Santee City Council
May 11, 2022

MEETING INFORMATION
Wednesday, May 11, 2022
6:30 p.m.

Council Chambers | Building 2
10601 Magnolia Ave • Santee, CA 92071
TO WATCH LIVE:

AT&T U-verse channel 99 (SD Market) | Cox channel 117 (SD County) www.cityofsanteeca.gov

IN-PERSON ATTENDANCE
Please be advised that current public health orders recommend that attendees wear face coverings while inside the Council Chambers.

LIVE PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the public who wish to comment on matters on the City Council agenda or during Non-Agenda Public Comment may appear in person and submit a speaker slip, before the item is called. Your name will be called when it is time to speak.

PLEASE NOTE: Public Comment will be limited to 3 minutes and speaker slips will only be accepted until the item is called. The timer will begin when the participant begins speaking.

May 11, 2022 | 6:30 p.m.
2 ROLL CALL: Mayor John W. Minto
Vice Mayor Ronn Hall
Council Members Laura Koval, Rob McNelis and Dustin Trotter LEGISLATIVE INVOCATION: Calvary Chapel of Santee – Gary Lawton

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
PROCLAMATION: Proclaiming May 15 – 21, 2022 as Public Works Week in the City of Santee PROCLAMATION: Proclaiming May 1 – 7, 2022 as National Small Business Week in the City of Santee
PRESENTATION: County of San Diego Presentation: San Diego Regional Decarbonization Framework
CONSENT CALENDAR:

PLEASE NOTE: Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be approved by one motion, with no separate discussion prior to voting. The public, staff or Council Members may request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion or action. Speaker slips for this category must be presented to the City Clerk at the start of the meeting. Speakers are limited to 3 minutes.
(1) Approval of Reading by Title Only and Waiver of Reading in Full of Ordinances and Resolutions on the Agenda. (City Clerk – Ortiz)
(2) Approval of Payment of Demands as Presented. (Finance – McDermott) (3) Award of an Agreement for HVAC Maintenance and Repair Services to Paradigm Mechanical Corp. per RFB #22/23-20061, in an Amount Not to Exceed $26,366.00. (Public Services Department)
(4) Authorization of the Fourth Amendment to the Agreement with Countywide Mechanical Systems, Incorporated for HVAC Maintenance and Repair Services for Emergency A/C Unit Replacement at Fire Station No. 4. (Public Services Department)
(5) Calendar Year 2021 Sustainable Santee Plan Annual Report to City Council. (Development Services – Planning)
(6) Adoption of a Resolution Approving the First Amendment to the Employee Benefits Consulting Services Agreement with Keenan & Associates to Extend the Agreement. (Human Resources – Rankin)
May 11, 2022 | 6:30 p.m.
3 (7) Claim Against the City by Erika Capp. (Human Resources – Rankin) (8) Claim Against the City by Yongchang Xia. (Human Resources – Rankin) NON-AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENT (15 minutes):

Persons wishing to address the City Council regarding items not on the posted agenda may do so at this time. In accordance with State law, Council may not take action on an item not scheduled on the Agenda. If appropriate, the item will be referred to the City Manager or placed on a future agenda. This first Non-Agenda Public Comment period is limited to a total of 15 minutes. Additional Non-Agenda Public Comment is received prior to Council Reports.

PUBLIC HEARING:
(9) Public Hearing and Resolution Approving General Plan Amendment GPA2022- 1 to Amend the Housing Element (Sixth Cycle: 2021-2029) of the Santee General Plan. (Development Services – Planning)
Recommendation:

1. Open and close the Public Hearing; and

2. Adopt the Resolution approving General Plan Amendment GPA2022-1 to amend the Housing Element (Sixth Cycle: 2021-2029) of the Santee General Plan.

