expansion of affordable housing opportunities, preservation of existing affordable housing, and/or provision of housing assistance to households in need.

1. CITY OF SANTEE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
The Department of Development provides housing and community development services to residents, developers, and others interested in housing issues. The Division is responsible for the development of the City’s HUD Consolidated Five-Year and Annual Action Plans for the expenditure of Community Planning and Development (CPD) funds, including CDBG and HOME. The Department is also responsible for ensuring the implementation of the City’s housing programs.

2. SAN DIEGO COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY
The San Diego County Housing Authority coordinates and administers Housing Choice Voucher Program rental assistance on behalf of the City of Santee. About 300 Santee households are receiving HCV assistance with more than 1,700 households on the wait list for assistance.

3. NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS
The City of Santee works with a number of nonprofit organizations to provide affordable housing and supportive services to residents in need. These include, but are not limited to, the following organizations.

Crisis House
Crisis House provides case homeless prevention and intervention services to meet the immediate needs of the homeless and near-homeless in Santee. Immediate need includes the provision of food, temporary shelter, case management, referrals, and other social services. The City has provided CDBG funds for this program in recent years.

Center for Social Advocacy
The Center for Social Advocacy promotes housing opportunities for all persons regardless of their special characteristics. The Center also provides tenant/landlord mediation services. The City has provided CDBG funds for this program in recent years for fair housing services.

Santee Ministerial Council
The Santee Ministerial Council operates the Santee Food Bank, which provides emergency food supplies and assistance for needy extremely low income individuals and households, including the homeless. The City has provided CDBG funds for this program in recent years.

Elderhelp of San Diego
Elderhelp of San Diego provides case management and services through a trained social worker to help seniors remain in their homes by providing referrals and information. The City has provided CDBG funds for these services in recent years.

Meals on Wheels Greater San Diego
Meals on Wheels supports the independence and well-being of seniors and persons with specials needs by providing meals to homebound participants of the Meals of Wheels Program. The City has provided CDBG funds for this program in recent years.

Voices for Children
Voices for recruits, trains, and supports Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) volunteers who speak up for the needs and well-being of children in foster care. The City has provided CDBG funds to provide foster children with CASAs.

D. Energy Conservation Opportunities
This section provides an overview of opportunities for energy conservation during the housing planning period.

1. CITY OF SANTEE INITIATIVES
In January 2020, the City adopted the Sustainable Santee Plan, the City’s Climate Action Plan. The Sustainable Santee Plan is the City of Santee’s plan for reducing greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions to conform to State GHG emission reduction targets. The City of Santee (City) is committed to providing a more livable, equitable, and economically vibrant community through the incorporation of energy efficiency features and reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Through the Sustainable Santee Plan, the City has established goals and policies that incorporate environmental responsibility into its daily management of its community and municipal operations. In addition, the City will continue strict enforcement of local and state energy regulations for new residential construction, and continue providing residents with information on energy efficiency. Specifically, the City encourages the use of energy conservation devices such as low flush toilets and weatherization improvements in new development. The City also promotes design concepts that utilize technological advances in the application of alternative energy sources which make the use of the natural climate to increase energy efficiency and reduce housing costs.

2. PRIVATE SECTOR PROGRAMS
The following private sector energy conservation programs are available to housing developers and Santee residents:
• California Alternative Rates for Energy (CARE): Lower-income customers enrolled in the CARE program receive a 20 percent discount on their electric and natural gas bills and are not billed in higher rate tiers that were created for San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E). CARE is funded through a rate surcharge paid by all other utility customers. • Family Electric Rate Assistance Program (FERA): This program was developed for families whose household income slightly exceeds the threshold for assistance in other energy program allowances. Qualifying households have some of their electricity usage billed at a lower rate.
• Low Income Energy Efficiency Program (LIEE): The LIEE program provides no-cost weatherization services to lower income households who meet the CARE guidelines. Services provided include attic insulation, energy efficient refrigerators, energy efficient furnaces, weather stripping, caulking, low-flow showerheads, water heater blankets, and door and building envelop repairs that reduce air infiltration.

• Residential Energy Standards Training: SDG&E offers seminars on energy efficiency compliance best practices. Architects, designers, builders, engineers, energy consultants, HVAC contractors, building department inspectors, and plan checkers are encouraged to learn about new technologies that improve energy efficiency and reduce the cost of complying with evolving State energy standards.
• Energy Savings Assistance Program: SDG&E offers low- or no-cost products and installation of attic insulation, energy-efficient lighting, door weather-stripping, replacement of qualified appliances*, caulking, minor home repairs, water heater blankets, and low-flow showerheads to eligible residents through their Energy Savings Assistance Program. • Rebate Program: SDG&E offers rebates for single-family and multifamily dwelling units for certain improvements in their units that lead to greater energy efficiency. These improvements include purchase and installation of insulation, energy efficient appliances, and the replacement of old light bulbs with Energy Star light bulbs.

Page A 79
Section 5: Housing Plan
This section of the Housing Element contains objectives, policies, and programs the City will implement to address a number of important housing-related issues and achieve the Santee’s overarching housing goal, which states:

The section contains quantified (numerical) objectives for housing construction, rehabilitation, and the preservation of affordable housing, with a program of actions that:
• Provides regulatory concessions and incentives and uses local, state, and federal financing and subsidy programs to support the development and preservation of affordable housing. • Identifies adequate sites with appropriate zoning, development standards, services and facilities to encourage the development of a variety of housing types for all income levels. • Assists in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of lower and moderate income households, including extremely low income households and those with special needs. • Addresses and, where appropriate and legally possible, removes governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, including housing for all income levels and housing for persons with disabilities.
• Conserves and improves the condition of the existing affordable housing stock, which may include addressing ways to mitigate the loss of dwelling units demolished by public or private action.
• Promotes housing opportunities for all persons.

The Department of Development Services staff regularly reviews Housing Element programs, objectives, and progress towards accommodating the City’s share of the regional housing need. An annual implementation report is prepared and provided to the City Council, California Office of Planning and Research, and California Department of Housing and Community Development.

Ensure that decent, safe housing is available at a cost that is affordable to all current and future residents of this community. To this end, the City will strive to maintain a reasonable balance between rental and ownership housing opportunities and to encourage a variety of individual choices of tenure, type, and location of housing throughout the community.

A. Quantified Objectives
The City of Santee proposes the following objectives for the 2021-2029 Housing Element:

Table 40: Quantified Housing Objectives (2021-2029)
RHNA1 New
Construction2
RehabilitationConservation/
Preservation
Rental
Assistance
Home
Purchase
Assistance
Other
Assistance3
Extremely Low
Income 203 51 24
133
100 0 785
Very Low
Income 203 52 72 200 4 950
Low Income 200 50 384 90 0 12 350
Moderate
Income 188 47 0 0 0 0 255
Above Moderate
Income 425 669 0 0 0 0 0
Total 1,219 869 480 222 300 16 2,700
Notes:
1) Pursuant to AB 2634, the City must estimate the portion of the RHNA for very low income households that qualify as extremely low income. The City may use Census data to estimate the proportion of extremely low income households or to apply a 50 percent split. Assuming an even split, the City’s RHNA allocation of 406 very low income units may be divided into 203 very low and 203 extremely low income units. For purposes of identifying adequate sites for the RHNA, however, no separate density threshold is established for extremely low income units. 2) Calculated based on the sum of 564 entitled or under review units and 25 percent of RHNA. 3) “Other Assistance” includes residents assisted through the Manufactured Home Fair Practices Program, Supportive Services, and Equal Housing Opportunity Services.

B. Objectives, Policies, and Programs
The objectives and policies contained in the Housing Element address Santee’s housing needs and are implemented through a series of housing programs offered by the City. Housing programs define the specific actions the City will undertake to achieve the stated goals and policies. The objectives, policies, and programs are structured to address the following issue areas outlined the State law:
• Conserving and Improving the Condition of the Existing Housing Stock • Assisting in the Development of Affordable Housing Opportunities • Providing Adequate Sites to Achieve a Variety of Housing Types and Densities • Removing Governmental Constraints as Applicable
• Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing

1. CONSERVING AND IMPROVING THE EXISTING HOUSING STOCK
While most of Santee's housing stock is in good condition, a large proportion of the City's housing is nearing or has already exceeded 30 years of age, indicating the need for continued maintenance to prevent widespread housing deterioration. Other housing conservation needs of the City include existing affordable housing stock and rental units at-risk of converting to market-rents or condominiums, and the Housing Choice Voucher Program.

Objective 1.0: Conserve and improve the condition of the existing housing stock.

Policy 1.1: Advocate the rehabilitation of substandard residential properties by homeowners and property owners.

Policy 1.2: Offer a residential rehabilitation program that provides financial and technical assistance to lower income property owners to enable correction of housing deficiencies.

Policy 1.3: Focus rehabilitation assistance to create substantive neighborhood improvement and stimulate additional privately initiated improvement efforts.

Policy 1.4: Continue to utilize the City's code compliance program to bring substandard units into compliance with City codes and to improve overall housing quality and neighborhood conditions in Santee.

Policy 1.5: Promote increased awareness among property owners and residents of the importance of property maintenance to long-term housing quality. Educate property owners regarding existing resources for residential rehabilitation.

Objective 2.0: Preserve existing affordable housing options in Santee.

Policy 2.1: Monitor the status of at-risk multi-family rental housing units, work with potential purchasers/managers as appropriate, and explore funding sources available to preserve the at-risk units.

Policy 2.2: Encourage the retention of existing, viable mobile home parks, which are economically and physically sound.

Policy 2.3: Regulate the conversion of existing multi-family rental properties to condominiums through application of Santee’s Condominium Conversion Ordinance.

Policy 2.4: Continue to support rental assistance programs through the County.

Program 1: Mobile Home Assistance Program and Conversion Regulations Administered through the State HCD, the Mobile Home Park Assistance Program (MPAP) provides financial and technical assistance to mobile home park residents who wish to purchase their mobile home parks and convert the parks to resident ownership. Loans are made to lower income mobile home park residents or to organizations formed by park residents to own and/or operate their mobile home parks, thereby allowing residents to control their housing costs. Loans are limited to 50 percent of the purchase prices plus the conversion costs of the mobile home park and are awarded by the State on a competitive basis. Applications must be made by mobile home park residents who must form a resident organization with the local public entity as a co-applicant.

The City will continue to advertise MPAP’s availability to mobile home park residents and will serve as co-applicant for interested resident organizations. The City’s Zoning Ordinance, through the Mobile Home Park Overlay District, provides for a 50 percent reduction in project application fees as an incentive for the conversion of existing rental parks to resident-owned parks. Also, when considering a Conditional Use Permit for conversion to a different use, the City Council shall ensure that applicants have satisfied the requirements of Sections 65863.7 (“Report of impact on conversion of mobile home park to another use”) and 65863.8 (“Verification of notification by applicant for conversion of mobile home park to another use”) of the California Government Code. These provisions assure that mobile home park occupants are afforded some protection if an existing facility is to be rezoned for another use.

Responsible Agency: City of Santee Department of Development Services Financing: Mobile home conversion fees; Department budget 2021-2029 Objectives: Circulate fliers to existing mobile home renter parks periodically. Cosponsor MPAP applications as opportunity arises. Post information at mobilehome parks on tenant protection services such as rent stabilization and eviction protection. Consider in 2022 utilizing SB2 Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) funding to provide rent subsidies to low income mobile home park tenants.

Timeframe: Annual flier circulation and monitoring and annual monitoring and reporting throughout the planning period.

Program 2: Maintenance and Improvement of Existing Housing Nearly 88 percent of the City’s existing housing stock will exceed 30 years of age by the end of this Housing Element planning period (built before 2000). Continued maintenance will be essential to prevent widespread housing deterioration. In order to encourage maintenance and improvement of existing housing, the City will advertise available home improvement financing programs to residents on its website and public service counters. The City will also work to engage home improvement program representatives to provide an overview of such programs at least one public meeting before the City Council. Code compliance targeted at substandard and/or dilapidated housing will continue to be implemented, including exercising the use of court-appointed receiverships, as appropriate. The City will also make residents aware of basic home maintenance standards on its website.

Responsible Agency: City of Santee Department of Development Services Financing: Department Budget
2021-2029 Objectives: Ensure that Code Compliance addresses and resolves issues with severely substandard and/or dilapidated housing and that residents

are aware of home maintenance standards and programs. In 2022, develop tenant protection policies to mitigate displacement impacts on tenants of substandard housing.

Timeframe: Ongoing implementation and annual monitoring and reporting throughout the planning period.

Program 3: Conservation of Existing and Future Affordable Units Between 2021 and 2031, 222 units would be considered at risk of converting to market rate rents. Of these units, 47 are within the Cedar Creek Apartments, 43 within the Forester Square Apartments, and 132 in the Laurel Park Senior Apartments. The City will continue to monitor these at-risk units and should a notice of intent to convert to market rate be filed, work with potential purchasers to preserve the units, and ensure that tenants were properly notified of their rights under California law.

Responsible Agency: City of Santee Department of Development Services; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD); and San Diego County Housing Authority.

Financing: Section 8 vouchers, other funding sources as available 2013-2021 Objectives: Monitor the status of the 222 at-risk units at Cedar Creek Apartments, Forester Square Apartments, and Laurel Park Senior Apartments. The City of Santee will work with property owners, interest groups and the State and federal governments to implement the following programs on an ongoing basis to conserve its affordable housing stock:
• Monitor Units at Risk: Monitor the status of Cedar Creek Apartments, Forester Square Apartments, and Laurel Park Senior Apartments, since they may lose their subsidies due to
discontinuation of the Section 8 program at the federal level or opting out by the property owner.
• Work with Potential Purchasers: Where feasible, provide technical assistance to public and non-profit agencies interested in purchasing and/or managing units at risk.
• Tenant Education: The California Legislature extended the noticing requirement of at-risk units opting out of low income use restrictions to one year. Should a property owner pursue conversion of the units to market rate, the City will ensure that tenants were properly noticed and informed of their rights and that they are eligible to receive Section 8 vouchers that would enable them to stay in their units.
• Assist Tenants of Existing Rent Restricted Units to Obtain Section 8 Voucher Assistance: Tenants of housing units with expired Section 8 contracts are eligible to receive special Section 8 vouchers that can be used only at the same property. The City will provide information to tenants of "at-risk" units to obtain these Section 8 vouchers through the San Diego County Housing

Authority and refer tenants to the fair housing service provider(s) for resources and assistance.

Timeframe: Ongoing implementation and annual monitoring and reporting throughout the planning period. Within 60 days of notice of intent to convert at-risk units to market rate rents, the City will work with potential purchasers using HCD’s current list of Qualified Entities6, educate tenants of their rights, and assist tenants to obtain rental assistance in accordance with this program.

Program 4: Housing Choice Voucher Program
The Housing Choice Voucher Program extends rental subsidies to extremely low and very low income (up to 50 percent of AMI) families and seniors that spend more than 30 percent of their income on rent. The subsidy represents the difference between the excess of 30 percent of the monthly income and the actual rent. Rental assistance is provided to the recipients in the form of vouchers, which permit tenants to locate their own housing and rent units beyond the federally determined fair market rent in an area, provided the tenants pay the extra rent increment. Cities may contract with the San Diego County Housing Authority to administer the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program.

According to the Housing Authority, approximately 285 households received assistance through the program as of December 2019.

Responsible Agency: San Diego County Housing Authority
Financing: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 2021-2029 Objectives: Continue to contract with the San Diego County Housing Authority to administer the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program:
• Assist approximately 300 extremely low and very low income households annually during the planning period.
• Expand outreach and education on the recent State laws (SB 329 and SB 222) that support source of income protection for housing discrimination against low income households using public assistance (such as HCV) for rent payments.
• Promote the Housing Choice Vouchers program on City
website, focusingdirect outreach to disadvantaged
neighborhoods in the City through annual neighborhood
meetings, beginning in 2022.
• Support the County Housing Authority’s applications for additional voucher allocations and efforts to maintain and expand voucher use in the City.

Timeframe: Ongoing implementation and annual monitoring throughout the planning period.

6 List of current Qualified Entities is maintained and updated by HCD and is subject to change. - https://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/preserving-existing-affordable-housing.shtml).

2. ASSISTING IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

OPPORTUNITIES AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICES
New construction is a major source of housing for prospective homeowners and renters but generally requires public sector support for the creation of units affordable to lower income households, including extremely low income households. While a wide range of for-sale and rental housing options are available in Santee to above moderate and moderate income households, affordable options for lower income households are more limited (Section 2, Community Profile). Where there is a need for affordable housing, often there is also a need for supportive services for lower income households, including extremely low income households. The following Objectives, Policies, and Programs intend to address the overall need for affordable housing and supportive services in Santee.

Objective 3.0: Expand affordable housing options within Santee.

Policy 3.1: Develop and maintain collaborative efforts among nonprofits, for-profit developers, and public agencies to encourage the development, maintenance, and improvement of affordable housing.

Policy 3.2: Implement the City’s Climate Action Plan. Promote design concepts that utilize technological advances in the application of alternative energy sources which make the use of the natural climate to increase energy efficiency and reduce housing costs.

Policy 3.3: Encourage the provision of housing affordable to extremely low income households when reviewing proposals for new affordable housing developments.

Objective 4.0: Provide housing support services to address the needs of the City of Santee’s lower and moderate income residents, including extremely low income households and those with special needs.

Policy 4.1: Continue to support and coordinate with social service providers and regional agencies to address the housing related needs of Santee residents, particularly those with special needs.

Policy 4.2: Coordinate with local social service providers to address the needs of the City's homeless population. Provide funding to groups providing shelter and other services to the homeless.

Policy 4.3: Continue to participate in the Countywide homeless working group in preparing and implementing recommendations to the Board of Supervisors, the appointed bodies and municipalities regarding plans for providing emergency housing, Low Barrier Navigation Centers (LBNC), and homes with supervised care.

Program 5: Homebuyer Assistance Programs
With limited funding and rising home prices, the ability of the City to provide homebuyer assistance is limited. However, Santee residents are eligible to participate in several City, County, and State programs
First-Time Homebuyer Program: Through this program, the City assists Santee first-time lower and moderate income homebuyers with down payment and closing cost assistance. This assistance functions similar to a “silent second” to the assisted household’s primary home loan application. This program is administered by the County of San Diego.

Down payment and Closing Cost Assistance Program (DCCA): DCCA offers low-interest deferred payment loans of up to 17 percent of the maximum allowable purchase price (adjusted annually) and a closing cost of four percent, not exceeding $10,000. DCCA loan funds may be used to pay down payment and closing costs of a qualifying single-family home, condominium, townhouse, or manufactured home on a permanent foundation. This program is offered by the County Housing and Community Development Services (County HCDS) but administered by the San Diego Housing Commission (SDHC)
Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) Program: Mortgage Credit Certificates (MCCs) are certificates issued to lower and moderate income first-time homebuyers authorizing the household to take a credit against federal income taxes of up to 20 percent of the annual mortgage interest paid. This program is administered by the California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA).

Homebuyer’s Down payment Assistance Program (CHDAP): CHDAP provides a deferredpayment junior loan, up to three percent of the purchase price, or appraised value, whichever is less, to be used for their down payment and/or closing costs. This program is administered by CalHFA.

Responsible Agency: City of Santee Department of Development Services, County HCDS, SDHC, CalHFA
Financing: HOME and other County and State funds
2021-2029 Objectives: Quantified objectives as follows:
• Assist 16 lower income households with downpayment and closing cost assistance during the planning period (four at <50 percent AMI and 12 at 51-80 percent AMI). Focus direct outreach to residents of disadvantaged neighborhoods to promote
homeownership resources and opportunities in the City through annual neighborhood meetings, beginning in 2022.
• County HCDS has a goal of assisting approximately 120 households with DCCA. This goal covers the entire Urban County program.
• Refer residents to the County HCDS and the California Housing Finance Agency for assistance.

Timeframe: Annual flier circulation and monitoring and reporting throughout the planning period.