NEW BUSINESS:
(10) Resolution 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. (Development Services – Engineering)
Recommendation:

Adopt the Resolution:

1. Waiving the immaterial bid irregularity in the bid submitted by American Asphalt South, Inc.; and

2. Awarding the construction contract for the Citywide Crack Sealing Program 2022 (CIP 2022-07) Project to American Asphalt South, Inc. in the amount of $145,750.00; and

3. Authorizing the City Manager, Director of Development Services or City Engineer to approve change orders in a total amount not to exceed $36,437.00; and

4. Determining the Project is Categorically Exempt from Environmental Review under the California Environmental Quality Act.

May 11, 2022 | 6:30 p.m.
4 (11) Resolution 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. (Development Services – Engineering) Recommendation:

Adopt the Resolution:

1. Awarding the construction contract for the Citywide Pavement Repair and Rehabilitation Program 2022 project (CIP 2022-01) to SRM Contracting & Paving for a total amount of $1,008,793.22; and

2. Authorizing the City Manager, Director of Development Services or City Engineer to approve change orders in a total amount not to exceed $252,100.00; and

3. Determining the Project is Categorically Exempt from Environmental Review under the California Environmental Quality Act.
(12) Authorization to Award Agreement for July 4th Aerial Fireworks Display to Fireworks & Stage FX America per RFP #22/23-40025. (Public Services Department)
Recommendation:

Authorize the award of a Professional Services Agreement with Fireworks and Stage FX America to perform the annual July 4th aerial display in 2022, 2023 and 2024, with an amount not to exceed $35,000.00 for the 2022 display, and authorize the City Manager to execute the Agreement.
(13) Resolution Approving an Amended Salary Schedule for Hourly, General and Management Employees. (Human Resources – Rankin)
Recommendation:

Adopt the Resolution approving an amended salary schedule.

NON-AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENT (Continued):

All public comment not presented within the first Non-Agenda Public Comment period above will be heard at this time.

CITY COUNCIL REPORTS:

CITY MANAGER REPORTS:

CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS:

CLOSED SESSION:

ADJOURNMENT:

May 11, 2022 | 6:30 p.m.
5 May 05 SPARC Council Chamber
May 09 Community Oriented Policing Committee Council Chamber May 11 Council Meeting Council Chamber
May 25 Council Meeting Council Chamber
Jun 02 SPARC Council Chamber
Jun 08 Council Meeting Council Chamber
Jun 13 Community Oriented Policing Committee Council Chamber Jun 22 Council Meeting Council Chamber
The Santee City Council welcomes you and encourages your continued interest and involvement in the City’s decision-making process.

For your convenience, a complete Agenda Packet is
available for public review at City Hall and on the
City’s website at www.CityofSanteeCA.gov.

The City of Santee complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Upon request, this agenda will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with disabilities, as required by Section 12132 of the American with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 USC § 12132). Any person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should direct such request to the City Clerk’s Office at (619) 258-4100, ext. 112 at least 48 hours before the meeting, if possible.

BOARDS, COMMISSIONS & COMMITTEES

MAY & JUNE MEETINGS

San Diego Regional
Decarbonization
Framework
Summary for Policy Makers
March 2022
DRAFT – NOT FOR CITATION
DRAFT – NOT FOR CITATION
1 Project Team
Project Director
Gordon C. McCord
Director, SDG Policy Initiative
School of Global Policy and Strategy, University of California San Diego (UC San Diego) Project Manager
Elise Hanson, UC San Diego
San Diego County Representatives
Sarah Aghassi, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer, Land Use and Environment Group (LUEG) Murtaza Baxamusa, Program Manager for Regional Sustainability, LUEG Rebeca Appel, Program Coordinator, LUEG
Nicole Boghossian Ambrose, Group Program Manager, LUEG
RDF Technical Analysis Chapter Authors:

Study Approach
Ryan Jones, Evolved Energy Research
Geospatial Analysis of Renewable Energy Production
Emily Leslie, Montara Mountain Energy
Joseph Bettles, UC San Diego
Accelerating Deep Decarbonization in the Transportation Sector Katy Cole, Fehr & Peers
Chelsea Richer, Fehr & Peers
Eleanor Hunts, Fehr & Peers
Decarbonization of Buildings
Asa Hopkins, Synapse Energy Economics
Philip Eash-Gates, Synapse Energy Economics
Jason Frost, Synapse Energy Economics
Shelley Kwok, Synapse Energy Economics
Jackie Litynski, Synapse Energy Economics
Kenji Takahashi, Synapse Energy Economics
DRAFT – NOT FOR CITATION
2 Natural Climate Solutions and other Land Use Considerations Elise Hanson, UC San Diego
Emily Leslie, Montara Mountain Energy
Employment Impacts through Decarbonization in the San Diego Region Robert Pollin, PERI, University of Massachusetts Amherst Jeannette Wicks-Lim, PERI, University of Massachusetts Amherst Shouvik Chakraborty, PERI, University of Massachusetts Amherst Gregor Semieniuk, PERI, University of Massachusetts Amherst Key Policy Considerations for the San Diego Region
Joseph Bettles, UC San Diego
Gordon C. McCord, UC San Diego
David G. Victor, UC San Diego
Emily Carlton, UC San Diego
Local Policy Opportunity Analysis
Scott Anders, Energy Policy Initiatives Center, University of San Diego Nilmini Silva Send, Energy Policy Initiatives Center, University of San Diego Joseph Kaatz, Energy Policy Initiatives Center, University of San Diego Yichao Gu, Energy Policy Initiatives Center, University of San Diego Marc Steele, Energy Policy Initiatives Center, University of San Diego The San Diego Region as a Model
Elena Crete, UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN) Julie Topf, UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN) Appendix A: Summary of Statewide Energy System Modeling Ryan Jones, Evolved Energy
Appendix B: Review of Authority for Local Jurisdictions and Agencies to Influence and Regulate GHG Emissions
Joseph Kaatz, Energy Policy Initiatives Center, University of San Diego Acknowledgements: The RDF team thanks David Victor for his advisory role across the project, as well as Joseph Bettles, Tyler Spencer, Emily Carlton, and Elissa Bozhkov for research and editorial support.

DRAFT – NOT FOR CITATION
3 Summary for Policy Makers
The global scientific consensus is unequivocal: the world is in the midst of a climate crisis and our window to meaningfully reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) is closing.i Human activities and influence have warmed the atmosphere, ocean, and land through rapid accumulations of GHGs in the atmosphere and the ocean, causing rapid and alarming changes.

Global agreements, like the Paris Climate Agreement, and California executive orders recognize the immediacy of decarbonization required across industries. Where past diplomatic efforts have failed to achieve enough progress on climate change, regional models of problem-solving that account for both global commitments and local needs can emerge as a more effective approach.

The San Diego Regional Decarbonization Framework (RDF) Technical Analysis provides technical and policy pathways to decarbonization in the medium-term to inform near-term policy-making in regional, county, and city governments. The report models science-based pathways to net zero carbon emissions for the region by 2045, which is consistent with the Paris Climate Agreement and with State mandates. The pathways can provide a shared vision for the San Diego region towards collectively reducing net GHG emissions such that they align with State goals for net zero. This report is a technical analysis of how different sectors in the energy system can contribute to decarbonization, but it does not identify the “right” pathway and instead shows multiple ways forward to highlight tradeoffs, co-benefits, decision points, risks, and synergies. This analysis is meant to be constantly updated as technologies evolve or as uncertainties are resolved or clarified, and the report explores policy processes that will help jurisdictions in the region learn about uncertainties and adjust strategies in light of new information.

Study Framework and Key Policy Considerations
This report looks at ways to reduce carbon emissions in San Diego’s regional energy system, which is defined as the total production and consumption of energy in the electric power, transportation, and buildings sectors, to align with State and national pathways to reach net zero. By “net zero,” this report means that human-caused carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from the energy system equal human-caused CO2 removal and storage and therefore do not i
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), “Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Summary for Policymakers.” WGII Sixth Assessment Report, February 2022. Available at:
https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6wg2/pdf/IPCC_AR6_WGII_FinalDraft_FullReport.pdf DRAFT – NOT FOR CITATION
4 contribute net emissions to the atmosphere.ii The RDF Technical Analysis does not rely on offsets outside the San Diego region to reach net zero targets. It is important to note that there are emissions from other sectors, such as waste, that were not included in this analysis.