Program 6: Manufactured Home Fair Practices Program
The City regulates short-term space leases in mobile home parks and provides staff support to the Manufactured Fair Practices Commission, which holds biannual meetings. The program requires significant financial resources in administration and legal defense of the Ordinance. Through the City Attorney’s office, the City has defended or initiated many lawsuits to uphold the requirements of the Manufactured Home Rent Stabilization Program since 1998. To date, all of the City’s efforts to maintain the rent control system have been successful. The City will continue to attend the biannual Manufactured Fair Practices Commission and promote its services to residents.

Responsible Agency: City of Santee Department of Development Services Financing: Mobilehome Park Assessment Fees
2021-2029 Objectives: Assist approximately 1,200 mobile homeowners.

Timeframe: Ongoing implementation and annual monitoring and reporting throughout the planning period. Promote the services of the Manufactured Home Fair Practices Commission.

Program 7: Facilitate Affordable Housing Development
With limited funding, the City will rely on the following non-funding-related actions to encourage affordable housing production during the planning period:
• Collaborate with Affordable Housing Developers: Affordable housing developers work to develop, conserve and promote rental and ownership affordable housing. Particularly in relation to senior citizen housing, the affordable housing developer is often, but not always, a local organization interested in developing affordable housing. The City will annually contact and continue to collaborate with affordable housing developers to identify potential sites, write letters of support to help secure governmental and private-sector funding, and offer technical assistance related to the application of City incentive programs (e.g., density bonus). • Regulatory Concessions and Incentives: The City will continue to work with developers on a case-by-case basis to provide regulatory concessions and incentives to assist them with the development of affordable and senior housing. In a relatively small city like Santee, this is the most effective method of assisting developers, as each individual project can be analyzed to determine which concessions and incentives would be the most beneficial to the project’s feasibility. Regulatory concessions and incentives may include, but are not limited to, density bonuses beyond State requirements, required parking reductions, fee reductions or deferral, expedited permit processing, and modified or waived development standards, and optional onsite-amenities when within ¼ mile from public park or trail.

Responsible Agency: City of Santee Department of Development Services Financing: Department budget
2021-2029 Objectives: To facilitate affordable housing development:
• Annually update contact information and reach out to affordable housing developers for the purposes of soliciting their involvement in development projects in Santee.

• Participate with affordable housing developers to review available federal and State financing subsidies and apply as feasible on an annual basis.
• Review and revise the City’s Density Bonus Ordinance in 2021 to ensure consistency with State law.
• Achieve the development of 200 units affordable to lower and moderate income households (estimated based on 25 percent of the RHNA, and representing an improvement over the 150
affordable units achieved during the 2013-2021 Housing Element planning period).
• Pursuant to SB 1087, provide a copy of the adopted Housing Element to the City’s water and sewer service providers, emphasizing priority for services for affordable housing projects.

Timeframe: Update list and contact affordable housing developers annually.

Provide ongoing participation and assistance to interested affordable housing developers. Annual monitoring and reporting throughout the planning period.

Program 8: Supportive Services
The City assists homeless and other service providers in meeting the immediate needs of persons with special needs, including the homeless or near-homeless in Santee. Immediate need includes the provision of food, temporary shelter, health care, and other social services.

Responsible Agency: City of Santee Department of Development Services Financing: CDBG
2021-2029 Objectives: Assist 1,800 persons with temporary shelter and supportive services during the planning period (300 meals for lower income seniors, and temporary shelter, food, and clothing for 1,500 lower income individuals and families affected by domestic violence).

Timeframe: Annually review and allocate funds to service provider through the HUD Annual Plan process. Annual monitoring and reporting throughout the planning process.

3. PROVIDING ADEQUATE SITES TO ACHIEVE A VARIETY OF HOUSING TYPES

AND DENSITIES
A key element in satisfying the housing needs of all segments of the community is the provision of adequate sites for housing of all types, sizes, and prices. This is an important function in both zoning and General Plan designations.

Objective 5.0 Encourage the provision of a wide range of housing by location, type of unit, and price to meet the existing and future needs of Santee residents to the maximum extent possible.

Policy 5.1: Provide a variety of residential development opportunities in the City, ranging in density from very low density estate homes to medium-high and high density development.

Policy 5.2: Encourage both the private and public sectors to produce or assist in the production of housing, with particular emphasis on housing affordable to lower income households, including extremely low income households, as well as housing suitable for the disabled, the elderly, large families, and female-headed households.

Policy 5.3: Require that housing constructed expressly for lower and moderate income households not be concentrated in any single area of Santee.

Policy 5.4: Encourage developments of new housing units designated for the elderly and disabled persons to be in close proximity to public transportation and community services.

Policy 5.5: Ensure that all new housing development and redevelopment in Santee is properly phased in amount and geographic location so that City services and facilities can accommodate that growth.

Policy 5.6: Ensure that sites in the Residential Sites Inventory are available during the planning period by overriding the Gillespie Field ALUCP as appropriate.

Program 9: Inventory of Available Sites and Monitoring No Net Loss Santee has been allocated a RHNA of 1,219 units for the 2021-2029 planning period (406 very low income, 200 low income, 188 moderate income, and 425 above moderate income units). With units entitled and under review, as well as anticipated ADUs, the City has adequate capacity for its moderate and above moderate income RHNA, with a remaining lower income RHNA of 605 units. Vacant and underutilized sites with zoning allowing up to 30 units per acre can accommodate 113 lower income units, with a shortfall of 492 lower income units. To accommodate the City’s remaining shortfall RHNA for 492 lower income units, to maintain adequate sites for all income groups throughout the eight-year planning period, and to foster additional residential growth in the City, the City will rezone up to 161 acres (25 parcels) within 18 months of the adoption of the Housing Element. Specifically, a new R-30 zone will be created, allowing a density range of 30 to 36 du/ac). As part of this rezoning, a minimum of 25 acres will be rezoned to permit multi-family by right (without discretionary action) and sufficient to accommodate the shortfall of 492 units for lower income households. The rezoned sites will meet the requirements of Government Code 65583.2, including but not limited to a minimum

density of 20 units per acre, minimum site size to permit at least 16 units on site, and zoned to allow ownership and rental housing by right in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower income households.

Table 41: Rezoning for RHNA
Current Zone Proposed Zone Acreage Parcels
POS/IL POS/R-7 47.45 1
R-1 R-7 6.81 5
R-1A R-7 13.93 5
R-2 R-7 2.05 2
TC-C TC-R-14 8.61 1
TC-R-22 TC-R-14 14.06 2
TC-R-30 TC-R-14 22.15 1
IL R-14 2.93 1
CG R-22 3.25 1
R-2 R-22 4.80 1
R-7/GC R-22 1.30 1
TC-O/I TC-R-22 7.75 1
TC-C TC-R-22 5.26 1
TC-C TC-R-30 11.11 1
TC-O/I TC-R-30 10.00 1
Total 161.46 25
To ensure that the City monitors its compliance with SB 166 (No Net Loss), the City will monitor the consumption of residential acreage to ensure an adequate inventory is available to meet the City’s RHNA obligations. To ensure sufficient residential capacity is maintained to accommodate the RHNA, the City will develop and implement a formal ongoing (project-by-project) evaluation procedure pursuant to Government Code Section 65863. Should an approval of development result in a reduction of capacity below the residential capacity needed to accommodate the remaining need for lower income households, the City will identify and if necessary rezone sufficient sites to accommodate the shortfall and ensure “no net loss” in capacity to accommodate the RHNA.

The City will maintain an inventory of available sites for residential development and provide it to prospective residential developers upon request. The parcel-by-parcel inventory located in Appendix C, Sites Inventory, of this Housing Element.

Responsible Agency: City of Santee Department of Development Services Financing: Department budget
2021-2029 Objectives: Maintain an inventory of the available sites for residential development and provide it to prospective residential developers. Specifically, promote opportunities for new housing to affordable housing developers (including those for special needs housing). Starting in 2023 upon completing of rezoning efforts, conduct annual e-mail blast and follow-up meetings with developers.

Timeframe: Rezone identified parcels within one year of the Housing Element Adoption; Continue to implement a formal evaluation procedure pursuant to Government Code Section 65863 to monitor the development of vacant and nonvacant sites in the sites inventory and ensure that adequate sites are available to meet the remaining RHNA by income category; Ongoing implementation and annual monitoring and reporting throughout the planning period.

Program 10: By-Right Approval of Projects with 20 Percent Affordable Units on “Reuse” Sites
Pursuant to AB 1397 passed in 2017, the City will amend the Zoning Ordinance to provide by-right approval of housing development in which the project proponent voluntarily includes 20 percent of the units as housing affordable to lower income households, on sites being used to meet the Sixth Cycle RHNA that represent “reuse sites” from previous Housing Element cycles, as well as the rezoned sites required for the 492-unit shortfall in lower income RHNA. Explore by-right approval for any project providing more than 20 percent of units affordable to lower income households. The “reuse” sites are specifically identified in the inventory (see Appendix C).

Responsible Agency: City of Santee Department of Development Services Financing: Department budget
2021-2029 Objectives: Comply with AB 1397 to further incentivize development of housing on sites that have been available over one or more planning periods.

Timeframe: Update the Zoning Ordinance within one year of Housing Element adoption
Program 11: Replacement Housing
Development on nonvacant sites with existing residential units is subject to replacement requirement, pursuant to AB 1397. The City will amend the Zoning Code to require the replacement of units affordable to the same or lower income level as a condition of any development on a nonvacant site consistent with those requirements set forth in State Density Bonus Law.

Responsible Agency: City of Santee Department of Development Services Financing: Department budget
2021-2029 Objectives: Comply with AB 1397 on replacement requirements.

Timeframe: Update the Zoning Ordinance within one year of Housing Element certification by HCD.

Program 12: Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
ADU is an important alternative option for affordable housing. To facilitate ADU development, the City Council approved to waive development impact fees for ADUs for five years effective September 2019. Before the five-year period ends, the City will explore whether the fee waiver needs to be extended in exchange for affordable housing.

The City will also explore other options to further encourage the construction of ADUs in the community. Options to explore may include increased outreach and education, technical/resources guides online, pre-approved plans, larger unit square footage allowances and reduced setback and lot coverage standards in exchange for deed restrictions, among others.

Responsible Agency: City of Santee Department of Development Services Financing: Department budget
2021-2029 Objectives: Facilitate the development of 80 ADUs.

Timeframe: Explore other tools to facilitate ADU construction in 2022 and evaluate potential extension of fee waivers in 2024. Explore the potential for fee waivers in exchange for deed restrictions for affordability by the end of 2024.

4. REMOVING GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS AS APPLICABLE
State law requires that housing elements address, and where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing.

Objective 6.0: Reduce or remove government constraints to housing production and opportunity where feasible and legally permissible.

Policy 6.1: Promote efficient and creative alternatives to help reduce government constraints.

Policy 6.2: Provide incentives and regulatory concessions for affordable and special needs housing through implementation of the density bonus ordinance and other mechanisms.

Policy 6.3: Facilitate timely building permit and development plan processing for residential construction.

Policy 6.4: Balance the need to protect and preserve the natural environment with the need to provide additional housing and employment opportunities.

Policy 6.5: Approve residential uses if they meet use requirements, development criteria and design requirements of the General Plan and Municipal Code.

Program 13: Monitor Changes in Federal and State Housing, Planning, and Zoning Laws
State law requires that Housing Elements address, and where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing. The City will also continue to monitor federal and State legislation that could impact housing and comment on, support, or oppose proposed changes or additions to existing legislation, as well as support new legislation when appropriate. The City will also continue to participate in the SANDAG Technical Working Group and Regional Housing Working Group, which monitor State and Federal planning, zoning, and housing legislation. Special attention will be given by the City in the minimizing of governmental constraints to the development, improvement, and maintenance of housing.

The 2021-2029 Housing Element update identified the following governmental constraints to the development or maintenance of housing in Santee, and the City will continue to monitor its development process and zoning regulations to identify and remove constraints to the development of housing.

Emergency Shelters (AB 139, 2019):
• Establish parking requirements based on staffing level only.

Low Barrier Navigation Center (AB 101, 2019):
• Establish provisions for Low Barrier Navigation Centers (LBNC) as development by right in areas zoned for nonresidential zones (including mixed use zones as required by law) permitting multifamily uses if it meets specified requirements. A “Low Barrier Navigation Center” is defined as “a Housing First, low-barrier, service-enriched shelter focused on moving people into permanent housing that provides temporary living facilities while case managers connect individuals experiencing homelessness to income, public benefits, health services, shelter, and housing.”
Supportive Housing (AB 2162, 2019/AB 2988, 2020):
• Establish provisions for supportive housing. Projects of up to 120 units be permitted by right in zones where multi-family and mixed-use developments are permitted, when the development meets certain conditions, such as providing a specified amount of floor area for supportive services. The City may choose to allow projects larger than 120 units by right, as well. The bills also prohibit minimum parking requirements for supportive housing within ½ mile of a public transit stop.

Affordable Housing Streamlined Approval (SB 35)
• Establish a streamlined, ministerial review process for qualifying multifamily residential projects.

Group Homes for Seven or More Persons
• The City currently does not permit group homes for seven or more persons in all residential zones. Initiate and complete a process in 2022 to review the provision for group homes for seven or more persons and amend the Zoning Ordinance as appropriate to allow group homes for seven or more in all residential zones to mitigate the potential constraints on housing for persons with disabilities.

Responsible Agency: City of Santee Department of Development Services Financing: Department budget
2013-2021 Objectives: Monitor State and federal legislation as well as City development process and zoning regulations to identify and remove housing constraints.

Timeframe: Within one year of Housing Element adoption; Annual monitoring and reporting throughout the planning period.

5. AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
To make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community, the housing program must include actions that promote housing opportunities for all persons regardless of their special characteristics as protected under State and Federal fair housing laws.

Objective 7.0 Promote equal opportunity for all residents to reside in the housing of their choice.

Policy 7.1: Prohibit discrimination in the sale or rental of housing with regard to characteristics protected under State and Federal fair housing laws.

Policy 7.2: Encourage the development of residential units that are accessible to disabled persons or are adaptable for conversion to residential use by disabled persons.

Policy 7.3: Reasonably accommodate persons with disabilities who seek waiver or modification of land use controls and/or development standards pursuant to procedures and criteria set forth in the Zoning Ordinance.

Policy 7.4: Accommodate emergency shelters, low barrier navigation center, transitional housing, supportive housing, residential care facilities, and community care facilities in compliance with State laws and City Zoning Ordinance.

Policy 7.5: Collaborate with jurisdictions to explore the merit of a multi-jurisdictional agreement for the provision of emergency shelters.

Policy 7.6: Continue active support and participation with the fair housing service provider to further spatial de-concentration and fair housing opportunities.

Program 14: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
The City of Santee supports fair housing laws and statutes. The City participated in a regional assessment of impediments to fair housing choice in 2020. The City will also work with the fair housing service provider to address the disproportionate housing needs and impediments to fair housing, including expanded testing efforts. The City will continue to participate in the San Diego Regional Alliance for Fair Housing (SDRAFFH) and take actions to fair housing impediments. The City attends monthly SDRAFFH meetings with the other 17 cities, the County, and fair housing service providers, to address fair housing issues. The City distributes information on fair housing and refers fair housing questions and housing discrimination claims to its fair housing service provider.

The City contracts with the Center for Social Advocacy (CSA) to provide fair housing services. The City will continue to contract with CSA to provide fair housing services to 500 residents of Santee over the 2021-2029 planning period. As part of its contract with the City, CSA will:
• Advocate for fair housing issues
• Conduct outreach and education
• Provide technical assistance and training for property owners and managers • Coordinate fair housing efforts
• Assist to enforce fair housing rights

• Collaborate with other fair housing agencies
• Refer and inform for non-fair housing problems
• Counsel and educate tenants and landlords
Responsible Agency: City of Santee Department of Development Services; fair housing service provider
Financing: CDBG; Departmental Budgets; SB funds
2021-2029 Objectives: To affirmatively further fair housing, the City will undertake a series of actions as outlined in Table 42 below.

Time Frame: See Table 42 below.

Table 42: Fair Housing Issues, Contributing Factors, and Meaningful Actions Fair Housing Issue Contributing Factors and Priority Meaningful Action Fair Housing Outreach
and Enforcement
Housing Mobility
Insufficient fair housing
testing and limited
outreach capacity
• Lack of monitoring
• Lack of a variety of media inputs
• Lack of marketing community
meetings
• Lack of monitoring
• Participate in regional efforts to
address fair housing issues and
monitor emerging trends/issues in
the housing market. Attend quarterly
SDRAFFH coordinating meetings.
• Continue to contract with a fair
housing service provider to provide
fair housing services to 500 residents
of Santee over the 2021-2029
planning period. As part of its scope
of work, require annual fair housing
workshops to be conducted in
Santee. Increase outreach for
participation to the southern part of
the City identified with
disproportionate housing needs and
displacement risks.
• Include fair housing testing from fair
housing provider as part of scope
every two years starting in 2022.

Specifically, upon release of the 2020
Census data, conduct random testing
that reflects the City’s changing
demographics, if any.
• Develop interest list for updates on
fair housing and affordable housing
projects lists by 2022. On an ongoing
basis, contact interest list with
updates.
• Semi-annually, the City will update its
City website with the affordable
housing projects.
• By 2022, expand outreach and
education of the State’s new Source
of Income Protection (SB 329 and

Table 42: Fair Housing Issues, Contributing Factors, and Meaningful Actions Fair Housing Issue Contributing Factors and Priority Meaningful Action SB 222), defining public assistance
including HCVs as legitimate source
of income for housing. Increased
outreach and education to the
southern census tracts with
disproportionate needs.
• Utilize non-traditional media (i.e.
social media, City website) in
outreach and education efforts, in
addition to print media and notices.

Increase outreach to the southern
census tracts. Annually promote fair
housing awareness during the Fair
Housing Month (April).
• Annually, require evidence of
effective outreach from Fair Housing
Provider. City will require attendance
reports to events from fair housing
providers. Based on reports, work
with fair housing provider on plan to
increase attendance to outreach
events.
• In 2021-2022, pursue a HUD Section
108 loan in the amount of $1.24
million to implement the Active
Santee Plan and ADA Transition
Plan.
• By 2023, develop incentives or
mechanisms to facilitate the
development of a variety of housing
types, including live/work housing
and large units appropriate for large
households.

Place-Based Strategy for
Community
Improvements
Housing Mobility
Concentration of protected
persons (persons with
disabilities, LMI
households, children in
families or single femaleheaded households) in
lower resource (moderate)
areas.
• Location and type of affordable
housing- HCV use concentrated
• Land use - Mobile home park land
use, usually occupied by senior
residents
• Proximity to shopping centers and
transit
• As part of Santee Active Plan
(January 2021), identified wheelchair
accessible areas and prioritization of
them for improvements. Leverage
this plan to prioritize improvements
in the southern census tracts of City.

The City is working on ADA
Transition Plan that builds on the
adopted Active Santee Plan to
identify deficiencies in City and
allocate resources in the operating
budget. The AFFH analysis of needs
will inform the annual budgetary
process to prioritize CDBG and
General City funds for improvements
in southern portions of City.

Table 42: Fair Housing Issues, Contributing Factors, and Meaningful Actions Fair Housing Issue Contributing Factors and Priority Meaningful Action • As part of the Safety Element Update
(targeted for adoption by January
2022), existing conditions for
Environmental Justice (EJ) have been
drafted. The report identifies the
southwestern portion of the City
based on disadvantaged communities
mapping. Annually, coordinate with
Public Works to prioritize these EJ
areas for actions and improvements.

According to the CIP, planned
improvements include:
- Prospect Ave./Mesa Rd.
intersection improvements
- Replace induction streetlights
along Prospect Ave. with LED
lights
- Provide stormwater capture
devices
- Fill gaps in sidewalks
- Improve sidewalks with
pedestrian ramps where needed.
• Promote key lower income housing
opportunity sites for affordable
housing development, particularly
site 16A (Town Center), as a means
to bring new housing opportunities in
high resource areas. Provide technical
assistance to housing developers on
how to utilize the City’s incentives
and concessions for affordable
housing.
• Support funding applications by
nonprofit developers for affordable
housing in high resource areas.

Anti-Displacement
Displacement risk in areas
with disproportionate
housing needs with special
needs populations
• Land use - Mobile home park land
use, usually occupied by senior
residents
• Displacement risk due to economic
pressures
• Increasing rents
• HCV use concentration
• Continue to implement the Mobile
Home Assistance Program and
Conversion Regulations (Program 1)
• Continue to implement the
Mobilehome Park Fair Practices
Commission Ordinance (Rent
Control Ordinance, Chapter 2.44 of
Santee Municipal Code) (Program 6)
• HCV use outreach (as part of fair
housing outreach plan).

Table 42: Fair Housing Issues, Contributing Factors, and Meaningful Actions Fair Housing Issue Contributing Factors and Priority Meaningful Action • As part of the project application
review, require applicant to provide
advance noticing to existing tenants.

By 2023 create a registry for “firstright of refusal” for displaced lower income tenants to return if affordable
housing is created in the new project.
• Focus fair housing outreach and
education on areas with high
displacement risk with further
enhancement of the City’s website
(southern census tracts, especially the
tract identified as a sensitive
community in Figure E-25 and tracts
identified as disadvantaged
communities in Figure E-26).

Page A 1
Appendix A: Public Participation
This Appendix contains information on the various public outreach efforts conducted during preparation of the 2021-2029 Housing Element. Public outreach was conducted in three separate ways, as outlined below. In addition, the City Council meeting on January 27, 2021 to review the draft Housing Element and to adopt this document was publicly noticed in the East County Californian and on the City’s website. In addition, the City completed extensive outreach to property owners, nonprofit housing developers, market-rate housing developers, homeless advocates, the building industry, surrounding jurisdictions and other housing-related stakeholders via e-mail and first-class mail for feedback and engagement in the Housing Element update workshops.

A. Housing Element Workshops
The City Council held eight Housing Element Workshops on the following dates to discuss focused topics regarding the Housing Element:
• October 9, 2019 – Presented the City Council with an overview of the Housing Element update process and new Housing laws.
• March 11, 2020 – Presented the City Council with the RHNA and Residential Sites Inventory, where the City Council had the opportunity to select or dismiss prospective housing sites. • May 25, 2020 – Presented the City Council with affordable housing strategies, including the concept of inclusionary housing.
• June 24, 2020 – Presented the City Council with additional information regarding inclusionary housing. Council directed staff to hold stakeholder meetings with affordable and market-rate housing developers for their input on a potential inclusionary housing program for the City. • October 28, 2020 – Presented the City Council with summary of meetings with stakeholder groups on inclusionary housing and a survey on inclusionary housing. City Council directed staff to convene a workshop where they could engage directly with stakeholders. • January 7, 2021 – Discussion between stakeholders and City Council on inclusionary housing. • January 27, 2021 – Reviewed the Draft Housing Element. One public comment was received to request clarification of reverse condemnation on sites identified for RHNA and voice opposition for the large number of units anticipated. It was explained that no condemnation is planned or required to meet the City’s RHNA. Development on individual properties will be determined by the market and property owners’ desire. • April 14, 2021 – Presented the City Council with an update on the status of the Housing Element with an overview of changes to the draft and the comment letter received from HCD.

Workshops and meetings were advertised through the City Website and notices were sent to a mailing list of stakeholders, which includes developers and homeless advocates. The City also published a notice in the local newspaper and sent mailers to property owners and stakeholders that may be affected by the proposed rezone program and stakeholders. The City posted the Draft Housing Element on our website under City News for a 60-day public review and comment period.

Page A-2
B. Stakeholder Consultation
A request was made by City Council at the June 24, 2020 meeting to meet with housing stakeholders, including the San Diego Chapter of the Building Industry Association (BIA) for their input on inclusionary housing. Staff engaged with the BIA and on July 17, 2020, staff provided a PowerPoint presentation to their members on the City’s exploration of a possible inclusionary housing ordinance.

The BIA suggested not moving forward with an inclusionary program primarily because it would raise costs to potential homebuyers. After engaging the BIA, staff reached out to market-rate and affordable housing developers to participate in an Inclusionary Housing Committee. The Inclusionary Housing Committee held its first meeting on October 15, 2020 and consisted of representatives from the BIA, Bridge Housing, Cameron Brothers Company, City Ventures, Mirka Investments, the San Diego Housing Federation, Jamboree Housing Corporation, and Community Housing Works. As a precursor to the meeting, the Committee members were provided a survey with questions on the various aspects of inclusionary housing (see Survey Section below). A subsequent meeting was held with the City Council and stakeholders on January 7, 2021 to further discuss inclusionary housing.

1. INCLUSIONARY HOUSING COMMITTEE FINDINGS
At the first Inclusionary Housing Committee meeting, staff provided the Committee with a presentation on the City’s efforts to evaluate an inclusionary housing program as a tool for meeting some of its low-income housing production goals. The various components of an inclusionary housing program were discussed, including percentage requirements, applicability, on-site construction requirements, and in-lieu fees. There was consensus among the members that if the City were to move forward with an inclusionary housing program, the program should not mandate the on-site construction of units within a residential development and should allow for the payment of in-lieu fees. Market-rate developers mentioned the difficulty of selling affordable units to qualified individuals or families and affordable housing developers mentioned that many low-income households require supportive services that would not be provided within a market-rate development.

Based on the first Committee meeting and surveys responses received by October 28, 2020, the majority of the members suggested a 10 percent inclusionary housing requirement and making only those developments over 10 units in size subject to the requirement.

A common concern for many of the Committee members is the in-lieu fee, which is paid by housing developers as an alternative to providing affordable units on-site within the development. City Ventures, a market-rate housing developer, cited an example of one city setting an in-lieu fee so high that it resulted in no housing production for a number of years until the fee was reduced. As a counterpoint, Community HousingWorks, an affordable housing developer, mentioned that setting an in-lieu fee too low would not be very beneficial as it would not provide sufficient funds to generate any affordable housing within the City.

In order to determine what a reasonable in-lieu fee would be for Santee, a fee study would be needed.

Based on initial outreach to various fiscal analysis firms, it is estimated that such a fee study would Page A-3
cost approximately $37,500, an amount that has been appropriated in the currently adopted Budget.

Should the Council decide to move forward with an inclusionary housing program, Staff would return to Council for a request to award funds once a firm is selected through a formal request-for-proposals (RFP) process.

The City Council was presented with a summary of meetings with stakeholder groups on inclusionary housing and a survey on inclusionary housing on October 28, 2020. City Council directed staff to convene a workshop where they could engage directly with stakeholders. The following is a list of those who were invited to the meeting.

Table A-1: Stakeholders List
Organization Contact Services
Alpha Project Kyla Winters Homeless
BIA Mike McSweeney Market-Rate Housing
BRIDGE Housing Damon Harris Affordable Housing
California Housing Consortium Ray Pearl Market-Rate Housing Cameron Bros Jim Moxham Market-Rate Housing
City Ventures Michelle Thrakulchavee Market-Rate Housing Community HousingWorks Mary Jane Jagodzinski Affordable Housing Habitat for Humanity Karen Begin Affordable Housing
Jamboree Housing Michael Massie Affordable Housing
MirKa Investments LLC Bob Cummings Housing Investor
Pacific SW Association Realtors Robert Cromer For-sale Housing Regional Task Force Homeless Kris Kuntz Homeless
San Diego Housing Federation Laura Nunn Affordable Housing Veronica Tam & Associates, Inc Veronica Tam Housing Consultant Wiese and Associates Erik Wiese Broker

2. STAKEHOLDER SURVEYS
As mentioned above, stakeholders were surveyed. The survey questions the City asked and their answers are shown on the following pages.

Page A-4
Page A-5
Page A 6
Response Summary:

1. My understanding of inclusionary housing is:
none 0 0%
limited 0 0%
general 1 20%
good 4 80%
Total 5 100%

2. inclusionary housing is a good tool for developing affordable housing Disagree 2 40%
Disagree somewhat 0 0%
Agree somewhat 3 60%
Agree 0 0%
Total 5 100%

3. An inclusionary housing program should include a requirement to build affordable units as part of a development:

Disagree 3 60%
Disagree somewhat 1 20%
Agree somewhat 1 20%
Agree 0 0%
Total 5 100%

4. An inclusionary housing program should include the option to pay a fee in lieu of providing affordable units as part of a development:

Disagree 2 40%
Disagree somewhat 1 20%
Agree somewhat 1 20%
Agree 1 20%
Total 5 100%

5. An inclusionary housing program should include the following percentage of affordable units in a new housing development:
0% 2 40%
5% 0 0%
10% 2 40%
15% 1 20%
Total 5 100%

6. An inclusionary housing program should be applicable to developments over:
2 units 0 0%
3 units 0 0%
5 units 1 25%
10 units 3 75%
Total 4 100%
Page A-7

7. An inclusionary housing program should be targeted to those households earning the following percentages of the area median income (AMI):
40% or less 0 0%
60% or less 1 25%
80% or less 1 25%
120% or less 2 50%
Total 4 100%

8. Comments
Respondent 1
As touched on in answer #7, Housing is the only item in the marketplace which government requires the producer of the product to subsidize their product for low income users (customers). Society finds ways to subsidize utilities, cell phones, food, by imposing a small fee on ALL users of the service or by direct public subsidization from tax subsidies (farm subsidies). For a successful subsidized home (shelter) program your City should identify a broad-based funding source and not “tax the producer” as the funding solution.

Respondent 2
I question whether economically viable on 10 units or less. The inclusionary housing component should be over and above allowable maximum density. For example, at 30 units to the acre on 3 acres the developer could build 90 conventional units and add 9 affordable units for a total of 99 units.

Respondent 3
Hello!
Regarding Question 6 above, it is my opinion that an inclusionary housing program should not be required or mandated on new development. Should a developer wish to include inclusionary housing within its project, then incentives should be granted. In other words, incentivize a developer to include inclusionary housing so that it is a win-win for both the jurisdiction (i.e. income-restricted affordable units are produced) and the developer (i.e. the project will be economically feasible). Incentives can include things like reduced setbacks, reduced parking standards, increased height, increased density, reduced impact fees, project entitlement streamlining, etc.

Regarding Question 7 above, in the event of an inclusionary housing program, the targeted AMI should depend on the type of product being proposed for development. For example, it is not financially feasible to provide affordable units within a for-sale project where those units are targeted to households earning less than 80% of the area median income. In San Diego County, the current median income is $92,700. At 80%, the income for a family of four is $74,160 per year. After accounting for mortgage interest, PMI (private mortgage insurance), property tax, utilities, and HOA, the max purchase price on the sale of that home cannot exceed ±$228,000 as the monthly housing expense for that family cannot exceed 30% of that family’s yearly income. After accounting for the cost of the land, the cost to develop, the cost to build, and the fees paid to the City and other governmental agencies, the developer would actually be losing money on the construction and sale of that affordable unit. The loss to the developer is only exacerbated when the percentage of AMI required is lower.

Page A-8
Below in italics is a statement borrowed from the Building Industry Association’s Orange County Chapter Board of Directors, of which I have previously served on. I echo the statement made below. “Our position is that Housing remains a critical issue in California with the situation growing more serious with each passing day. Studies show that the State needs over 180,000 new units each year and at best we are producing 80,000.

This has caused a cascading spike in home prices across the region. With this ever-growing deficit, we need to have an honest conversation about Inclusionary Zoning Policies. In total, such policies restrain housing production, increase ownership costs, and further complicate attainability for the majority of the region. In a study by Benjamin Powell, Ph.D. and Edward Stringham, Ph.D., titled, Housing Supply and Affordability: Do Affordable Housing Mandates Work?, the authors discovered that in the 45 cities where data was available, new housing production drastically decreased by an average of 31% within one year of adopting inclusionary housing policies. Additionally, the study suggests that inclusionary housing polices can increase new housing costs by $22,000 to $44,000, with higher priced markets increasing by $100,000. Supporting these conclusions is a recent report from the Legislative Analyst’s Office titled Perspectives on Helping Low-Income Californians Afford Housing. In this report, it states that “attempting to address the state’s affordability challenges primarily through expansion of government programs likely would be impractical.” Further, that “extending housing assistance to low-income Californians who currently do not receive it – either though subsidies for affordable units or housing vouchers – would require an annual funding commitment in the low tens of billions of dollars.

As such it finds that “many housing programs – vouchers, rent control, and inclusionary housing – attempt to make housing more affordable without increasing the overall supply of housing. This approach does very little to address the underlying cause of California’s high housing costs: a housing shortage.”” Respondent 4
Inclusionary housing is one tool to help promote the development of affordable housing. There are a lot more options that can be just as effective, primarily the political will to develop affordable projects.

Respondent 5
As an affordable housing provider, I can tell you affordable units are produced most during healthy market rate production. Any requirement should be incentive based.

C. Public Input Considerations
The City developed the sites inventory and housing programs with extensive feedback from the consultation meetings and public workshops. Property owner feedback was taken into consideration for inclusion into the sites inventory. Also, the proposed the upzoning/downzoning of sites took into consideration of developer and property owner feedback. With developer consultation, the City determined that incentivizing rather than mandating affordable housing was a more appropriate policy and the City will explore allowing by-right housing when more than 20% of units are deed restricted for low-income households as set forth in Program 10 of this document.

Page B-1
Appendix B: Accomplishments under
Adopted Housing Element
Government Code Section 65588(a) requires each jurisdiction to review its housing element as frequently as appropriate to evaluate:
• The appropriateness of the housing goals, objectives, and policies in contributing to the attainment of the state housing goal;
• The effectiveness of the housing element in attainment of the community’s housing goals and objectives; and
• The progress of the city, county or city and county in implementation of the housing element.

This appendix documents the City’s achievements under the 2013-2021 Housing Element with respect to the actions and objectives contained therein. Based on the relative success of the City’s efforts in implementing the 2013 programs, recommendations for program modifications are provided for the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update. Table B-1 identifies these housing programs and provides a summary of accomplishments during the 2013-2021 Housing Element cycle. Table B-2 presents quantified accomplishments during this period.

Page B-1
Table B-1: Summary of Program Accomplishments 2013 through 20217 Program
(2013-2021)
Objectives Evaluation and Continued Appropriateness for 2021-2029 Housing Element
Program 1:

Code Enforcement
Continue to implement Municipal
Codes (Titles 15 and 17), the 2016
California Building Code and
Uniform Housing Code.

The Department of Development Services and Code
Enforcement implemented the Municipal Code, the
California Building Code and the Uniform Housing
Code by issuing notices of violations and fines for all violations reported to the City. Between 2013 and 2019, Code Enforcement made over 4,750 inspections,
opened 1,253 cases, closed 3,313 cases, and referred 29 cases to the City Attorney's Office.

Continued Appropriateness: Modified or removed
The Sixth Cycle Housing Element specifies housing
programs with specific actions, measurable objectives,
and timelines. This program may be removed as a
Housing Element program or modified with specific
actions to improve housing conditions.

Program 2:

Mobile Home
Conversion
Regulations
Assess the impact of the loss of
affordable housing opportunities
through implementation of mobile
home conversion regulations.

No mobile home conversions occurred between the
2013 and 2019 period.

Continued Appropriateness: Modified and combined with Mobile Home Park Assistance program
Conversion of mobile home parks must adhere to
regulations monitored by the State Department of
Housing and Community Development.

Program 3:

Minor Home
Improvement Loans
Assist 10 lower income
homeowners annually through
funding service providers that
provide home security devices and
minor home repairs.

The City has contracted with Lutheran Social Services'
Caring Neighbors program to provide this service to
Santee seniors to accomplish this program. An average
of 66 seniors were assisted annually during 2013-2019
period (459 total). In addition, CDBG recipient Home
of Guiding Hands rehabilitated 12 homes during this
period.

Continued Appropriateness: Modified and continued
Due to lack of funding, City will no longer be
implementing this program.

7 The table reflects the accomplishments from FY2013 to FY2019. Pending FY 2020 accomplishments.

Page B-2
Table B-1: Summary of Program Accomplishments 2013 through 20217 Program
(2013-2021)
Objectives Evaluation and Continued Appropriateness for 2021-2029 Housing Element
Program 4:

Conservation of
Existing and Future
Affordable Units
Monitor the status of the 309 atrisk units at Carlton Country Club Villas and Woodglen Vista. The
City of Santee will work with
property owners, interest groups
and the State and federal
governments to implement the
following programs on an ongoing
basis to conserve its affordable
housing stock.

The City did not receive notice of intent to opt out as affordable housing between 2013 and 2019. The
Woodglen Vista Apartments and the Carlton County
Club Villas were refinanced and the affordability period extended in 2017 and 2018 (respectively).

In 2015, the City approved the expansion of the
Cameron Estates Mobile Home Park with the addition
of 16 more mobile homes to this park.

Continued Appropriateness: Modified and continued
The Sixth Cycle Housing Element will update the
inventory of at-risk housing and include specific actions to monitor and preserve at-risk housing projects.

Program 5:

Housing Choice
Voucher Program
Continue to contract with the San
Diego County Housing Authority
to administer the Housing Choice
Vouchers Program and assist
approximately 2,400 extremely low
and very low income households
during the planning period.

Promote the Housing Choice
Vouchers program on City
website. Support the County
Housing Authority’s applications
for additional voucher allocations
and efforts to maintain and expand
voucher use in the City.

Santee is among 12 cities served by the Housing
Authority of the County of San Diego. An average of
570 households per year received Housing Choice
Vouchers during the 2013 to 2019 period (2,177 total),
with the highest single year being 2013 with 361
vouchers offered.

According to the County Housing Authority, as of
December 31, 2019, 285 households were using a
Housing Choice Voucher to help pay for rent in the City of Santee and 1,745 applications submitted by Santee
residents were recorded on a waiting list.

Continued Appropriateness: Modified and continued
The Sixth Cycle Housing Element will include a
program to promote HCVs and also to educate the
public regarding the source of income protection under
new State law that requires rental property owners to
regard public assistance as a legitimate source of income.

Program 6:

Mobile Home Park
Assistance Program
Circulate fliers to existing mobile
home renter parks periodically.

Co-sponsor MPAP applications as
opportunity arises.

No parks were at risk of converting between 2013 and
2019.

Continued Appropriateness: Modified and combined with Mobile Home Conversion Regulations
The Sixth Cycle Housing Element will include a
program to provide financial and technical assistance to mobile home park residents who wish to purchase their
mobile home parks and convert the parks to resident
ownership.

Page B-3
Table B-1: Summary of Program Accomplishments 2013 through 20217 Program
(2013-2021)
Objectives Evaluation and Continued Appropriateness for 2021-2029 Housing Element
Program 7:

First Time
Homebuyer
Program
Assist 40 lower income
households with downpayment
and closing cost assistance during
the planning period (Seven at <50
percent AMI and 33 at 51-80
percent AMI).

The program did not meet its goal of assisting 40 lower income homebuyers (5 homebuyers annually); however,
the City was able to originate 14 loans between 2013 and 2019. The reduction in first-time homebuyer assistance
was possibly be due to higher home prices. At higher
home prices, low-income buyers have difficulty staying
below the maximum housing debt ratio of 38 percent.

Continued Appropriateness: Modified and combined with
homeownership assistance programs
With limited funding and rising home prices, the ability of the City to provide homebuyer assistance would be
limited. The Sixth Cycle Housing Element will include
a program that outlines various resources available.

Program 8:

San Diego County
Regional Mortgage
Credit Certificate
Program
Facilitate the provision of 24
MCCs during the planning period
(eight at <80 percent AMI and 16
at 80-120 percent AMI). Continue
to promote the MCC program by
notifying eligible applicants to
other City programs and providing
information on the City's website.

During the 2013-2019 period, 11 Santee residents
received MCCs. Affordable Housing Applications, Inc.
administered the program from 2013 to 2016. The San
Diego Housing Commission administered the MCC
program for the City of Santee on behalf of the County
of San Diego from 2017 to 2018. The California
Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA) administered the
MCC program in the County of San Diego for all cities
except for the City of San Diego in the subsequent years.