The RDF Technical Analysis’s decarbonization pathways were modeled from larger national and State deep decarbonization scenarios to ensure that the San Diego regional pathways are aligned with Statewide pathways to decarbonization. Evolved Energy Research (EER) developed these regional models under five model cases (sometimes referred to as scenarios).iii The models of deep decarbonization, which is the process of drastically reducing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions throughout the economy, allow for quantitative comparative analyses of regional policy options and decarbonization outcomes in different sectors. An example of EER’s modeling outputs for the energy sector show how the different model cases will affect Statewide decarbonization in both the total installed electricity capacity required (Figure 1) and the energy and industry CO2 emissions that occur through 2050 (Figure 2). Using these downscaled models is also important because local energy and transportation systems are interconnected with other regions and states, so regional jurisdictions should move in unison with other regional and state jurisdictions as they decarbonize.

Figure 1. Results for the total installed electricity capacity required in California to reach net zero Statewide emissions by 2050 under five different model scenarios in the EER model. More information about the EER model, downscaling, and model cases is available in Appendix A. ii Note that the energy system modeling only considers CO2 emissions, where the natural climate solutions and Climate Action Plan analyses consider other greenhouse gases as well, including methane, nitrous oxides, ozone, etc. These GHGs are converted to their “carbon dioxide equivalent” (CO2e) for easier comparison. iii More details on the model cases can be found in Chapter 1 and Appendix A.

DRAFT – NOT FOR CITATION
5 Figure 2. Results for CO2 emissions from energy and industrial processes in California from the EER model. Colors above the x-axis represent positive emissions, and colors below represent offsetting negative emissions. The black line indicates net CO2 emissions. “Product and bunkered CO2“ is either CO2 that ends up sequestered in materials (e.g., asphalt sequesters CO2 during its production) or CO2 reductions not counted in current inventories (e.g., interstate aviation emissions reductions are not included in a single state’s emissions accounting, but intrastate aviation is).

Experts in renewable energy production, transportation, and buildings modeled technically feasible decarbonization pathways for the region to create a science-based roadmap of regional decarbonization to net zero emissions by mid-century. These models focused on proven, scalable technologies for decarbonizing the region’s largest GHG emitters (Figure 3) that are within the jurisdiction of local governments and agencies. Thus, technologies that are still in experimental or early phases were not included because they cannot immediately be deployed at scale by regional authorities. Similarly, resource deployments in State and federal waters were not included except to give context to the resource availability in the San Diego region.

DRAFT – NOT FOR CITATION
6 Figure 3. Region-wide estimates of the emissions of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) measured in million metric tons. The “other” category includes emissions from industrial sources, off-road transportation, waste, aviation, water, etc., which were not considered in the RDF Technical Analysis. Note that 2035 values account for the impacts of certain State and federal actions. Source: the SANDAG 2021 Regional Plan’s Appendix X, available here:
https://sdforward.com/docs/default-source/2021-regional-plan/appendix-x---2016-greenhouse-gas-emissionsinventory-and-projections-for-the-san-diego-region.pdf?sfvrsn=8444fd65_2 Additionally, the RDF Technical Analysis highlights uncertainties in the decarbonization process and the need for ongoing planning processes that can adapt as the technology and policy landscapes evolve. For example, increased renewable energy availability from Imperial County or Mexico may affect the San Diego region’s renewable energy mix, which could avoid the need to build higher-cost renewable energy infrastructure locally. Similarly, State and/or Federal development of offshore wind could reduce the need for land-based renewable infrastructure development in the San Diego region. Therefore, the decision-making systems developed from the RDF Technical Analysis’s findings should allow for continuous updating as technology and policy landscapes change.