Continued Appropriateness: Modified and combined with
homeownership assistance programs
With limited funding and rising home prices, the ability of the City to provide homebuyer assistance would be
limited. The Sixth Cycle Housing Element will include
a program that outlines various resources available.

Program 9:

Manufactured
Home Fair Practices
Program
Assist approximately 1,200 mobile
homeowners. The City regulates
space rents in mobile home parks
and provides staff support to the
Manufactured Home Fair
Practices Commission, which
holds biannual meetings. The
program requires significant
financial resources in
administration and legal defense of
the Ordinance.

The Manufactured Home Fair Practices Commission
met biannually each year of the 2013-2020 period to hear comments from park residents and owners and provide
direction to staff.

Continued Appropriateness: Modified and continued
The Sixth Cycle Housing Element will include a
modified program that promotes the services of the
Manufactured Home Fair Practices Commission.

Page B-4
Table B-1: Summary of Program Accomplishments 2013 through 20217 Program
(2013-2021)
Objectives Evaluation and Continued Appropriateness for 2021-2029 Housing Element
Program 10:

Facilitate Affordable
Housing
Development
Collaborate with developers of
affordable housing over the
planning period to facilitate the
construction of 62 affordable units
over the planning period (Two
extremely low income, five very
low income, 35 low income, and
20 moderate income units)
Between 2013 and 2019, 49 deed restricted units were
permitted (10 very low income, 37 low income, and 2
moderate income).

No requests were received during the 2013-2020 period.

Continued Appropriateness: Modified and continued
The Sixth Cycle Housing Element will include an
updated program to facilitate affordable housing,
including resources and incentives available to the City.

Program 11:

Supportive Services
Assist 1,000 persons with
temporary shelter and supportive
services during the planning
period (400 meals for lower
income seniors, case management
for 200 lower income seniors, and
temporary shelter, food, and
clothing for 400 lower income
individuals and families affected by
domestic violence).

The City has contracted with Crisis House to provide a
Homeless Prevention and Intervention program. An
average of 207 people per year were assisted through this program from 2013-2019 (1,511 total). The City also
contributed CDBG funding to the Meals-on-Wheels
program, which provides two meals per day to
homebound seniors; an average of 109 seniors were
assisted annually between 2017 and 2019 (328 total). In addition, the City provides CDBG funding to the Santee
Food Bank, which assisted an average of 12,819 persons
per year (38,457 persons total) between 2017 and 2019.

Continued Appropriateness: Modified and continued
The Sixth Cycle Housing Element will include a
program to identify the range of supportive services
needed in the community and resources available to
address these needs.

Program 12:

Inventory of
Available Sites
Maintain an inventory of the
available sites for residential
development and provide it to
prospective residential developers
upon request.

An inventory of available sites for residential
development is maintained by the City and is available
to prospective residential developers by City staff upon request.

Continued Appropriateness: Modified and continued
The Sixth Cycle Housing Element will include an
updated sites inventory to accommodate the new
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), estimated
at 1,219 units. The new sites inventory will reflect the rezoning and upzoning of properties completed to
accommodate the RHNA.

Program 13:

Lot Consolidation
Incentives
Deemed unnecessary and will not
be included in the Sixth Cycle
Housing Element
After further evaluation the City has determined that a lot consolidation program is not needed to foster
housing development in the City as most sites in the
existing Sites Inventory are greater than 0.5 acres.

Continued Appropriateness: Modified and continued
The Sixth Cycle Housing Element will not include a lot
consolidation program as this program.

Page B-5
Table B-1: Summary of Program Accomplishments 2013 through 20217 Program
(2013-2021)
Objectives Evaluation and Continued Appropriateness for 2021-2029 Housing Element
Program 14:

Monitoring of
Residential Capacity
(No Net Loss)
Develop and implement a formal
evaluation procedure pursuant to
Government Code Section 65863.

Development Services staff continue to monitor all
proposed development projects for potential effects on
RHNA inventory.

Continued Appropriateness: Modified
Program 15:

Farm Worker
Housing
Review and revise the Zoning
Ordinance to address compliance
with Health and Safety Code
Sections 17021.5 and 17021.6.

This program was accomplished on 2016. Section

17.10.03.F of the Zoning Ordinance has been updated
to allow farm worker housing in residential zones.

Continued Appropriateness: Completed
The Sixth Cycle Housing Element will include an
updated program to identify other Zoning Code
amendments required to comply with new State laws,
such as Low Barrier Navigation Center, Emergency
Shelters and Supportive Housing, Accessory Dwelling
Units, and Density Bonus for 100 Percent Affordable
Housing.

Program 16:

Monitor Changes in
Federal and State
Housing, Planning,
and Zoning Laws
Monitor State and federal
legislation as well as City
development process and zoning
regulations to identify and remove
housing constraints.

Staff planners and attorneys continually monitor state
and federal law. As an example, the City is requiring
"No Net Loss" of low and moderate income residential
units identified in the Housing Element, in accordance
with Senate Bill 166 (SB166).

Continued Appropriateness: Combined with new program for affordable housing development.

Program 17:

Equal Housing
Opportunity
Services
Continue to contract with a fair
housing service provider to
provide fair housing services to
500 residents of Santee over the
2013-2021 planning period.

Participate in regional efforts to
update the AI every five years.

Maintain the link on the City
website providing information
about fair housing services.

Fair housing provider CSA of San Diego County
assisted an average of 58 Santee residents (439 total)
between 2013 and 2019. The City also participated in
the 2015-2019 and 2020-2024 updates of the San Diego
County Regional Analysis of Impediments (AI).

Continued Appropriateness: Modified and continued
Pursuant to new State law, the Sixth Cycle Housing
Element will include a program to actively further fair housing choice in the City.

Page B-6

Table B-2: Housing Element Accomplishments
(Calendar Years 2013 through 2020)
Housing Assistance Type Objectives 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Housing Units Constructed
Very Low Income 30-50% AMI 914 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
Low-Income 50-80% AMI 694 41 0 0 2 0 0 0 43
Moderate Income 80-120% AMI 462 80 0 0 0 16 0 1 97
Above Moderate Income +120% AMI 1,410 368 175 5 50 128 157 114 997 Total 3,660 499 175 5 52 144 157 115 1,147
Housing Units Conserved
Section 8 At-Risk 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309 309
Housing Units Rehabilitated
Rehabilitation Loans 80 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 12
Rental Assistance
Housing Choice Vouchers 2,400 361 344 333 286 284 284 285 2,077 Page C-1
Appendix C: Sites Inventory
Table C-1 starting on page C-2 presents a detailed list of parcels used in Section 4, Housing Resources, to demonstrate that the City has adequate capacity to accommodate the 2021-2029 RHNA. Figure C-1 provides the geographic location of the parcels within Santee.

Page C-2
Table C-1: Sites Inventory
Map ID
#
APN / Address LU
Designation
Zone
District
Density
Factor
(du/ac)
Lot Size
(Acres) Capacity Rezoned From Existing Use/Reason for Selection Status Lower Income Sites
151,2 38104036
Walmart TC-R-22 TC-R-22 22 5.26 115 TC-C
Vacant site in town center (opportunity site
due to high density allowed and near
transit). To be rezoned from commercial
(TC-C) to residential use (TC-R-22).

Maximum allowable density to be 30 du/ac.

Privately owned. Half mile to park, town
center, Sprouts across street, in high
resource area in TCAC/HCD (California
Tax Credit Allocation Committee/Housing
and Community Development Dept.)
opportunity map.

Vacant
16A1,2
38105082
Civic Center Site
I
TC-R-30 TC-R-30 30 11.11 333 TC-C
Vacant site consisting of three lots (2.89
acres, 3.66 acres, and 4.56 acres,
respectively) in town center (opportunity
site due to high density allowed and near
transit). To be rezoned from commercial
(TC-C) to residential use (TC-R-30).

Minimum allowable density to be 30 du/ac
and maximum at 36 du/ac. Privately owned.

In Airport Safety Zone 4. Across the street
from park, half mile to town center services,
128 unit (Cornerstone) built across street on
northern end, in high resource area in
TCAC/HCD opportunity map.

Vacant
20A1
38105081
9200 Magnolia
Ave
TC-R-22 TC-R-22 22 7.75 170 TC-O/I
Underutilized site in town center
(opportunity site due to high density allowed
and near transit). To be rezoned from TCO/I Theme Commercial to residential use (TC-R-22). Maximum allowable density to
be 30 du/ac. Portion in Airport Safety Zone

4. County owned3. Half mile to park, <1
mile to town center services, in high
resource area in TCAC/HCD opportunity
map.

Nonvacant
Page C-3
Table C-1: Sites Inventory
Map ID
#
APN / Address LU
Designation
Zone
District
Density
Factor
(du/ac)
Lot Size
(Acres) Capacity Rezoned From Existing Use/Reason for Selection Status 20B1,2
38105081
9200 Magnolia
Ave
TC-R-30 TC-R-30 30 10.00 300 TC-O/I
Underutilized site in town center
(opportunity site due to high density allowed
and near transit). To be rezoned from TCO/I to residential use (TC-R-30). Minimum allowable density to be 30 du/ac and
maximum at 36 du/ac. Portion in Airport
Safety Zone 4. County owned3). Half mile to
park, <1 mile to town center services, in
high resource area in TCAC/HCD
opportunity map.

Nonvacant
214
38410616
8942 1st St TC-R-22 TC-R-22 22 0.60 13 N/A
Underutilized site with single-family home
in town center (opportunity site due to high
density allowed and near transit). Maximum
allowable density is 22 du/ac. Privately
owned. Half mile to park, <1 mile to town
center services, in high resource area in
TCAC/HCD opportunity map. Owner
expressed interest in MF housing, City in
discussion with Habitat for Humanity for
development of an affordable housing
project on the site.

Nonvacant
241,2
38416204
9953 Buena Vista
Ave
R-22 R-22 22 4.80 105 R-2
Underutilized site with one single-family
home. To be rezoned from R-2 to R-22.

Maximum allowable density to be 30 du/ac.

Privately owned. Less than half mile from
town center, ~half mile to park, moderate
resource area TCAC/HCD opportunity
map.

Nonvacant
291
38630031
7737 Mission
Gorge Rd
R-22 R-22 22 3.25 64 GC
Underutilized commercial lot to be rezoned
from GC to R-22. Maximum allowable
density to be 30 du/ac. Privately owned.

Less than half mile from trails, <1 mile from
elementary school and park, in high
resource area TCAC/HCD opportunity
map.

Nonvacant
Page C-4
Table C-1: Sites Inventory
Map ID
#
APN / Address LU
Designation
Zone
District
Density
Factor
(du/ac)
Lot Size
(Acres) Capacity Rezoned From Existing Use/Reason for Selection Status 301,4
38630009
8714 Starpine Dr R-22 R-22 22 1.30 28 R-7/GC
Underutilized site with one single-family
home. To be rezoned from R-7/GC to R22. Maximum allowable density to be 30 du/ac. Privately owned. Less than half mile
from trails, less than one mile from
elementary school/park, in high resource
area TCAC/HCD opportunity map
Nonvacant
314
38306103
7980 Mission
Gorge Rd R-22 R-22 22 5.23 80 N/A
Underutilized site with one single-family
home. Maximum allowable density is 30
du/ac. Privately owned. Half mile from trail,
park, and elementary school, high resource
area TCAC/HCD opportunity map.

Nonvacant
324
38306101
7950 Mission
Gorge Rd
R-22 R-22 22 0.95 20 N/A
Underutilized site with one single-family
home. Maximum allowable density is 30
du/ac. Privately owned. Half mile from trail,
park, and elementary school, high resource
area TCAC/HCD opportunity map.

Nonvacant
Lower Income Sites Subtotal 50.25 1,228
Moderate Income
16B1
38105082
Civic Center Site
II
TC-R-14 TC-R-14 14 8.61 120. TC-C
Vacant site to be rezoned from TC-C to TCR-14. Privately owned. Zoning would be consistent with adjacent residential
development.

Vacant
171,2,4
38105118
Cottonwood Ave TC-R-14 TC-R-14 14 22.15 279 TC-R-30
Vacant site to be rezoned from TC-R-30 to
TC-R-14. County owned3. New zoning
more realistic for area (reduce
parking/traffic issues), new density
consistent with density allowed north of San
Diego River.

Vacant
18*,
PC1,2,4
38105117
Cottonwood Ave TC-R-14 TC-R-14 14 11.71 98 TC-R-30
Vacant site to be rezoned from TC-R-30 to
TC-R-14. County owned3.New zoning more
realistic for area (reduce parking/traffic
issues), new density consistent with density
allowed north of San Diego River.

Vacant
Page C-5
Table C-1: Sites Inventory
Map ID
#
APN / Address LU
Designation
Zone
District
Density
Factor
(du/ac)
Lot Size
(Acres) Capacity Rezoned From Existing Use/Reason for Selection Status 191,4 38103208
Park Center Dr TC-R-14 TC-R-14 14 2.35 32 TC-R-22 Vacant site to be rezoned from TC-R-22 to TC-R-14. Privately owned. Vacant 234
38414211
10952 Sunset Trl R-14 R-14 14 1.24 17 N/A
Underutilized site with 2 single family
homes built in 1942. Privately owned. In
Airport Safety Zone 4.

Nonvacant
251
38402007
8801 Olive Ln R-14 R-14 14 2.93 41 IL
Underutilized site to be rezoned from IL to
R-14. Privately owned. Adjacent to
residential zone; development across the
street approved at 16 du/ac. In Airport
Safety Zone 3.

Nonvacant
Moderate Income Sites Subtotal 48.99 587
Above Moderate
1 1
37819001
10939 Summit
Ave
R-7 R-7 7 4.65 29 R-1A
Underutilized site with single-family home
built in 1974. Summit Ave sites is an
opportunity site: larger, relatively flat parcels
suitable for small lot subdivisions in the 7 to
14 du/ac range. Lot size consistent with
past development (Santee made up 6,000 sq
ft lots). Lots on Summit would be about
4,000 sq ft. To be rezoned from R-1A to R7. Privately owned. On Private road, would require right-of-way dedication.

Nonvacant
2 1
37818010
11009 Summit
Ave
R-7 R-7 7 2.32 14 R-1A
Underutilized site with single-family home
built in 1968. Summit Ave sites is an
opportunity site: larger, relatively flat parcels
suitable for small lot subdivisions in the 7 to
14 du/ac range. Lot size consistent with
past development (Santee made up 6,000 sq
ft lots). Lots on Summit would be about
4,000 sq ft. To be rezoned from R-1A to R7. Privately owned. On Private road, would require right-of-way dedication.

Nonvacant
Page C-6
Table C-1: Sites Inventory
Map ID
#
APN / Address LU
Designation
Zone
District
Density
Factor
(du/ac)
Lot Size
(Acres) Capacity Rezoned From Existing Use/Reason for Selection Status 3 1
37818009
11025 Summit
Ave
R-7 R-7 7 2.32 14 R-1A
Underutilized site with single-family home
built in 1948. Summit Ave sites is an
opportunity site: larger, relatively flat parcels
suitable for small lot subdivisions in the 7 to
14 du/ac range. Lot size consistent with past
development (Santee made up 6,000 sq ft
lots). Lots on Summit would be about 4,000
sq ft. To be rezoned from R-1A to R-7.

Privately owned. On Private road, would
require right-of-way dedication.

Nonvacant
4 1
37818008
11041 Summit
Ave
R-7 R-7 7 2.32 14 R-1A
Underutilized site with single-family home
built in 1963. Summit Ave sites is an
opportunity site: larger, relatively flat parcels
suitable for small lot subdivisions in the 7 to
14 du/ac range. Lot size consistent with past
development (Santee made up 6,000 sq ft
lots). Lots on Summit would be about 4,000
sq ft. To be rezoned from R-1A to R-7.

Privately owned. On Private road, would
require right-o-way dedication.

Nonvacant
5 1
37818007
11059 Summit
Ave
R-7 R-7 7 2.32 11 R-1A
Underutilized site with single-family home
built in 1940. Summit Ave sites is an
opportunity site: larger, relatively flat parcels
suitable for small lot subdivisions in the 7 to
14 du/ac range. Lot size consistent with past
development (Santee made up 6,000 sq ft
lots). Lots on Summit would be about 4,000
sq ft. To be rezoned from R-1A to R-7.

Privately owned. On Private road, would
require right-of-way dedication.

Nonvacant
Page C-7
Table C-1: Sites Inventory
Map ID
#
APN / Address LU
Designation
Zone
District
Density
Factor
(du/ac)
Lot Size
(Acres) Capacity Rezoned From Existing Use/Reason for Selection Status 6 1
37818029
10215 Summit
Crest Dr
R-7 R-7 7 1.16 8 R-1A
Underutilized site with single-family home
built in 1989. Summit Ave sites is an
opportunity site: larger, relatively flat parcels
suitable for small lot subdivisions in the 7 to
14 du/ac range. Lot size consistent with past
development (Santee made up 6,000 sq ft
lots). Lots on Summit would be about 4,000
sq ft. To be rezoned from R-1A to R-7.

Privately owned. On Private road, would
require right-of-way dedication.

Nonvacant
7 1
37821021
11010 Summit
Ave
R-7 R-7 7 1.15 8 R-1A
Underutilized site with single-family home
built in 1980. Summit Ave sites is an
opportunity site: larger, relatively flat parcels
suitable for small lot subdivisions in the 7 to
14 du/ac range. Lot size consistent with
past development (Santee made up 6,000 sq
ft lots). Lots on Summit would be about
4,000 sq ft. To be rezoned from R-1A to R7. Privately owned. On Private road, would require right-of-way dedication.

Nonvacant
8 1
37821020
11020 Summit
Ave
R-7 R-7 7 1.02 7 R-1A
Underutilized site with single-family home
built in 1975. Summit Ave sites is an
opportunity site: larger, relatively flat parcels
suitable for small lot subdivisions in the 7 to
14 du/ac range. Lot size consistent with past
development (Santee made up 6,000 sq ft
lots). Lots on Summit would be about 4,000
sq ft. To be rezoned from R-1A to R-7.

Privately owned. On Private road, would
require right-of-way dedication.

Nonvacant
Page C-8
Table C-1: Sites Inventory
Map ID
#
APN / Address LU
Designation
Zone
District
Density
Factor
(du/ac)
Lot Size
(Acres) Capacity Rezoned From Existing Use/Reason for Selection Status 9 1
37818028
11115 Summit
Ave
R-7 R-7 7 1.16 8 R-1A
Underutilized site with single-family home
built in 1970. Summit Ave sites is an
opportunity site: larger, relatively flat parcels
suitable for small lot subdivisions in the 7 to
14 du/ac range. Lot size consistent with past
development (Santee made up 6,000 sq ft
lots). Lots on Summit would be about 4,000
sq ft. To be rezoned from R-1A to R-7.

Privately owned. On Private road, would
require right-of-way dedication.

Nonvacant
101
37818020
11129 Summit
Ave
R-7 R-7 7 2.32 11 R-1A
Underutilized site with single-family home
built in 1950. Summit Ave sites is an
opportunity site: larger, relatively flat parcels
suitable for small lot subdivisions in the 7 to
14 du/ac range. Lot size consistent with past
development (Santee made up 6,000 sq ft
lots). Lots on Summit would be about 4,000
sq ft. To be rezoned from R-1A to R-7.

Privately owned. On Private road, would
require right-of-way dedication.

Nonvacant
111
38103107
9945 Conejo Rd R-7 R-7 7 1.19 8 R-2
Underutilized site with single-family home
built in 1958. To be rezoned from R-2 to R7. Privately owned. Upzone would be consistent with surrounding development.

Nonvacant
121
38169028
9960 Conejo Rd R-7 R-7 7 0.86 6 R-2
Underutilized site with single-family home
built in 1953. To be rezoned from R-2 to R7. Privately owned. Upzone would be consistent with surrounding development.

Property owner interested in developing in
the past and has restricted due to zoning.