Key Policy Considerations
Successful decarbonization will require technical solutions as well as policy strategies that can adapt with scientific advances as well as local political and economic conditions. The RDF technical analysis provides the best assessment of least cost and most effective near-term solutions for reducing emissions in each sector. These “low-regrets” actions will be robust decarbonization actions in the near-term regardless of how uncertainty is resolved, but whether they are the best pathways over the long term is still unknown. Effective learning and policy adjustment requires that local actors – both leaders and people on the front-line – first DRAFT – NOT FOR CITATION
7 implement solutions and then engage in systematic and continuous review of results to drive meaningful learning about what works and what doesn’t. The “best” solutions and pathways can and should evolve over time as science and technology advance and as local actors learn what is effective in the San Diego context.

The RDF Technical Analysis proposes region-wide institutional governance that can facilitate continued collaboration and learning across jurisdictions.iv Organized into a Regional Steering Committee, Sector Working Groups, and Front-Line Advisors, this structure would bring together knowledgeable government officials, planning bodies, regulators, industry stakeholders, experts, and front-line workers in each sector from across the region to test, evaluate, and adjust solutions and goals. Such a structure is necessary because achieving the big changes and rapid learning needed to address climate change is a collective action problem.

Individually, local jurisdictions and agencies in the San Diego region have a limited degree of direct authority over the full suite of actions needed to decarbonize (though some may have more indirect influence). Region-wide cooperation can increase their effectiveness through clear, credible, and consistent policy signals, joint problem-solving and pooling of experience about what does and does not work, and increased leverage and capacity from combined resources. As discussed in Chapters 7 and 8, examples of regional cooperation could include setting county-wide incentives to motivate action, collecting and tracking data, conducting analyses, providing support to develop and implement policies, and convening stakeholders and working groups to develop regional strategies and monitor progress. A formal mechanism, such as a Regional Climate Action JPA, could facilitate such cooperation and, in doing so, help scale strategic thinking and decision-making around decarbonization. Figure 4 outlines an institutional process through which regional governance, informed by the technical solutions proposed in the RDF and ongoing engagement with stakeholders, can drive meaningful learning in each sector.

Within this institutional process, the RDF Technical Analysis also proposes two strategies for engaging with actors and agencies outside the region to maximize impact within the region.

First, regional decarbonization leaders will need to engage continually with outside agencies, especially at the state level, to influence policies that affect local efforts (e.g., renewable energy regulations). Second, local leaders should take advantage of the county’s technology-focused private sector and multiple university communities to establish the San Diego region as a test bed for pilot and demonstration projects. While regional-scale investments in innovation alone are not likely to have dramatic impacts on technological readiness across all sectors, local testing and deployment of technologies developed outside the county can contribute to the global effort to push the frontier of science on climate solutions. In addition to driving local iv More information on collaboration and learning across jurisdictions is available in Chapter 7.

DRAFT – NOT FOR CITATION
8 emissions reductions, external engagement is an opportunity to bring outside resources and attention from State and federal policymakers to the region, with potential positive effects on the local economy.

Figure 4. RDF Technical Analysis as part of an Integrated Decarbonization Framework and an institutional structure. This structure could include regional governance bodies for the San Diego region and a conference of governments, for example.

In sum, the RDF proposes institutionalizing a highly transparent, cooperative process for eliciting new information about "what works" with deep decarbonization, comparing best practices within the county, and engaging outside the region with policymakers, industry stakeholders, and other experts contributing to the evolution of the national strategy. This is important not just to maximize local emissions reductions, but also for San Diego to influence State and federal climate policy and become an effective leader for other jurisdictions. Given that the San Diego region makes up just 0.08% of global emissions, generating followership is vital for the region to truly make an impact on mitigating climate change.

DRAFT – NOT FOR CITATION
9 Decarbonizing Electricity
The RDF Technical Analysis identifies low-impact, high-quality, and technically feasible areas for renewable energy infrastructure development in the San Diego region and neighboring Imperial County. Electricity emissions accounted for approximately 20% of the 2016 Regional Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory for the San Diego region and are the second largest emissions source in the region (Figure 3). Decarbonizing electricity production will require substantial deployment of new renewable resources. Siting renewable energy infrastructure and facilities can have significant impacts on the environment and will require new and upgraded transmission infrastructure.

The San Diego region has sufficient available land area for wind and solar generation to approach a fully decarbonized energy system in line with the California-wide system model under the least-cost scenario. However, meeting standards for reliability will require significant, but uncertain, investments in a suite of additional resources, including excess intermittent and flexible generation, storage, and demand-side management. The region can produce the projected 2050 energy demand with local utility-scale onshore wind and solar development. However, demand for energy may be higher or lower than the renewable energy supply at a given time (for example at night or on cloudy days), so investments in additional energy storage infrastructure are necessary to supply reliable renewable energy to the region.

However, the costs of these additional resources, such as batteries and pumped storage hydropower, are highly uncertain.

The RDF Technical Analysis creates multiple site-selection scenarios for renewable energy infrastructure to inform decision-making. These scenarios include least-cost scenarios, scenarios that include Imperial County (including its geothermal potential), scenarios with different mixes of wind and solar resources (both distributed and utility scale), and brownfield sites. The primary scenarios selected utility-scale renewable energy sites from lowest to highest cost, while additional scenarios prioritize different policy goals such avoiding high conservation value lands, lands with high monetary value, lands with high carbon sequestration potential, and lands that were not already deemed developable. All scenarios include infrastructure costs expressed as the levelized cost of energy (LCOE), which is a way to compare costs across energy projects. The analysis includes the following renewable energy development scenarios:v

1. Least-cost, high local capacity (San Diego county only) (Figure 5);

2. Least-cost, high transmission deliverability (San Diego and Imperial counties) (Figure 6); v
See sections 2.4.5 and 2.4.6 for descriptions of the data and methods for site and candidate project area selection. See sections 2.5.1 and 2.5.2 for scenario results, discussion, and maps.

DRAFT – NOT FOR CITATION
10 3. Minimized environmental impact (avoids areas of high conservation value) (Figure 7);

4. Minimized loss of land that has high monetary value (avoids high monetary value land) (see Chapter 2, Section 2.5.2 for figure);

5. Minimized loss of lands that naturally sequester high levels of carbon (avoids land with natural carbon sequestration potential) (see Chapter 2, Section 2.5.2 for figure);

6. Maximized development of areas that are developable (includes lands that are vacant or slated for redevelopment) (see Chapter 2, Section 2.5.2 for figure); and

7. Midrange scenario (includes a combination of developable areas in the region and nearby areas with transmission upgrades, nearby geothermal, rooftop solar, and brownfield solar and brownfield wind) (Figure 8).

Figure 5. CPA Scenario 1: San Diego region only. This analysis selects utility-scale solar and onshore wind resources from lowest to highest cost to meet projected energy demand. The three panels show the build out required by each year that would allow the region to approach full energy decarbonization by 2050. Lighter colors represent Candidate Project Areas (CPAs) that would be built earlier because they are less expensive. Blue colors are wind resources and orange/red colors are solar resources. This scenario has an average LCOE of $40.65 per megawatt hour (MWh).

DRAFT – NOT FOR CITATION
11 Figure 6. CPA Scenario 2: San Diego and Imperial counties. This analysis selects solar, onshore wind, and geothermal resources from lowest to highest cost to meet projected energy demand. These maps show build out over three time periods where colors represent build out year (lighter colors are earlier) and resources (red/orange for solar, blue for wind, and green for geothermal). The inset shows the Jacumba Hot Springs area site selection by 2050 and the area that includes the proposed/planned Jacumba Valley Ranch (JVR) sites. This scenario has an average LCOE of $42.04 per megawatt hour (MWh).

Figure 7. CPA Scenario 3: Restrict land with high conservation value. This scenario minimizes impacts to areas of high conservation value and other areas that are environmentally sensitive or important. It does not meet regional energy demand and is relatively more expensive (with an average LCOE of $84.5 per MWh).