Nonvacant
264
38349056
Prospect Ave R-7 R-7 7 0.72 4 N/A Vacant site. Privately owned. In Airport Safety Zone 4. Properly zoned. Vacant Page C-9
Table C-1: Sites Inventory
Map ID
#
APN / Address LU
Designation
Zone
District
Density
Factor
(du/ac)
Lot Size
(Acres) Capacity Rezoned From Existing Use/Reason for Selection Status 274
38619217
8572 Fanita Dr R-7 R-7 7 1.73 12 N/A
Underutilized site with single-family home
built in 1950. Has dilapidated
street/incomplete sidewalk. Privately
owned. Properly zoned.

Nonvacant
28 38669038
8504 Fanita Dr R-7 R-7 7 0.68 4 N/A
Vacant site along dilapidated
street/incomplete sidewalk. Privately
owned. Properly zoned.

Vacant
334
38401115
8750 Atlas View
Dr
R-7 R-7 7 1.85 9 N/A
Underutilized site with single family home
built on 1958. Privately owned. In Airport
Safety Zone 4/. Properly zoned.

Nonvacant
344
38401255
8742 Atlas View
Dr
R-7 R-7 7 0.91 6 N/A
Underutilized site with single family home
built on 1954. Privately owned. In Airpot
Safety Zone 4. Properly zoned.

Nonvacant
354
37903031
Mast Blvd POS/R-7 POS/R-7 7 47.45 122 POS/IL
Vacant site to be rezoned from POS/IL to
POS/R-7. Site has never been used for light
industrial uses (IL – Light Industrial Zone);
City has received pre-application from
owner for MFR project in IL zoned portion
of property.

Vacant
Above Moderate Sites Subtotal 76.13 295
Sites Inventory Total 175.37 2,110

1. Sites that will be rezoned.

2. By-right housing sites for qualifying affordable housing projects.

3. County-owned properties have been identified as surplus properties. The County will follow the required procedure for disposition which will make the properties available to affordable developers.

4. Sites that appeared in the Previous Housing Element Cycle (5th Cycle).

Page C-10
Figure C-1: Residential Sites Inventory
Page D-1
Appendix D: Undeveloped/
Underutilized General Industrial (IG)
Sites
The City revised the Zoning Ordinance in January 2013 to allow emergency shelters within the General Industrial (IG) zone with a ministerial permit pursuant to SB 2 enacted in 2007. The amendment allows owners of property within the IG zone to develop sites with emergency shelter in accordance with State law. The IG zone covers approximately 111 acres on 130 parcels in Santee. Vacant or underutilized parcels within the IG zone are presented in Table D-1. See Figure D-1 on the next page for parcel locations on Woodside Avenue North.

Table D-1: Undeveloped/Underutilized General Industrial (IG) Parcels
Parcel Number Acreage Existing Uses/Improvements
384-190-10 0.15 OUTDOOR STORAGE/ASPHALT
384-180-50 0.78 OUTDOOR STORAGE/ASPHALT
384-180-27 0.69 OUTDOOR AND FLEET STORAGE/ASPHALT
384-180-20 0.19 UNDEVELOPED/UNIMPROVED
384-180-13 0.59 OUTDOOR AND FLEET STORAGE/ASPHALT
384-261-20 0.71 OUTDOOR STORAGE/ASPHALT
TOTAL 3.11
Source: City of Santee, 2020.

These parcels are considered underutilized because they are currently vacant or being used for outdoor storage or fleet storage with limited or no site improvements. The undeveloped and underutilized IGzoned parcels have adequate capacity to accommodate an emergency shelter that could serve at least 25 homeless individuals (identified unsheltered homeless population in Santee in January 2020) or at least one year-round emergency shelter.

Page D-2
Figure D-1: Undeveloped/Underutilized General Industrial Parcels Page E-1
Appendix E: Affirmatively Furthering
Fair Housing
A. Introduction and Overview of AB 686
AB 686 passed in 2017 requires the inclusion in the Housing Element an analysis of barriers that restrict access to opportunity and a commitment to specific meaningful actions to affirmatively further fair housing. The Bill added an assessment of fair housing to the Housing Element which includes the following components: a summary of fair housing issues and assessment of the City’s fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity; an analysis of segregation patterns and disparities in access to opportunities, an assessment of contributing factors, and an identification of fair housing goals and actions.

1. SUMMARY OF FAIR HOUSING ISSUES
2020 San Diego Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing The City of Santee participated in the 2020 San Diego Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing (2020 Regional AI). The 2020 Regional AI concluded that the following were impediments to Fair Housing Choice in the San Diego Area (regional impediments shown in bold). The local relevance of these impediments to Santee is included below:

Regional Impediment #1: Enforcement activities are limited. Fair housing services focus primarily on outreach and education; less emphasis is placed on enforcement. Fair housing testing should be conducted regularly.

Local Relevance: Center for Social Advocacy (CSA) San Diego provides fair housing services to the City of Santee. CSA conducts regular workshops and educational presentations, including informal Fair Housing workshops. Workshops and presentations cover a wide range of issues including tenant and landlord rights and responsibilities, notices to vacate, substandard conditions, and foreclosures.

Fair housing testing records for only FY 2020 were provided by CSA in the 2020 Regional AI. CSA tested for discrimination based on national origin and race at two sites in Santee. The site tested for race showed differential treatment. More testing is needed. Like the County, the City needs to place more emphasis on enforcement activities. The City has included an increase in testing efforts in Program 13.

Regional Impediment #2: Fair housing outreach and education should expand to many media forms, not limited to traditional newspaper noticing or other print forms. Increasingly fewer people rely on the newspapers to receive information. Public notices and printed flyers are costly and ineffective means to reach the community at large.

Local Relevance: Like the regional practices, the City also mainly uses traditional print forms as fair housing outreach. The City will share fair housing information and resources online and continue to maintain the links on the City website providing information about fair housing services. In addition, the City will consider this impediment as it expands outreach and education of the State’s new Source Page E-2
of Income Protection (SB 329 and SB 222), defining public assistance including HCVs as legitimate source of income for housing (Program 13).

Regional Impediment #3: Patterns of racial and ethnic concentration are present within particular areas of the San Diego region. In San Diego County, 15.4 percent of residents indicated they spoke English “less than very well” and can be considered linguistically isolated.

Local Relevance: Linguistic isolation is not as extensive in Santee than the County. Only 4.1 percent of the population indicated “speaking English less than very well.” In addition, the 2021 TCAC/HCD Opportunity and HUD’s racially/ethnically-concentrated areas of poverty (RECAPs) maps did not identify any areas of high poverty and segregation in Santee. However, the southern tracts of the City have been identified as disadvantaged communities using the OPR’s screening methodology for the Environmental Justice Element. These areas also have a concentration of persons with disabilities, low and moderate income households, children in family and single-female households.

Regional Impediment #4: Housing choices for special needs groups, especially persons with disabilities, are limited. Housing options for special needs groups, especially for seniors and persons with disabilities, are limited. Affordable programs and public housing projects have long waiting lists.

Local Relevance: Elderly households make up 25 percent of the City’s households and 10 percent of the City’s population has a disability. The 2020 Regional AI found governmental constraints that hinder housing choice for special needs groups, particularly non-compliance with state law related to accessory dwelling units, Low Barrier Navigation Centers (LBNC), emergency shelter capacity, parking standards, transitional and supportive housing, and affordable housing streamlined approval.

Details of the constraints are found in Governmental Constraints section of the Housing Element.

The City will address these constraints through Programs 10 and 11.

Regional Impediment #5: Due to the geographic disparity in terms of rents, concentrations of Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) use have occurred, with a high rate of voucher use in El Cajon and National City.

Local Relevance: Though the City received 0.8 percent (266 vouchers) of the HCVs administered by the County, HCV use is concentrated in the southern tracts of the City. Assisting in the promotion of HCV use is included in Program 13.

Regional Impediment #6: Hispanics and Blacks continue to be under-represented in the homebuyer market and experienced large disparities in loan approval rates.

Local Relevance: Blacks were not significantly under-represented in the homebuyer market in Santee. Variation between percent of applicant pool (1.4 percent) and percent of the City’s population (1.8 percent) was not significant. Blacks also received the same approval rates as the approval rate for all Citywide applications (64 percent). However, Hispanics were greatly under-represented in Santee’s homebuyer market, making up only 9.9 percent of the City’s applicant pool but 16.3 percent of the City’s population. Hispanics were approved at lower rates of any race/ethnic (59 percent) except for Asian and multi-race applicants (58 percent).

Page E-3
Other Local Fair Housing Issues
The fair housing assessment below spatially describes concentrations of fair housing components (e.g., fair housing enforcement and outreach, integration and segregation, racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, disparities in access to opportunity, and disproportionate housing needs including displacement risk). This assessment found that the southernmost census tracts in the downtown, especially south of the intersection of Mission Gorge Rd and Cuyamaca St, have the most fair housing issues. These census tracts had a concentration of: persons with disabilities, low and moderate income households, low economic scores (based on poverty, adult education, job proximity, and median home value), mobile homes, and housing choice voucher use. According to staff, these areas are heavily populated by senior populations, particularly residing in the mobile home parks.

B. Assessment of Fair Housing Issues

1. FAIR HOUSING ENFORCEMENT AND OUTREACH
San Diego County jurisdictions are served by two fair housing service providers, CSA San Diego and Legal Aid Society of San Diego (LASSD), that investigate and resolve discrimination complaints, conduct discrimination auditing and testing, and education and outreach, including the dissemination of fair housing information such as written material, workshops, and seminars. These service providers also provide landlord/tenant counseling, which is another fair housing service that involves informing landlords and tenants of their rights and responsibilities under fair housing law and other consumer protection regulations, as well as mediating disputes between tenants and landlords.

The City of Santee contracts with CSA San Diego County to provide fair housing services. Between FY 2014 and FY 2019, CSA provided fair housing services to approximately 1,000 San Diego County residents per year—for a total of 6, 276 clients over the five-year period. The majority of CSA’s clients during this period came from El Cajon (35 percent), Chula Vista (21 percent), and the unincorporated County. CSA served 276 Santee residents during this period, representing only four percent of the clients served by CSA. Statistics reported by CSA indicate that low income persons, regardless of race, are the most frequently impacted by fair housing issues in its service area (Table E-1). The vast majority of CSA’s clients (95 percent) between FY 2014 and FY 2019 were either extremely low or very low income. Consistent with the demographic makeup of the region, White residents represented a substantial proportion of clients served (41 percent). However, there is some indication that fair housing issues disproportionately affect certain racial/ethnic groups. For example, Black residents made up less than an average 4.1 percent of the population in the cities that CSA serves but represented 10 percent of fair housing clients served. The characteristics of the clients served by CSA are similar to those in the County, except that the proportion of non-Hispanic and White clients was higher in Santee than the County. This is to be expected as Santee has a higher proportion of nonHispanic White population (69 percent) than the County (46 percent).

Page E-4
Table E-1: Characteristics of Clients Served by CSA and Santee Population (2013-2019) Santee CSA County Clients CSA Santee Clients Santee Population Total Clients Served/Population 6,276 276 57,999
Race
Hispanic 38.1% 11.2% 18.1%
Non- Hispanic 61.9% 88.4% 81.9%
Ethnicity
White 40.5% 70.7% 69.1%
Black/African American 10.0% 4.7% 1.9%
Asian 2.6% 1.8% 5.2%
Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 2.4% 0.7% 0.3%
American Indian/ Alaska Native 2.6% 0.4% 0.5%
Other/Multi-Racial 41.9% 21.7% 5%
Income Level
Extremely Low Income (<30% AMI) 82.9% 76.1% 9.1%
Very Low Income (<50% AMI) 12.3% 10.9% 10.0%
Low Income (<80% AMI) 2.6% 10.5% 18.8%
>80% AMI or income not reported 2.2% 2.5% 62.1%
Source: 2020 San Diego Regional AI, CSA San Diego 2020.

For the 2020 Regional AI ,CSA also provided the results of Fair Housing Testing done on at two sites in Santee in 2020. CSA tested for discrimination based on national origin and race at two sites. The site tested for race showed differential treatment. Most of the testing done by CSA focused on the City of San Diego (20 sites) and El Cajon (eight sites). More testing for discrimination in the City of Santee is needed.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) maintains a record of all housing discrimination complaints filed in local jurisdictions. These grievances can be filed on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, disability, religion, familial status and retaliation. From October 1, 2014 to September 30, 2019, nine fair housing cases filed with HUD from Santee residents, comprising only two percent of the complaints filed in the entire County. Overall, disability and race discrimination were the most commonly reported—reported in four cases. In the County and Santee, disabilityrelated discrimination was the most commonly reported—comprising 53 percent of all cases in the County and 67 percent of Santee cases.

CSA conducts regular workshops and educational presentations, including informal Fair Housing workshops. Workshops and presentations cover a wide range of issues including tenant and landlord rights and responsibilities, notices to vacate, substandard conditions, and foreclosures. From 2015 to 2019, CSA participated in at least 26 outreach events at Santee City Hall and Santee Public Library, located on the north and south ends of the City, respectively. These two locations are accessible through public transit (Metropolitan Transit System Routes 834 and 832). Events were advertised on the City website and in the City’s paper newsletter available in English and Spanish. Meetings are usually held during the day. CSA is also a member of the City’s Santee Collaborative, a communitybased organization of parents, residents, community-based organizations, school personnel and the Page E-5
faith community that works to “promote a healthier more proactive community that builds resilient children and families.” Fair housing testing was limited.

The 2020 Regional AI found that enforcement and outreach services were inadequate across the San Diego County Region as residents may find it hard to navigate the service system and identify the appropriate agency to contact. The City of Santee advertises fair housing services through placement of a fair housing services brochures and posters at public counters. These materials are available in English, Spanish, and Arabic. The City will continue to include a link to the CSA website and update outreach materials frequently.

2. INTEGRATION AND SEGREGATION
Race/Ethnicity
Ethnic and racial composition of a region is useful in analyzing housing demand and any related fair housing concerns, as it tends to demonstrate a relationship with other characteristics such as household size, locational preferences and mobility.

As described in the Community Profile, Santee’s population is mostly white. Despite increases in the minority population from 2010 to 2018, Santee continues to have a substantially larger proportion of White residents and smaller proportion of Hispanic/Latino residents compared to neighboring jurisdictions and the County as a whole (Figure 1 and Table E-2). The City’s proportion of Black/African American residents is also significantly lower than surrounding cities and within the County.

Figure E-1: Race/Ethnic Composition Changes
Page E-6
Table E-2: Racial Composition in Neighboring Cities and Region (2018) Jurisdiction White
Alone Black
American
Indian/
Alaskan
Asian
Hawaiian/
Pac
Islands
Other
Two
or
More
Hispanic/
Latino
El Cajon 57.1% 5.5% 0.2% 3.7% 0.4% 0.3% 4.3% 28.5%
La Mesa 55.5% 7.1% 0.1% 6.5% 0.3% 0.1% 4.6% 25.9%
Lemon Grove 28.9% 13.5% 0.1% 6.0% 0.4% 0.1% 4.2% 46.7%
San Diego 42.9% 6.2% 0.2% 16.4% 0.4% 0.2% 3.6% 30.1%
Santee 69.1% 1.9% 0.5% 5.2% 0.3% 0.1% 4.9% 18.1%
County 45.9% 4.7% 0.4% 11.6% 0.4% 0.2% 3.4% 33.5%
Source: American Community Survey (2014-2018 Estimates).

Dissimilarity indices can be used to measure the extent to which a distribution of any two groups differs across block groups. Racial and ethnic dissimilarity trends for Santee and San Diego-Carlsbad Region are shown in Table E- 3. The following shows how HUD views various levels of the index:
• <40: Low Segregation
• 40-54: Moderate Segregation
• >55: High Segregation
From 1990 to 2020, block groups in Santee have become increasingly segregated. While the segregation between non-white and white residents remained low, the segregation between white and Black population and white population and Asian/Pacific Islanders has increased in the past 30 years.

Specifically, in the past 10 years, the segregation between white population and black population and white population and Asian/Pacific Islander populations increased by 10 index points. Overall, Santee shows a lower degree of segregation where scores are less than 40 and considered “low segregation” in comparison to the San Diego-Carlsbad Region as a whole. County dissimilarity indices for Non-White/White, Black/White, Hispanic/White, and Asian or Pacific Islander/White were all categorized as moderately segregation.

Table E- 3: Dissimilarity Indices
1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend Current
Santee
Non-White/White 10.53 7.99 6.85 9.68
Black/White 15.73 28.26 20.67 31.94
Hispanic/White 13.21 6.39 6.37 9.02
Asian or Pacific Islander/White 5.98 11.01 6.89 15.16
San Diego County
Non-White/White 43.4 45.2 42.9 46.4
Black/White 58.0 53.8 48.4 54.1
Hispanic/White 45.2 50.6 49.6 51.7
Asian or Pacific Islander/White 48.1 46.8 44.4 49.8
Source: HUD Dissimilarity Index, 2020.

Page E-7
The AFFH tool also provides spatial analysis of non-white population (i.e., minority and mixed-race population) across the City. Figure E-2 shows that the highest concentration of non-white population is found in block group 060730166.151, located in the south of the City (north of Mission Gorge Rd and bounded by Cuyamaca St. and N. Magnolia Ave.

Most of the City’s block groups have a minority population between 21 and 40 percent (Figure E-2).

The City identified 36 percent of its RHNA units in block groups with a 21-40 percent minority concentration, and a similar proportion (34 percent) of its lower income in these census tracts. Table E-4 shows that most RHNA units are distributed in the census tract with the highest minority concentration (41-60 percent). This census tract has 64 percent of all RHNA sites, but a variety of income levels. In fact, 90 percent of moderate income RHNA sites are in this tract. Figure E-2 also shows that the City’s RHNA sites are fairly distributed throughout the City.

Table E-4: RHNA Unit Distribution by % Minority Concentration % Minority Concentration Lower Income
RHNA
Moderate Income
RHNA
Above Moderate
Income RHNA
Total
RHNA Units
< 20% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
21 - 40% 33.6% 9.9% 100.0% 36.3%
41 - 60% 66.4% 90.1% 0.0% 63.7%
61 - 80% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
> 81% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Total 1,228 587 295 2,110
AFFH mapping tool also provides maps of predominant races by tract. These metrics show tracts where a race dominates and the percent by which the race dominates over the other races. Figure E2 also shows most of the census tracts in the City are predominantly white, meaning the gap between white population and other ethnicities is over 50 percent.

Page E-8
Figure E-2: Minority Concentration and Predominantly White Areas Page E-9
Persons with Disabilities
According to the 2020 Regional AI, housing choices for special needs groups, especially persons with disabilities, are limited in the region. In San Diego County, about 10 percent of the population has a disability. Santee has a population of persons with disabilities (11.2 percent) comparable to the County and its neighboring cities of El Cajon (13.3 percent), La Mesa (11.9 percent), and Poway (10.0 percent).

Figure E-3 shows that persons with disabilities are concentrated on census tracts to the east of Santee, with the population with a disability ranging between 10 and 20 percent per tract. Within Santee, tracts along the north, east, and south edges of the City have the highest concentration of persons with disabilities.8 Persons with disabilities may be concentrated along the southern census tracts of the cities because all of the City’s mobile home parks are located in these tracts as well (Figure E-4). A special characteristics of the southernmost tracts in the City is that all of the City’s mobile home parks are located in the southernmost tracts if the City. Half of the City’s mobile home parks are in tracts where 10 to 20 percent of the population has a disability. Mobile home parks are often occupied by seniors on fixed incomes, who may also have a disability.

Santee’s RHNA units are not disproportionately concentrated on areas with a concentration of persons with disabilities. About 80 percent of Santee’s RHNA units are located in census tracts with a population of less than 10 percent persons with disabilities (Table E-5). Only moderate and above moderate units are located in census tracts with a population of persons with disabilities between 10 and 20 percent (Figure E-3).

Table E-5: RHNA Units by % Population with Disabilities % Persons with Disabilities Lower Income
RHNA
Moderate Income
RHNA
Above Moderate
Income RHNA
Total
RHNA Units
< 10% 91.4% 90.1% 6.8% 79.2%
10% - 20% 8.6% 9.9% 93.2% 20.8%
20% - 30% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
30% - 40% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
> 40% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Total Units 1,228 587 295 2,110
.

8 The northernmost tract in the City (tract 169.01) extends past the Santee City limits. City staff reports that there is no Santee population within this tract.

Page E-10
Figure E-3: Distribution of Population with Disabilities Page E-11
Figure E-4: Mobile Home Park Distribution
Page E-12
Familial Status
Familial status refers to the presence of children under the age of 18, whether the child is biologically related to the head of household, and the marital status of the head of household. According to the AFFH data tool (Figure E-5), there is no concentration of population of adults living alone in the City. Adults living with their spouse are concentrated in the northernmost tract of the City (census tract 169.01, Figure E-5), where the population of adults living with their spouse is between 60 and 80 percent, compared to the 40 to 60 percent throughout the rest of the City. Considering that there is no population in Santee in this area (see footnote 1), there does not appear to be a concentration of adults in married households.

Families with children may face housing discrimination by landlords who fear that children will cause property damage. Some landlords may have cultural biases against children of the opposite sex sharing a bedroom. Differential treatments such as limiting the number of children in an apartment complex or confining children to a specific location are also fair housing concerns. Single parent households are also protected by fair housing law. The 2020 AI reported that 32.8 percent of Santee households were families with children. The City’s share of families with children is lower than the neighboring cities of El Cajon (40 percent) and Lemon Grove (39 percent), but higher than the City of San Diego (29 percent) and the county overall (33 percent). According to the HCD AFFH map in Figure 5, children in married households are most concentrated in the south and southeasternmost tracts of the city along the city border. The percent of children living in married households in these tract is over 80 percent. Only 13 percent of RHNA units were sited in census tracts with the highest concentration of children in married households in the City (Table E-6). The lower income RHNA sites are higher density sites and therefore, located in areas that are appropriate for apartments, condominiums, and townhomes. These types of housing are appropriate and more likely to be naturally affordable to small households with no or fewer children.

Female-headed households with children require special consideration and assistance because of their greater need for affordable housing and accessible day care, health care, and other supportive services.

According to the 2020 Regional AI, about 6.4 percent of Santee households were single-female-headed households with children in 2017. The proportion of single female-headed households with children is higher than the neighboring city of Poway (4.6 percent) and the County (6.0 percent) but lower than El Cajon (20.7 percent) and La Mesa (6.5 percent). Children in single female-headed households are concentrated in the south center tracts of the City (census tracts 166.15 and 166.15, Figure E-6).

Between 20 to 40 percent of children living in these tracts are in single female-headed households.

Only one of the two census tracts with the high concentration of children in female-headed households has RHNA sites (Figure E-6). This census tract contains 63 percent of the RHNA units, and 66 percent of the lower income units. However, most of the moderate-income units (90 percent) were sited in this census tract as well (Table E-7).

Page E-13
Table E-6: RHNA Units by % Children in Married-Couple Households % Children in Married-Couple HH Lower Income
RHNA
Moderate Income
RHNA
Above Moderate
Income RHNA
Total
RHNA Units
< 20% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
20% - 40% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
40% - 60% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
60% - 80% 83.3% 90.1% 94.9% 86.8%
> 80% 16.7% 9.9% 5.1% 13.2%
Total Units 1,228 587 295 2,110
Table E-7: RHNA Distribution by % Children in Female-Headed Households (FHH) % Children in FHH Lower Income
RHNA
Moderate Income
RHNA
Above Moderate
Income RHNA
Total
RHNA Units
< 20% 33.6% 9.9% 100.0% 36.3%
20% - 40% 66.4% 90.1% 0.0% 63.7%
40% - 60% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
60% - 80% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
> 80% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Total Units 1,228 587 295 2,110
Page E-14
Figure E-5: Distribution of Adults Living Alone and Adults in Living with Spouse Page E-15
Figure E-6: Children in Married Households and Single Female-Headed Households Page E-16
Income Level
Identifying low or moderate income (LMI) geographies and individuals is important to overcome patterns of segregation. Figure E-7 shows the Lower and Moderate Income (LMI) areas in the County by Census block group. HUD defines a LMI area as a Census tract or block group where over 51 percent of the population is LMI (based on HUD income definition of up to 80 percent of the AMI).

LMI areas are concentrated in census tracts south of Santee and in the cities of El Cajon, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, National City, San Diego, and Imperial Beach. The City of Santee has a variety of population income distributions (Figure E-7). The southernmost census tract (closest to El Cajon) has the highest concentration of LMI population,. where 50 to 75 percent of households are LMI. The census tracts to the north of this tract range have less than 50 percent LMI households. The block groups in the center/north of the City have the lowest concentration of LMI households (less than 25 percent). According to the 2020 Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing (2020 Regional AI), Santee has the second highest percentage of population earning more than moderate incomes (62 percent) among its neighbors El Cajon (38 percent), La Mesa (50 percent), and Poway (69 percent).

About 86 percent of RHNA units are located in census tracts with the most common concentration of LMI households in the City (Table E-8). The census tract with the highest concentration of LMI households is located south of Mission Gorge Rd. (bounded by Fanita Dr. and Cuyamaca St.). Three percent of RHNA units are locate in this census tract, of which zero percent are lower income units.

Table E-8: RHNA Unit Distribution by % LMI Households in Census Tract % LMI HH Lower Income
RHNA
Moderate Income
RHNA
Above Moderate
Income RHNA
Total
RHNA Units
< 25% 8.1% 0.0% 46.8% 11.3%
25% - 50% 91.9% 93.0% 48.1% 86.1%
50% - 75% 0.0% 7.0% 5.1% 2.7%
75% - 100% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Total Units 1,228 587 295 2,110
Housing Choice Voucher
Trends related to housing choice vouchers (HCV) can show patterns of concentration and integration.

In Santee, HCV use is concentrated along the southern tracts of the City (Figure E-8). In Census tract 166.17, 16 percent of the renter-occupied units use HCVs, making it the most concentrated HCV area in the City. The westernmost and easternmost census tracts along the southern city limits also have a concentration of HCV use compared to the rest of the city. Census tract 166.17 and the westernmost census tract are also the location for the majority of the City’s mobile home parks (Figure E-4). Some LMI census tracts correlate with census tracts that have a high proportion of persons with disabilities, mobile home parks, and HCV use.

Page E-17
Figure E-7: Low and Moderate Income Household Distribution Page E-18
Figure E-8: Housing Choice Voucher Concentration
Page E-19

3. RACIALLY AND ETHNICALLY CONCENTRATED AREAS
Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP) In an effort to identify racially/ethnically-concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPs), HUD has identified census tracts with a majority non-White population (greater than 50 percent) and a poverty rate that exceeds 40 percent or is three times the average tract poverty rate for the metro/micro area, whichever threshold is lower. In San Diego County, there are R/ECAPs scattered in small sections of Escondido, El Cajon, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, National City, and Chula Vista (Figure E-9). Larger R/ECAP clusters can be seen in the central/southern portion of the City of San Diego. There are no R/ECAPs in Santee. Because of this, zero percent of RHNA units are located in R/ECAP sites. As shown in the 2021 TCAC/HCD maps (next section) and minority concentration analysis (see Patterns of Segregation and Minority Concentrations above), Santee is made up of moderate-high resource areas with a small minority population.

Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs)
While racially concentrated areas of poverty and segregation (RECAPs) have long been the focus of fair housing policies, racially concentrated areas of affluence (RCAAs) must also be analyzed to ensure housing is integrated, a key to fair housing choice. According to a policy paper published by HUD, RCAAs are defined as affluent, White communities. According to HUD's policy paper, Whites are the most racially segregated group in the United States and in the same way neighborhood disadvantage is associated with concentrated poverty and high concentrations of people of color, conversely, distinct advantages are associated with residence in affluent, White communities.

While HCD has created its own metric for RCAAs, at the time of this writing the map on the AFFH tool is not available. Thus, the definition of RCAAs used in this analysis is the definition used by the scholars at the University of Minnesota Humphrey School of Public Affairs cited in HCD’s memo:
“RCAAs are defined as census tracts where 1) 80 percent or more of the population is white, and 2) the median household income is $125,000 or greater (slightly more than double the national the median household income in 2016). As shown in Table E-9 none of the census tracts in Santee have more than 80 percent non-Hispanic White population. White population in Santee census tracts ranges from 66 to 78 percent and in all but one census tracts, non-Hispanic whites dominate the share of the tract by over 50 percent (Figure E-10). The median income in the northern census tracts is more than $125,000 (Figure E-10). Higher median incomes do not appear to be correlated with white concentration. Although the City of Santee is majority, White non-Hispanic, no RCAAs are located within the City. The City of Santee has historically developed as a middle-class bedroom community consisting primarily of single-family tract housing built after the Second World War in the 1950’s, 60’s and 70s. The majority White, non-Hispanic racial makeup of the City is likely a result of the predominance of single-family tract housing in the City and not due other factors such as redlining, which was a practice declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Shelley v. Kraemer in 1948 before most of the Santee housing stock was developed. The working class in San Diego County at the time most of the City’s housing stock was developed with primarily White, non-Hispanic. With the last two housing element cycles the City has been upzoning properties throughout the City that allow for greater residential densities and a greater diversity in housing types, including multifamily housing. The racial makeup of the City has also been diversifying with the White, non-Hispanic population declining from approximately 90% in 1980 to 64% in 2020. Over the last 15 years, as new multifamily products have come online, the City has witnessed increased diversity as these products are more affordable. The increase in multifamily housing in Santee has resulted in greater racial Page E-20
diversity because the multifamily product is relatively more affordable to all income groups. This Housing Element includes the upzoning of numerous properties throughout the City to encourage additional multifamily housing that is affordable to a more diverse population.

Table E-9: Percent White Population by Census Tract
Tract Percent White Population
166.05 74.4%
166.06 67.9%
166.07 72.3%
166.08 78.0%
166.09 72.7%
166.10 71.8%
166.12 72.7%
166.13 72.1%
166.14 69.3%
166.15 58.8%
166.16 66.2%
166.17 66.7%

95.04 62.4%
Page E-21
Figure E-9: Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs) Page E-22
Figure E-10: Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs) Page E-23

4. ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITIES
“Significant disparities in access to opportunity” are defined by the AFFH Final Rule as “substantial and measurable differences in access to educational, transportation, economic, and other opportunities in a community based on protected class related to housing.” TCAC Opportunity Maps
The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) convened the California Fair Housing Task force to “provide research, evidence-based policy recommendations, and other strategic recommendations to HCD and other related state agencies/ departments to further the fair housing goals (as defined by HCD).” The Task Force has created Opportunity Maps to identify resources levels across the state “to accompany new policies aimed at increasing access to high opportunity areas for families with children in housing financed with 9 percent Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTCs)”. These opportunity maps are made from composite scores of three different domains made up of a set of indicators. Table E-10 shows the full list of indicators. The opportunity maps include a measure or “filter” to identify areas with poverty and racial segregation. To identify these areas, census tracts were first filtered by poverty and then by a measure of racial segregation. The criteria for these filters were:
• Poverty: Tracts with at least 30 percent of population under federal poverty line • Racial Segregation: Tracts with location quotient higher than 1.25 for Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, or all people of color in comparison to the County Table E-10: Domains and List of Indicators for Opportunity Maps Domain Indicator
Economic
Poverty
Adult education
Employment
Job proximity
Median home value
Environmental CalEnviroScreen 3.0 pollution Indicators and values Education
Math proficiency
Reading proficiency
High School graduation rates
Student poverty rates
Source: California Fair Housing Task Force, Methodology for the 2021 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps, December 2020 According to the 2021 TCAC/HCD opportunity area map, there are no census tracts or areas of high racial segregation and poverty in Santee (Figure E-11). The regional map in Figure E-12 identify most areas with high segregation and poverty in the Southern County, specifically in Chula Vista, National City, and the City of San Diego. The closest tracts to Santee with high segregation and poverty are found in El Cajon.

According to the HCD/TCAC opportunity map (Figure E-11), Santee is made up of moderate and high resource census tracts (Table E-11). Categorization is based on percentile rankings for census tracts within the San Diego Region. Higher composite scores mean higher resources. Locally, eastern census tracts scored lower (as moderate), indicating lower resources than other tracts within the City Page E-24
(Figure E-11). High and highest resource tracts were concentrated on the western side of the City.

Regionally, a higher concentration of lower resource areas are located surrounding the City of Santee in El Cajon and Lakeside and in a larger scale in the Southern County, along the U.S-Mexico border and along the coast (in the cities of Imperial Beach, Chula Vista, and National City). As shown in Table E-11, there does not appear to be a correlation between minority concentration and resource categories.

Table E-11: Minority Concentration and 2021 TCAC/HCD Resource Category Tract Minority
Concentration Resource Category
166.08 22.0% Moderate Resource
166.05 25.6% High Resource
166.12 27.3% High Resource
166.09 27.3% High Resource
166.07 27.7% Moderate Resource
166.13 27.9% High Resource
166.1 28.2% High Resource
166.14 30.7% High Resource
166.06 32.1% High Resource
166.17 33.3% Moderate Resource
166.16 33.8% Moderate Resource

95.04 37.6% Highest Resource
166.15 41.2% High Resource
Source: 2014-2018 American Community Survey, 2021 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps Statewide Summary Table.

Locally, eastern and southeastern census tracts scored lower (as moderate), indicating lower resources than other tracts within the City (Figure E-11). Figure E-11 also shows the distribution of RHNA sites across the TCAC opportunity areas. About 86 percent of all RHNA units are located in high resource areas (Table E-12). Of the 1,228 lower income RHNA units, 91 percent are in highest resource tracts.

Table E-12: RHNA Units by TCAC Opportunity Areas
Opportunity Area Lower Income
RHNA
Moderate
Income
RHNA
Above
Moderate
Income RHNA
Total
RHNA
Units
Moderate Resource (Rapidly Changing) 0.0% 2.9% 0.0% 0.8% Moderate Resource 8.6% 7.0% 46.4% 13.4%
High Resource 91.4% 90.1% 53.6% 85.8%
Grand Total 1,228 587 295 2,110
Page E-25
Figure E-11: TCAC Opportunity Areas in Santee
Page E-26
Figure E-12: TCAC Opportunity Areas in the Southern County Region Page E-27
Opportunity Indicators
While the Federal Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Rule has been repealed, the data and mapping developed by HUD for the purpose of preparing the Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) can still be useful in informing communities about segregation in their jurisdiction and region, as well as disparities in access to opportunity. This section presents the HUD-developed index scores based on nationally available data sources to assess Santee residents’ access to key opportunity assets in comparison to the County. Table E-13 provides index scores or values (the values range from 0 to 100) for the following opportunity indicator indices:
• Low Poverty Index: The low poverty index captures poverty in a given neighborhood. The poverty rate is determined at the census tract level. The higher the score, the less exposure to poverty in a neighborhood.
• School Proficiency Index: The school proficiency index uses school-level data on the performance of 4th grade students on state exams to describe which neighborhoods have high-performing elementary schools nearby and which are near lower performing elementary schools. The higher the score, the higher the school system quality is in a neighborhood. • Labor Market Engagement Index: The labor market engagement index provides a summary description of the relative intensity of labor market engagement and human capital in a neighborhood. This is based upon the level of employment, labor force participation, and educational attainment in a census tract. The higher the score, the higher the labor force participation and human capital in a neighborhood.
• Transit Trips Index: This index is based on estimates of transit trips taken by a family that meets the following description: a 3-person single-parent family with income at 50 percent of the median income for renters for the region (i.e. the Core-Based Statistical Area (CBSA)). The higher the transit trips index, the more likely residents in that neighborhood utilize public transit. • Low Transportation Cost Index: This index is based on estimates of transportation costs for a family that meets the following description: a 3-person single-parent family with income at 50 percent of the median income for renters for the region/CBSA. The higher the index, the lower the cost of transportation in that neighborhood.
• Jobs Proximity Index: The jobs proximity index quantifies the accessibility of a given residential neighborhood as a function of its distance to all job locations within a region/CBSA, with larger employment centers weighted more heavily. The higher the index value, the better the access to employment opportunities for residents in a neighborhood. • Environmental Health Index: The environmental health index summarizes potential exposure to harmful toxins at a neighborhood level. The higher the index value, the less exposure to toxins harmful to human health. Therefore, the higher the value, the better the environmental quality of a neighborhood, where a neighborhood is a census block-group.

In San Diego County, Native American, Black, and Hispanic residents were more likely (compared to other racial/ethnic groups) to be impacted by poverty, limited access to proficient schools, and lower labor participation rate. Black residents were most likely to reside in areas with the lowest Page E-28
environmental quality levels, the lowest accessibility to employment centers, and the lowest cost of transportation. Black and Asian residents scored highest as most likely to utilize public transportation.

Within the City of Santee, there are no significant discrepancies in access to resources and opportunities among different race groups or among persons living above or below poverty. For example, for the entire population, the low poverty index ranges from 69 to 70 among different races.

For the population living below the federal poverty line, the low poverty index ranged from 66 in White, Non-Hispanics to 75 in the Asian/Pacific Islander population. The opportunity indicators did show disproportionately lower scores for Blacks and Native Americans in terms of access to employment. However, these two groups represent very small percentages of the City’s population.

Page E-29
Table E-13: Opportunity Indicators by Race/Ethnicity
City of Santee
Low
Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor
Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 69.83 78.14 49.29 84.84 64.16 44.37 47.24 Black, Non-Hispanic 68.69 79.70 40.44 83.79 66.05 56.11 45.21 Hispanic 69.41 78.36 47.70 84.77 64.75 48.32 46.15
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 69.90 79.62 47.36 84.22 64.42 49.78 46.20 Native American, Non-Hispanic 70.35 77.07 48.44 84.06 63.91 43.52 47.93 Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 65.71 77.70 48.15 84.63 64.63 48.01 44.73 Black, Non-Hispanic 69.79 77.16 56.49 85.38 61.96 63.50 49.63 Hispanic 69.44 79.81 49.54 83.95 64.00 48.99 46.61
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 75.16 74.24 55.79 86.75 66.23 50.10 46.26 Native American, Non-Hispanic 66.24 83.59 61.38 81.16 59.21 30.44 53.33 San Diego County
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 61.91 64.61 48.93 70.89 55.42 52.89 54.81 Black, Non-Hispanic 51.74 53.72 35.21 78.11 63.07 49.79 43.66 Hispanic 51.71 53.49 37.87 75.68 60.19 51.28 47.15
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 65.75 64.96 55.06 78.19 59.63 51.68 47.98 Native American, Non-Hispanic 50.41 48.00 31.93 54.60 47.68 56.76 67.85 Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 51.94 58.45 41.93 72.79 58.18 52.36 51.65 Black, Non-Hispanic 42.16 42.08 33.28 86.15 69.30 48.05 36.75 Hispanic 39.99 46.71 32.57 79.68 65.00 48.70 42.87
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 60.01 60.14 48.58 75.21 59.26 51.72 50.68 Native American, Non-Hispanic 45.10 37.12 34.42 64.82 54.52 51.65 57.91 Note: American Community Survey Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. See page 45 for index score meanings. Table is comparing the total Santee and County population, by race/ethnicity, to the Santee and County population living below the federal poverty line, also by race/ethnicity.

Source: AFFHT Data Table 12; Note 1: Data Sources: Decennial Census; ACS; Great Schools; Common Core of Data; SABINS; LAI; LEHD; NATA Page E-30
Education
School proficiency scores are indicators of school system quality. In Santee, school proficiency scores ranged from 77 to 80 across all races and from 73 to 84 across all races living below the federal poverty line. No significant differences in scores indicate a similar access to schools. In addition, all races and all races living below the poverty level had access to higher quality schools in Santee compared to the County overall, where school proficiency scores ranged from 37 to 64. The higher the score, the higher the quality of schools.