DRAFT – NOT FOR CITATION
12 The midrange scenario utilizes a mix of proven, scalable technologies that are within the jurisdictions of San Diego county, Imperial county, or regional entities to build in order to meet regional demand both in the near-term (2025) and by mid-century (shown in Figure 8). The technologies include brownfield infrastructure development (solar and wind infrastructure built on currently or formerly contaminated sites); utility-scale solar and wind in both San Diego and Imperial counties; rooftop and infill solar (where “infill solar” is defined as solar projects built in dense, urban settings); and geothermal (which is a clean, firm power source).

Figure 8. CPA Scenario 7: Mid-range Scenario 2050. This figure shows sites selected to meet the 2050 electricity demand under the mid-range scenario. In this scenario, the 2050 annual generation from new renewable sources is as follows: 12% rooftop solar, 23% brownfield solar, 0.1% brownfield wind, 6% utility scale solar on developable land in San Diego county, 0.4% utility scale wind on developable land in San Diego, 38% Imperial solar, 21% Imperial geothermal. The addition of rooftop solar and brownfield resources together results in 35% reduction in land area impacts. It meets regional energy demand but has a high average cost (average LCOE of $109/MWh) partly because of the high costs of rooftop and brownfield development.

There are some commonalities across scenarios in the results, suggesting that these might be “low-regret” renewable energy infrastructure options. These geospatial analyses have demonstrated that rooftop and infill solar can bring co-benefits to communities, and, along with brownfield development, these are low-regret strategies. Despite their relatively high costs compared to utility-scale development, they have low impacts on the environment, agriculture, and rural communities, and they have high job training opportunities near homes and urban centers. Given the high commercial interest and the relative location near planned or DRAFT – NOT FOR CITATION
13 existing renewable sites, the models selected the JVR renewable area in most scenarios. This area is favored by Statewide planning proceedings, including those by the California Independent Systems Operator (CAISO) (which is California’s grid operator) and the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and may represent a low-regret scenario for utility-scale build-out. All scenarios require careful consideration of environmental justice issues and a deeper understanding of the effects that these energy developments will have on communities of concern, low-income communities, and/or disadvantaged communities.

Significant solar and geothermal availability in Imperial County is a large potential resource for San Diego that may require upgrades to the transmission network. As renewable energy infrastructure is developed in neighboring areas - such as Imperial County, Mexico, or State waters - the site selection scenarios will change in iterative energy supply and demand analyses. Similarly, as new technologies and permitting make additional renewable energy resources available (e.g., offshore wind, wave energy, etc.), the scenarios will need to be updated to account for the energy supply from those novel resources. This framework is flexible enough to account for additional renewable energy demand as it becomes available.

The region should coordinate with State agencies to ensure the reliability of the system. The San Diego region is a part of a larger energy system network, so coordination across agencies will be crucial to decision-making, planning, and implementation of renewable energy infrastructure into the future. For example, there is a State-level Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) proceeding at the CPUC. Load Serving Entities (LSEs) throughout the State are Parties to this proceeding, and local LSEs, such as San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E) and Community Choice Aggregators (CCAs), are required to submit their procurement plans on an annual basis. These submittals help the State anticipate potential reliability issues, and they help the CAISO plan transmission upgrades which may be needed to accommodate LSE plans and to meet climate goals. To the extent that LSE plans include local distributed generation, rooftop solar, community solar, equity-eligible contractor projects, or other specifications, this information should be indicated in LSE submissions to the CPUC. Additionally, City Council members and other government officials often serve on CCA boards and participate in procurement planning and target setting. Board members can help ensure that LSE plans are implemented for consistency with regional GHG reduction targets, as well as with State targets. This is especially important where local targets are more ambitious than State targets. Beyond the IRP, there are additional State agency proceedings which could benefit from input from local players (e.g., the CPUC Resource Adequacy proceeding, CAISO Transmission Planning Process, and the CAISO Local Capacity Requirements proceeding). In the Resource Adequacy proceeding, CPUC staff conduct analyses to ensure the reliability of the electric power grid. In the Transmission Planning Process, the CAISO conducts analyses to ensure reliability, policy compliance, and cost-effectiveness of the planned transmission system upgrades. In the Local Capacity DRAFT – NOT FOR CITATION
14 Requirements proceeding, the CAISO takes a more local approach to reliability analysis than other proceedings. For example, Section 3.3.10 of the CAISO 2022 Local Capacity Technical Study is devoted to the San Diego-Imperial Valley region. Load Serving Entities such as SDG&E and SDCP and CEA should coordinate on procurement, resource adequacy and other issues addressed in these proceedings.