Greatschools.org is a non-profit organization that rates schools across the States. The Great Schools Summary Rating calculation is based on four ratings: the Student Progress Rating or Academic Progress Rating, College Readiness Rating, Equity Rating, and Test Score Rating. Ratings at the lower end of the scale (1-4) signal that the school is “below average”, 5-6 indicate “average”, and 7-10 are “above average.”9 Figure E-13 shows that Santee elementary, middle, and high schools mostly rate as average, with the exception of Hill Creek Elementary, which scored a 4 (below average). Similar access to educational opportunities across the City is shown in TCAC’s Education Score10 map (Figure E-14). All census tracts, except for the northernmost tract, scored between 0.5 to 0.75, where one is the most positive education outcome.

Figure E-13: GreatSchools Ratings

9 For more information of GreatSchools ratings, visit: https://www.greatschools.org/gk/ratings/ 10 Education scores are a composite of different indicators including: math proficiency, reading proficiency, high school graduation rates, student poverty rates
Page E-31
Figure E-14: TCAC Education Score Map
Transportation
HUD’s opportunity indicators have two categories to describe transportation- transit index and low transportation cost. Transit index scores did not differ between races or between the total population and the population living in poverty. Transit index scores fell in the 80s range across all races. Low transportation cost scores fell in the 60s across all races and did not differ for the population living below the poverty line. Considering that a higher transit index score indicates a higher likelihood to use public transit and a higher “low transportation cost” indicates a lower cost of transportation, Santee has better access to transit compared to the County. In the County, transit scores were lower (residents less likely to use transit) and low transportation costs were lower (transit is more costly).

All Transit explores metrics that reveal the social and economic impact of transit, specifically looking at connectivity, access to jobs, and frequency of service. According to the most recent data posted (2019), Santee has an AllTransit Performance Score of 3.7. This is a relatively low score but the map in Figure E-15 shows that areas near the City’s downtown have higher scores (and better access).

Figure E-16 shows that the number of transit stops within ½ mile of households does is greatest in the downtown but does not differ across the other areas. The northernmost, easternmost, and westernmost areas of the City do not have any access.

Page E-32
Figure E-15: AllTransit Performance Score
Figure E-16: Number of Transit Stops within ½ Mile of Households Economic Development
HUD’s opportunity indicators provide scores for labor market and jobs proximity. The labor market score is based the level of employment, labor force participation, and educational attainment in a census tract. Santee had higher labor market index scores than the County overall, indicating a higher labor force participation and human capital in a neighborhood. The jobs proximity score quantifies the accessibility of a neighborhood to jobs in the region. Santee scored lower than the County overall.

This may be due to the location of the City outside the central areas of the County, where the higher job proximity scores are located (Figure E-17). Within the City, higher job proximity scores are located near its boundaries with El Cajon, Poway, and Scripps Ranch.

Page E-33
Figure E-17: Jobs Proximity Index
Page E-34
TCAC Economic Scores are based on a composite of the following area characteristics: poverty, adult education, employment, job proximity, median home value. Within the County, lower economic scores are concentrated along the southern coast in the City of San Diego, Imperial Beach, and National City and in the eastern areas in El Cajon. None of the tracts in Santee scored among the lowest scores (less than 0.25). Within the City, southernmost tracts along the City’s downtown and in the eastern tracts scored lower (0.25-0.50).

Figure E-18: TCAC Economic Score
Environment
The TCAC Environmental Score is based on CalEnviroscreen 3.0 scores. The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) compiles these scores to help identify California communities disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution. In addition to environmental factors (pollutant exposure, groundwater threats, toxic sites, and hazardous materials exposure) and sensitive receptors (seniors, children, persons with asthma, and low birth weight infants), CalEnviroScreen also takes into consideration socioeconomic factors. These factors include educational attainment, linguistic isolation, poverty, and unemployment. Similar to economic scores, the TCAC’s environmental scores were lowest along the southern coast of the County and in the east county cities of El Cajon and La Mesa, indicating low environmental outcomes. Within the City, the lowest environmental scores were concentrated in two tracts South of Mission Gorge Avenue near the City’s downtown and a census tract in the Carlton Oaks neighborhood next to the downtown.

Page E-35
Figure E-19: TCAC- Environmental Score
The February 2021 update to the CalEnviroScreen (CalEnviroScreen 4.0) shows even more differentiation between the two southernmost census tracts (Figure E-20). One census tract south of Mission Gorge Road has the highest (worst) score. Five percent of RHNA units are located in this tract. The units in this tract are also all lower income units, accounting for nine percent of the RHNA lower income units.

Table E-14: RHNA Units by CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
CalEnviroScreen Score Lower Income
RHNA
Moderate Income
RHNA
Above Moderate
Income RHNA
Total
RHNA Units
1 - 10% (Lowest Score) 0.0% 0.0% 42.0% 5.9%
11 - 20% 91.4% 90.1% 52.9% 85.7%
21 - 30% 0.0% 2.9% 0.0% 0.8%
31 - 40% 0.0% 7.0% 5.1% 2.7%
41 - 50% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
51 - 60% 8.6% 0.0% 0.0% 5.0%
61 - 70% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
71 - 80% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
81 - 90% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
91 - 100% (Highest Score) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Total Units 1,228 587 295 2,110
Page E-36
Figure E-20: RHNA Unit Distribution by CalEnviroscreen 4.0 Score Page E-37

5. DISPROPORTIONATE HOUSING NEEDS
The AFFH Rule Guidebook defines disproportionate housing needs as a condition in which there are significant disparities in the proportion of members of a protected class experiencing a category of housing needs when compared to the proportion of a member of any other relevant groups or the total population experiencing the category of housing need in the applicable geographic area (24 C.F.R. § 5.152). The analysis is completed by assessing cost burden, severe cost burden, overcrowding, and substandard housing.

Cost Burden
The Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) developed by the Census for HUD provides detailed information on housing needs by income level for different types of households in Santee. Housing problems considered by CHAS include:
• Housing cost burden, including utilities, exceeding 30 percent of gross income; • Severe housing cost burden, including utilities, exceeding 50 percent of gross income; • Overcrowded conditions (housing units with more than one person per room); and • Units with physical defects (lacking complete kitchen or bathroom) Santee households experience housing problems (38 percent) and cost burdens (36 percent) at lower rates than the County overall (45 percent and 41 percent) (Table E-15). As shown in Table E-15, households of all minority races (Black, Asian, American Indian, Pacific Islander, and Hispanic) experience housing problems at a higher rate than White (37 percent) households and all households in the City (38 percent). Renter-households, independent of race, experience housing problems at higher rates than owner-occupied households, except for Pacific Islander and American Indian Households. Renters are also cost burdened at higher rates than owners, independent of race, except for Hispanic households, whose cost burden is similar for both owner and rented households.

Elderly and large households may also be subject to disproportionate housing problems. Table E-16 shows that renter-elderly households experience housing problems and cost burden at greater rates (almost double) than all renter-households and all households in the City. About two thirds of elderly renter-households experience any housing problem and cost burdens. The similar rates of elderly renter households experiencing cost burden and housing problems 64 and 68 percent, suggest cost is an issue for all households with any problem.

Similarly, a greater percent of large households also experience housing problems and cost burdens compared to all households of the same tenure and all households in the City. However, whereas renter elderly households experience the highest rates of cost burden and housing problems, large households are most affected among owner-households. This suggests a need for large owner-housing units, and this trend is similar to that in the County, where a higher proportion renter elderly and owner large households experience housing problems, compared to all renters and all households.

Page E-38
Table E-15: Housing Problems by Race, Santee vs. San Diego County Santee White Black Asian Am.

Ind. Pac Isl. Hispanic Other All
With Housing Problem
Owner-Occupied 31.3% 18.7% 32.3% 90.0% 100.0% 38.4% 23.7% 32.2% Renter-Occupied 53.2% 61.0% 71.9% 40.0% 42.5% 42.3% 35.9% 51.2% All Households 37.1% 52.7% 45.1% 73.3% 48.9% 40.0% 30.3% 38.1% With Cost Burden >30%
Owner-Occupied 30.2% 18.7% 29.3% 90.0% 100.0% 33.6% 22.0% 30.5% Renter-Occupied 52.7% 61.3% 63.8% 40.0% 43.8% 30.7% 29.0% 48.1% All Households 36.1% 53.0% 40.4% 73.3% 50.0% 32.4% 25.8% 36.0% San Diego County White Black Asian Am.

Ind. Pac Isl. Hispanic Other All
With Housing Problem
Owner-Occupied 31.2% 39.7% 33.6% 25.2% 31.5% 43.0% 35.6% 33.9% Renter-Occupied 50.9% 62.3% 51.1% 52.0% 60.9% 67.1% 55.2% 57.1% All Households 38.9% 55.4% 41.0% 38.0% 51.6% 57.7% 46.9% 44.8% With Cost Burden >30%
Owner-Occupied 30.4% 37.5% 30.6% 22.2% 0.0% 36.3% 34.1% 31.7% Renter-Occupied 48.5% 58.9% 43.7% 46.1% 54.2% 58.2% 51.4% 52.0% All Households 37.5% 52.3% 36.2% 33.6% 46.9% 49.7% 44.1% 41.2% Note: Data presented in this table are based on special tabulations from sample Census data. The number of households in each category usually deviates slightly from the 100% total due to the need to extrapolate sample data out to total households.

Interpretations of these data should focus on the proportion of households in need of assistance rather than on precise numbers.

Source: HUD CHAS, (2013-2017).

Table E-16: Housing Problems, Elderly and Large Households, Santee vs. San Diego County
Santee
Renter-Occupied Owner-Occupied
All HHs
Elderly Large
HH
All
Renter Elderly Large HH
All
Owners
Any Housing Problem 68.0% 58.7% 35.5% 25.9% 40.9% 32.0% 38.1% Cost Burden > 30% 64.0% 44.6% 35.0% 24.6% 33.2% 30.6% 36.0% San Diego County
Any Housing Problem 62.1% 79.6% 57.1% 33.8% 46.3% 33.9% 44.8% Cost Burden > 30% 59.8% 56.0% 52.0% 33.5% 31.3% 31.7% 41.3% Note: Data presented in this table are based on special tabulations from sample Census data. The number of households in each category usually deviates slightly from the 100% total due to the need to extrapolate sample data out to total households.

Interpretations of these data should focus on the proportion of households in need of assistance rather than on precise numbers.

Source: HUD CHAS, (2013-2017).

Page E-39
In addition to renter households experiencing cost burdens at higher rates than owner households, renter cost-burden rates have increased between 2014 and 2019 from 44 percent to 48 percent. Figure E-21 shows the concentration of renter cost-burdened households changing from the southernmost census tract south of Mission Gorge in the downtown to the census tracts north of San Vicente Freeway in the eastern side of the City. By contrast, the percent of cost-burdened owner households decreased during the same time period from 36 percent to 31 percent. These cost-burdened households are concentrated in the census tracts south of Mission Gorge Road at the southern end of the City.

All lower and moderate income RHNA units are in tracts where 40 to 60 percent of renters overpay for housing. Of above moderate income RHNA units, 42 percent are in tracts where only 20 to 40 percent of renters are cost burdened, but 41.4 percent are in tracts where more than 60 percent of renters are cost burdened. Most units included in the City’s sites inventory are in tracts where fewer than 40 percent of owners are cost burdened, including 84 percent of lower income units, 93 percent of moderate income units, and 88 percent of above moderate income units.

Table E-17: RHNA Unit Distribution by % Cost Burdened Renters % Cost Burdened Renters Lower Income
RHNA
Moderate Income
RHNA
Above Moderate
Income RHNA
Total
RHNA Units
20-40% 0.0% 0.0% 42.0% 5.9%
40-60% 100.0% 100.0% 16.6% 88.3%
60-80% 0.0% 0.0% 41.4% 5.8%
Total 1,228 587 295 2,110
Table E-18: RHNA Unit Distribution by % Cost Burdened Renters % Cost Burdened Renters Lower Income
RHNA
Moderate Income
RHNA
Above Moderate
Income RHNA
Total
RHNA Units
20-40% 84.0% 93.0% 88.1% 87.1%
40-60% 16.0% 7.0% 11.9% 12.9%
Total 1,228 587 295 2,110
Page E-40
Figure E-21: Sites Inventory and Change in Cost-Burdened Renter Households, 2014 to 2019 Page E-41
Page E-42
Figure E-22: Sites Inventory and Cost-Burdened Owner Households, 2019 Page E-43
Overcrowding
Overcrowding is defined as housing units with more than one person per room (including dining and living rooms but excluding bathrooms and kitchen). According to the 2018 five-year ACS estimates, a lower percentage of households in Santee (3.4 percent) are living in overcrowded conditions than the County (6.7 percent). Figure E-23 shows that Santee’s overcrowding rates are also lower than the statewide average of 8.2 percent. Within the City, overcrowded households are not concentrated within any particular census tract.

Page E-44
Figure E-23: Overcrowded Households
Page E-45
Substandard Conditions
Housing that is 30 years or older is assumed to require some rehabilitation. Such features as electrical capacity, kitchen features, and roofs, usually need updating if no prior replacement work has occurred.

Santee’s housing stock is older than the County’s; 80 percent of the City’s housing stock was constructed prior to 1990, while only 72 percent of the County’s housing stock is more than 30 years old (Table 8 in Community Profile). Despite the old housing stock, the City estimates that only about

0.05 percent of homes (10 units) in Santee are in substandard condition.

Nearly 88 percent of the City’s existing housing stock will exceed 30 years of age by the end of this Housing Element planning period (built before 2000). As shown in Figure E-24, the median age of housing across most of the city is between 1966 and 1978. Housing in the central census tracts and in the East has a median age of 1979 to 1990.

Figure E-24: Median Year Housing Built
Displacement Risk
UCLA’s displacement project defines residential displacement as “the process by which a household is forced to move from its residence - or is prevented from moving into a neighborhood that was previously accessible to them because of conditions beyond their control.” As part of this project, the UCLA team has identified populations vulnerable to displacement (named “sensitive communities”) in the event of increased redevelopment and drastic shifts in housing cost. They defined vulnerability based on the share of low income residents per tract and other criteria including: share of renters is above 40 percent, share of people of color is more than 50 percent, share of low income households severely rent burdened, and proximity to displacement pressures. Displacement pressures were defined based on median rent increases and rent gaps. Using this methodology, sensitive communities Page E-46
are concentrated along the southern coast the City of San Diego, National City, Chula Vista and Imperial Beach and in Lemon Grove, La Mesa, and El Cajon in inland areas. Two census tracts in the southern end of Santee (south of Mission Gorge) are considered vulnerable. One of these tracts is mostly outside of Santee city limits and is shared with El Cajon (Tract 162.02).

Figure E-25: Sensitive Communities Map

6. OTHER RELEVANT FACTORS
Historical Pattern of Investment
Prior to 2012, redevelopment tax increment was the primary funding source for community improvements and affordable housing development. Pursuant to the redevelopment law, a minimum of 20 percent of the tax increment had to be set aside for affordable housing and the remaining 80 percent was be used to eliminate blighting conditions, including economic blights.

As such, most communities, including Santee, focused much of its tax increment financing (80 percent) on projects and improvements to foster economic development. Use of tax increment funds on improvements to primarily residential neighborhoods was limited.

With the elimination of redevelopment in California, CDBG funds became the only consistent source of funding for community development and neighborhood improvements, further compromising the City’s financial capacity. CDBG funds can be spent to directly benefit LMI persons or LMI areas. Furthermore, CDBG program’s LMI area benefit must focus on primarily Page E-47
residential neighborhoods. The City will continue to focus CDBG funds on neighborhood improvements activities. To supplement CDBG funds, the City is pursuing a Section 108 loan to implement the Active Santee and the ADA Transition plans.

Lending Patterns
A key aspect of fair housing choice is equal access to credit for the purchase or improvement of a home, particularly in light of the recent lending/credit crisis. In the past, credit market distortions and other activities such as “redlining” were prevalent and prevented some groups from having equal access to credit. The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) in 1977 and the subsequent Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) were designed to improve access to credit for all members of the community and hold the lender industry responsible for community lending. Under HMDA, lenders are required to disclose information on the disposition of home loan applications and on the race or national origin, gender, and annual income of loan applicants. Table E-19 examines detailed 2017 HMDA data for Santee and the County.

Hispanics were under-represented, making up only 11 percent of the City’s applicant pool but 18 percent of the City’s population. All minority races except Asians and Native Americans were also denied at higher rates than White applicants in the City. The denial rates for most minority races were also greater than the City’s overall denial rate of 14 percent. Similar trends were seen in the CountyHispanics were also greatly underrepresented in the applicant pool and denial rates were greater for minority applicants than White applicants.

Table E-19: Loan Applications and Denial by Race
Santee San Diego County
% Applicant
Pool
%
Population Denials % Applicant Pool
%
Population Denials
White 66.2% 69.1% 12.7% 51.5% 46.2% 13.3%
Black 1.6% 1.9% 21.2% 3.1% 4.7% 19.9%
Hispanic 10.8% 18.1% 17.2% 16.4% 33.4% 17.5%
Asian 4.2% 5.2% 13.9% 9.7% 11.5% 14.8%
Native American 0.3% 0.5% 0.0% 0.3% 0.4% 20.4%
Hawaiian 0.8% 0.3% 18.8% 1.1% 0.4% 16.2%
Other 16.1% 4.9% 18.6% 17.8% 3.5% 16.0%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 14.0% 100.0% 100.0% 14.9%
Source: www.lendingpatterns.com, 2020. 2013-2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates.

Mobile Homes
Mobile homes are a significant portion of Santee’s housing, making up 11 percent its housing stock.

According to the 2020 Regional AI, this is the highest share of mobile units in the County. For the County overall, only 3.8 percent of housing units are mobile homes. Mobile homes also tend to be occupied by older residents with fixed incomes. In an effort to mitigate an observed failure in the market for mobile home rental spaces in which owners of relatively immobile coaches were found to be at a disadvantage in negotiating reasonable space rental terms, Santee adopted the Manufactured Home Fair Practices Ordinance in 1993. The ordinance limits increases in month-to-month space Page E-48
rents according to a formula tied to the consumer price index for San Diego County. The ordinance does not seek to hold space rents to any standard of “affordability”. An annual adjustment in space rents is intended to allow space rents to rise in a controlled manner over time to provide a just and reasonable return on investment to park owners. The Santee Manufactured Home Fair Practices Ordinance regulates increases in space rent charged to owners of mobile homes in Santee whose rental agreements do not exceed 12 months in length.

Safety Element and Environmental Justice
The City of Santee Department of Development Services began updating the Safety Element of the General Plan in 2021. The Safety Element will comply with new legislation requiring the general plan to address climate change adaptation and environmental justice policies for disadvantaged communities. The Environmental Justice (EJ) Element will determine how and where to prioritize environmental justice strategies, policies and programs to promote a more equitable community.

The first step in assessing conditions in support of the EJ Element was to identify disadvantaged communities. “Disadvantaged communities” (DACs) are defined as low-income areas that are disproportionately affected by environmental pollution and other hazards that can lead to negative health effects, exposure, or environmental degradation (California Government Code, Section 65302[h][4][A]). According to the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), disadvantaged communities are those disproportionally burdened by multiple sources of pollution and with population characteristics that make them more sensitive to pollution (CalEPA 2017). As a result, they are more likely to suffer from a lower quality of life and worsened health outcomes compared to areas that are more affluent. To identify disadvantaged communities, the City followed the OPR’s recommended screening method and identified a greater portion of the southwestern areas of the City as being within a disadvantaged community (Figure E-26). A summary of the existing conditions analysis of these disadvantaged communities with respect to each EJ Element topic is found in Table E-20.

Table E-20: Environmental Justice Element Existing Condition Findings for Disadvantaged Communities
Topic Finding
Pollution Exposure
Disadvantaged communities experience greater exposure to air pollutants due to their proximity to high-traffic corridors and industrial activity. The pollution source that residents are most concerned about is the prevalence of trash and debris throughout the City, with many specifically pointing to homeless encampments along the river as a source of the pollution.

Access to Public Facilities and Services
Many residences in disadvantaged communities are not within walking distance to their nearest school. However, disadvantaged communities are generally within walking distance of daycare centers and transit, which can provide residents with opportunities to access other community services without using their personal vehicle.

Access to Healthy Food
Disadvantaged communities have slightly less access to healthy food outlets compared to other areas in the City and the County.

Disadvantaged communities are not served by existing food distribution programs.

Access to Physical Activity and Recreation
Disadvantaged communities in the southeast portion of the City are considered relatively bikeable compared to other areas of the City; however, disadvantaged communities lack access to sidewalks that result Page E-49
in a higher number of transportation related collisions in disadvantaged communities.

Access to Safe, Sanitary, and Affordable
Homes
Disadvantaged communities are more likely to live in older (and likely lower-quality) homes and spend a greater percentage of their income on housing compared to other areas on the City. High housing costs impact disadvantaged communities more severely, as they often include lowincome residents. Survey respondents were much more concerned with housing affordability than the safety and quality of homes.

Page E-50
Figure E-26: Environmental Justice Element Disadvantaged Communities Page E-51
Active Transportation Plan
The Active Santee Plan (ASP) is the City of Santee’s Active Transportation Plan and was adopted in January 2021. Three critical overall issues were identified for consideration during plan preparation:
1) the community desires a comprehensive bikeway and walkway system that provides a network of facilities throughout the City, 2) the community considers gap closure as a top priority for the plan, and 3) as the community grows, the bikeway and walkway system should be extended and integrate new developments.

Based on the gap analysis and prioritization of projects, the ASP proposed a bicycle network that includes approximately 16 miles of new bikeway facilities throughout the City, in addition to the 50 miles already in place. One key aspect of this Plan is the completion of San Diego River Trail, which will provide an east-west corridor through the center of the City and add a Santee link into the regional bikeway system, connecting Lakeside and San Diego. The 2021 Active Santee Plan also developed the first Santee comprehensive pedestrian master plan. The proposed pedestrian network includes approximately 24 miles (126,000 feet) of new sidewalks throughout the City, in addition to the 201 miles already in place. The proposed facilities also include 124 new pedestrian ramps and 31 retrofitted ramps to be ADA compliant. The main purpose of the facilities is to fill the gaps in the existing system to provide a complete pedestrian network throughout the city. Figure E-27 shows that the majority of these priority upgrades are located in the southern census tracts of the City.

Many of the proposed improvements identified in the Active Santee Plan are also included in the City’s adopted Fiscal Year 2020-2024 Capital Improvement Program, such as the Safe Routes to Schools Program, and the Citywide Sidewalk Program. The Active Santee Plan provides cost estimates which may be applied to updates to the Capital Improvement Program, and, as a requirement for grant applications, allows potential state and federal grant sources to be applied.

ADA Transition Plan
The development of an ADA Transition Plan is a requirement of the federal regulations implementing the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which require that all organizations receiving federal funds make their programs available without discrimination to persons with disabilities. The Transition Plan (also known as a Program Access Plan) identifies physical obstacles that limit the accessibility of facilities to individuals with disabilities, describes the prescribed methods to make the facilities accessible, provides a schedule for making the access modifications, and identifies the public officials responsible for implementation of the Transition Plan. The City plans to update its Transition Plan within the Sixth Cycle Planning period. The plan will identify deficiencies in the City and will use CDGB and General City funds to repave streets and install wheelchair accessible curves.

Page E-52
Figure E-27: Active Santee Project Prioritization Areas Page E-53
Governmental Constraints for Special Needs Housing
Santee’s special needs populations is comparable to the County’s. Senior-headed households and persons with disabilities make up the largest special needs populations in the City (Table E-21). The 2020 Regional AI found governmental constraints that hinder housing choice for special needs groups, particularly non-compliance with state law related to accessory dwelling units, Low Barrier Navigation Centers (LBNC), emergency shelter capacity and parking standards, and transitional and supportive housing, and affordable housing streamlined approval. Details of the constraints are found in the Governmental Constraints of the Housing Element.

Table E-21: Special Needs Groups
Special Needs Group
Santee San Diego County
# % # %
Senior-Headed Households (65+) 4,826 24.6% 249,767 22.3% Single-Parent Households 1,634 8.3% 124,701 11.1%
Female-Headed Households with Children 1,072 5.5% 66,423 5.9% Large Households 1,843 9.4% 132,588 11.8%
Persons with Disabilities 5,964 10.8% 314,897 9.8%
Agricultural Workers1 13 0.0% 13,471 0.9%
Students2 4,019 7.0% 296,600 9.0%
Homeless 25 0.0% 7,619 0.2%

1. Category includes civilians employed in the "agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining" industry as reported in the ACS.

2. Population enrolled in college or graduate school
Source: Census, ACS, 2014-2018; and Regional Task Force on the Homeless, 2020.

7. SITES INVENTORY
As discussed previously, only a small portion of Santee, located in the southern area of the City north of Mission Gorge Road and bounded by Cuyamaca Street and N. Magnolia Avenue, has non-White populations exceeding 40 percent. This area also has slightly higher concentrations of children living in single-parent female-headed households. A larger proportion of lower and moderate income RHNA units are located in this part of Santee compared to above moderate income units. However, despite the concentrations of special needs groups, this section of the City is considered high resource area with ample economic, education, and transportation opportunities and fair environmental conditions.

Compared to jurisdictions north and east of the City, Santee has more tracts with populations of persons with disabilities exceeding 10 percent. Approximately 50 percent of the City’s mobile home parks are in tracts where 10 to 20 percent of the population has a disability. Mobile home parks are often occupied by seniors on fixed incomes, who may also have a disability. Lower and moderate income units are not disproportionately located in tracts with larger populations of persons with disabilities; 91 percent of lower income units and 90 percent of moderate income units are in tracts where less than 10 percent of the population experiences a disability.

Page E-54
There is only one LMI area in the City where more than 50 percent of households are low or moderate income. The selected RHNA sites do not exacerbate household income segregation. There are no lower income units in block groups where more than 50 percent of households are LMI. Further, only 7 percent of moderate income units and 5 percent of above moderate income units are in an LMI area. Neighborhood improvement is the focused efforts in the LMI area.

As stated previously, a majority of lower and moderate income units are in high resource tracts with positive economic, education, environmental, and transportation outcomes. While the City does contain low resource tracts, none of the sites selected to meet the RHNA are in these areas.

There are two sensitive communities at risk of displacement in Santee, one of which is mostly within the neighboring City of El Cajon. There are no lower income RHNA units in this vulnerable community. Further, only 7 percent (41 units) of moderate income units are in this tract. The City’s RHNA strategy does not disproportionately locate LMI households in areas of high displacement risk.

Similarly, the City’s sites inventory does not include any lower or moderate income units in areas where more than 60 percent of renters overpay, and a majority of RHNA units are in tracts where fewer than 40 percent of owners overpay.

C. Fair Housing Issues, Contributing Factors, and
Meaningful Actions

1. FAIR HOUSING ISSUES
#1 Insufficient fair housing testing and limited outreach capacity While fair housing testing is part of the scope of work for the Fair Housing provider, only two tests were reported between 2015 and 2020 in the 2020 San Diego Regional Analysis of Impediments for Fair Housing. Additionally, the City has budgeted additional CDBG funds for more frequent testing from its fair housing provider. Fair housing provider reports to the City do not include fair housing testing reports, but will be requested during the Sixth Cycle Housing Element planning period Outreach capacity is limited due to the meeting times. Meetings are usually held during the day. While the fair housing provider is responsible for setting up the meetings and workshops, the City will work with the fair housing provider on a plan to evaluate and improve outreach capacity (in terms of attendance).

Contributing Factors
Lack of monitoring
Lack of a variety of media inputs
Lack of marketing community meetings
#2 Segregated living patterns with a concentration of special needs groups in the southern census tracts of the city
The analysis found that there is a concentration of special needs groups (persons with disabilities, low and moderate-income households, children in families or single female-headed households) in lower resource (moderate) areas. These census tracts were also identified as “disadvantaged communities” Page E-55
using the OPR’s screening methodology for the Environmental Justice Element. These tracts are near the downtown and allow for a variety of land uses but are dominated by shopping center uses, singlefamily residential, and mobile homes. These mobile homes tend to be occupied by senior residents.

Contributing Factors
Location and type of affordable housing- HCV use concentrated Land use - Mobile home park land use, usually occupied by senior residents Proximity to shopping centers and transit
#3 Displacement risk in areas with disproportionate housing needs with special needs populations
Census tracts with both renters and owners experiencing cost burdens at the highest rate are located in the southernmost census tracts of the City. These census tracts also have a high concentration of mobile homes and HCV use, and are known to have a high population of senior households. The Urban Placement project identified one of the two census tracts with these problems as a sensitive community, and thus at risk of displacement.

Contributing Factors
Land use - Mobile home park land use, usually occupied by senior residents Displacement risk due to economic pressures
Increasing rents
HCV use concentration

RESOLUTION NO.

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

WAIVING AN IMMATERIAL DEVIATION AND AWARDING THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE CITYWIDE CRACK SEALING PROGRAM 2022 (CIP 2022-07)

PROJECT AND DETERMINING THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT

FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL

QUALITY ACT
WHEREAS, the City Clerk, on the 21st day of April 2022, publicly opened and examined sealed bids for the Citywide Crack Sealing Program 2022 (CIP 2022-07) project (“Project”); and
WHEREAS, the lowest received bid was submitted by American Asphalt South, Inc. in the amount of $145,750.00; and
WHEREAS, upon review of the bids, the submitted bid bond by American Asphalt South, Inc. included a minor irregularity, but the validity of the bid bond has been verified with the surety and staff recommends that the bid irregularity be waived as a minor deviation; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Santee Municipal Code section 3.24.100 (E), staff has determined that the bid submitted by the lowest bidder, American Asphalt South, Inc., conforms in all material respects to the requirements set forth in the invitation for bids; and
WHEREAS, American Asphalt South, Inc. was found to be the lowest responsive and responsible bidder with a total bid amount of $145,750.00; and WHEREAS, staff recommends awarding the construction contract to American Asphalt South, Inc. in the amount of $145,750.00; and
WHEREAS, staff requests authorization for the City Manager, Director of Development Services or City Engineer to approve changes orders in a total amount not to exceed $36,437.00 for unforeseen change orders and additional work.

WHEREAS, the project is categorically exempt from environmental review by section 15301 (Class 1) of the Guidelines to the California Environmental Quality Act; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santee, California, as follows:

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

Section 2. The minor irregularity in the bid bond is waived as an immaterial deviation and the construction contract for the Citywide Crack Sealing Program 2022 (CIP 2022-07) is awarded to American Asphalt South, Inc. in the amount of $145,750.00 and the City Manager is authorized to execute the contract on behalf of the City.

RESOLUTION NO.

Section 3. The City Manager, Director of Development Services or City Engineer is authorized to approve change orders in an amount not to exceed $36,437.00 for unforeseen items and additional work.

Section 4. The project is categorically exempt from environmental review under State CEQA Guidelines section 15301 (Class 1, repair or minor alternation to existing facilities involving negligible or no expansion of use).

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

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

ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Santee, California, at a Regular meeting thereof held this 11th day of May, 2022, by the following roll call vote to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:
________________________________
JOHN W. MINTO, MAYOR
ATTEST:
______________________________________

ANNETTE ORTIZ, CMC, CITY CLERK
$233,000.00
$145,750.00
$164,890.00
$215,211.00
$100,000.00
$130,000.00
$160,000.00
$190,000.00
$220,000.00
$250,000.00
$280,000.00
Engineer's Estimate American Asphalt South, Inc. Carter Enterprises Group Roy Allen Slurry Seal CITYWIDE CRACK SEALING PROGRAM 2022
CIP 2022-07
ZONE AE ZONE BG ZONE FD/FE MISSION GORGE RD FANITA PKWY ZONE EC Project Map Citywide Crack Sealing Program 2022
CIP 2022-07 Project Streets NO SCALE
NORTH
City of Santee
Citywide Crack Sealing Program 2022, CIP 2022-07
Street Name From Street To Street
Allano Wy Carlton Oaks Dr End
Barbara Jean St Clifford Heights Rd End
Calico St Sevilla St End
Cambury Dr Mast Blvd North End
Carreta Dr El Nopal Second St
Cecilwood Rd Halberns Blvd End
Cleary St Second St Holborn St
Clifford Heights Rd Prospect Ave End
Dania Ct Clifford Heights Rd End
Delia Ln Second S End
Dortha Ct Prospect Ave End
Dragoye Dr Mast Blvd End
Dunwoodie Rd Inverness Rd End
E. Glendon Circle Josie Jo Ln W. Glendon Circle
Fanita Parkway Carlton Oaks Dr Mast Blvd
Halberns Blvd Mast Blvd Lake Canyon Dr
Graves Ave Prospect Ave Sevilla St
Holborn Ct Holborn St End
Holborn St Cleary St El Nopal
Inverness Rd Carlton Oaks Dr Carlton Oaks Dr
Inwood Dr Carlton Oaks Dr End
Josie Jo Ln El Nopal W. Glendon Circle
Lomker Ct Lomker Wy End
Lomker Wy Massot Ave End
Lutheran Ct Lutheran Wy End
Lutheran Wy Halberns Blvd Cambury Dr
Markwood Dr Halberns Blvd Cecilwood Rd
Massot Ave Carlton Oaks Dr Inverness Rd
Melanie Ct Delia Ln End
Mesa Heights Rd Mesa Rd Tyler St
Mesa Ridge Rd Mesa Heights Rd End
Mesa Terrace Rd Mesa Heights Rd End
Mesa View Rd Mesa Heights Rd End
Mission Gorge Rd Olive Ln Fanita Dr
Montura Ave Trigal Wy End
Montura Ct Montura Ave End
Nubbin Ct W. Glendon Circle End
Pine Valley Dr Carlton Oaks Dr End
Prospect Ct Prospect Ave End
Roe Dr Lutheran Wy End
Roecrest Dr Lutheran Wy End
Ryder Rd Mast Blvd Lutheran Wy
S. Slope Dr Prospect Ave End
Sayers Ct Holborn St End
Sevilla St Graves Ave Calico St
Tomel Ct Magnolia Ave End
Trigal Wy Carreta Dr End
Tuthill Wy Halberns Blvd Cecilwood Rd
Tyler St North End South End
Valor Pl Holborn St End
W. Glendon Circle Josie Jo Ln E. Glendon Circle
Wethersfield Rd Carlton Oaks Dr Inverness Rd

RESOLUTION NO.

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

AWARDING THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE CITYWIDE PAVEMENT REPAIR AND REHABILITATION PROGRAM 2022 (CIP 2022-01) PROJECT AND

DETERMINING THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
WHEREAS, the City Clerk, on April 28, 2022, publicly opened and examined sealed bids for the Citywide Pavement Repair and Rehabilitation Program 2022 (CIP 2022-01) project (“Project”); and
WHEREAS, the lowest received bid was submitted by SRM Contracting and Paving, Inc.in the amount of $1,008,793.22; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Santee Municipal Code section 3.24.100(E), staff has determined that the bid submitted SRM Contracting and Paving conforms in all material respects to the requirements set forth in the invitation for bids; and WHEREAS, SRM Contracting and Paving was found to be the lowest responsive and responsible bidder with their total bid amount of $1,008,793.22; and WHEREAS, staff recommends awarding the construction contract to SRM Contracting and Paving in the amount of $1,008,793.22; and WHEREAS, staff requests authorization for the City Manager, Director of Development Services or City Engineer to approve changes orders in a total amount not to exceed $252,100.00 for unforeseen change orders and additional work.

WHEREAS, the project is categorically exempt from environmental review by section 15301 (Class 1) of the Guidelines to the California Environmental Quality Act; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santee, California, as follows:

SECTION 1: The Recitals provided above are true and correct and are hereby incorporated into this Resolution.

SECTION 2: The construction contract for the Citywide Pavement Repair and Rehabilitation Program 2022 (CIP 2022-01) is awarded to SRM Contracting and Paving as the lowest responsive and responsible bidder in the amount of $1,008,793.22, and the City Manager is authorized to execute the contract on behalf of the City.

SECTION 3: The City Manager, Director of Development Services or City Engineer is authorized to approve change orders in an amount not to exceed $252,100.00 for unforeseen items and additional work.

SECTION 4:The project is categorically exempt from environmental review under State CEQA Guidelines section 15301 (Class 1, repair or minor alternation to existing facilities RESOLUTION NO.
involving negligible or no expansion of use).

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

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

ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Santee, California, at a Regular meeting thereof held this 11th day of May, 2022 by the following roll call vote to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:

JOHN W. MINTO, MAYOR
ATTEST:

ANNETTE ORTIZ, CMC, CITY CLERK
$1,529,000.00
$1,008,793.22
$1,220,615.90 $1,222,842.82
$1,240,000.00
$1,306,826.58
$1,399,938.39 $1,412,288.61
$900,000.00
$1,000,000.00
$1,100,000.00
$1,200,000.00
$1,300,000.00
$1,400,000.00
$1,500,000.00
$1,600,000.00
Engineer's
Estimate
SRM
Construction &
Paving
TC Construction
Company
ATP General
Engineering
Eagle Paving Angus Asphalt LC Paving Ramona Paving
& Construction
CITYWIDE PAVEMENT REPAIR AND REHABILITATION PROGRAM 2022 CIP 2022-01
MAGNOLIA AVE EL NOPAL ZONE CE Exhibit B- Project Map Citywide Pavement Repair and Rehabilitation Program 2022 CIP 2022-01 Project Streets NO SCALE NORTH
City of Santee
Citywide Pavement Repair and Rehabilitation Program 2022 Street Name From Street To Street
Dunwoodie Rd Inverness Rd Wethersfield Rd
El Nopal Magnolia Ave East City Limits
Inverness Rd Carlton Oaks Dr Carlton Oaks Dr
Inwood Dr Carlton Oaks Dr End
Lomker Ct Lomker Wy End
Magnolia Ave Prospect Ave South City Limits

RESOLUTION NO. _____________

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

APPROVING AN AMENDED SALARY SCHEDULE FOR HOURLY, GENERAL AND

MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES
WHEREAS, a salary study was conducted for the Director of Fire and Life Safety (Fire Chief) position to determine salary alignment; and

WHEREAS, it was determined that the salary band for the Director of Fire and Life Safety (Fire Chief) position should be adjusted; and;
WHEREAS, the Hourly, General and Management salary schedule has been amended to reflect changes to the salary band for the Director of Fire and Life Safety (Fire Chief) and is included as Exhibit “A”.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Santee, California, does hereby find, determine and declare that the salary schedule as provided in Exhibit “A” is approved for hourly, general and management employees effective May 12, 2022;

ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Santee, California, at a Regular Meeting thereof held this 11th day of May 2022, by the following roll call vote to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:

JOHN W. MINTO, MAYOR
ATTEST:

ANNETTE ORTIZ, CMC, CITY CLERK

Attachment: Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Classification A B C D E
Fire Captain / PM Hourly 33.19 34.85 36.59 38.42 40.34
Base salary Annual 96,645.04 101,478.38 106,551.98 111,878.80 117,473.39 Educational Incentive
Fire Captain / PM Hourly 33.69 35.37 37.14 39.00 40.95
31-45 units = 1.5% over base Annual 98,094.51 103,000.57 108,150.36 113,557.14 119,235.53 Fire Captain / PM Hourly 34.18 35.89 37.69 39.57 41.55
46 units and over = 3.0% over base Annual 99,544.29 104,522.73 109,748.72 115,234.87 120,997.33 Fire Captain / PM Hourly 34.68 36.42 38.24 40.15 42.16
A.A. Degree = 4.5% over base Annual 100,994.07 106,044.61 111,346.75 116,913.21 122,759.43 Fire Captain / PM Hourly 35.18 36.94 38.79 40.73 42.76
Bachelor Degree = 6% over base Annual 102,443.53 107,566.77 112,945.13 118,591.57 124,521.89

CITY OF SANTEE

SANTEE FIREFIGHTERS' ASSOCIATION SALARY SCHEDULE
EFFECTIVE JUNE 24, 2021