The State requires a fully decarbonized electricity system by 2045 and has requirements for rooftop solar on certain new buildings. Nevertheless, there are additional opportunity areas to decarbonize beyond the State goals. Electricity decarbonization is the most common CAP measure analyzed and on average contributes more GHG reductions than any other measure.

Most CAPs include a measure to form or join a CCA program, but there are opportunities to increase CCA participation and for CCAs to commit to 100% carbon-free energy prior to the State 2045 deadline. Additionally, there are local opportunities to enhance or complement State rooftop solar requirements by adopting reach codes (or local codes that go beyond State requirements) and evaluating mandates or incentives for energy storage systems paired with rooftop solar to decrease marginal emissions during the electric system’s peak GHG emission and to increase reliability.

Additional work would be needed to make carbon-free electricity supply more accessible.

Historically, rooftop solar has been installed in higher-income neighborhoods and/or in areas with higher levels of homeownership. Numerous options exist to address the inequitable distribution of solar installations, including targeted incentives and financing. Additionally, CCA programs can maximize participation in the Disadvantaged Communities Green Tariff Program, subsidize customers in income-qualified discount programs to opt-up to 100% carbon-free electricity service options, and support inclusive financing for energy upgrades.

Legal authority to regulate energy production:vi Jurisdictions in the San Diego region have the authority to require levels of carbon-free electricity supply through CAPs and to procure carbon-free electricity supplies through a CCA and can therefore supply more carbon-free energy than required by State agencies. However, State and/or federal agencies or entities still regulate local energy supplies for reliability, which complicates fully decarbonizing the electricity supply with renewable energy. Additionally, local jurisdictions are also authorized to support alternatively fueled thermal power plants and related infrastructure that can provide low- or zero-emission electricity to meet reliability and air quality requirements (e.g., green hydrogen production and/or power plants). Local jurisdictions are also authorized to increase distributed generation through CCAs and reach codes, and to streamline permitting. Further vi See Chapter 8, section 8.7 “Decarbonize the Electricity Supply” and Appendix B for further discussion of legal authority.

DRAFT – NOT FOR CITATION
15 regulating most fossil-fueled thermal power plants emissions is limited given current State regulation and uncertainty over federal preemption.

Decarbonizing Transportation
The transportation sector is the largest contributor to regional GHG emissions. In 2016, onroad transportation emitted almost half of regional emissions. In 2035, emissions from on-road transportation are projected to account for about 41% of the total projected emissions (Figure 3).vii Statewide legislation, executive orders, and agency targets have set goals for GHG reductions in the transportation sector and the San Diego region has implemented several measures to reduce regional transportation GHG emissions, which have included a variety of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction strategies and vehicle electrification strategies.

The region has a strong policy foundation for reducing emissions related to transportation.

However, current commitments through CAPs and other policies are inconsistent with the levels of reductions required by State executive orders for carbon neutrality. Even the best CAP commitments to reduce on-road transportation emissions through VMT reduction, EV adoption, and fuel efficiency strategies, if applied to the whole region, are not projected to achieve the State’s zero emissions goals.

Opportunity areas exist to accelerate EV adoption and VMT reduction based on existing regional policies and patterns of vehicle ownership, travel behavior, and land use development. These opportunity areas include CAP measures to reduce VMT and to reduce vehicle emissions. Current policies and consumer, driver, and developer behaviors are already increasing EV adoption and reducing VMT. However, there are additional opportunity areas to accelerate regional transportation decarbonization. To reduce VMT, jurisdictions can enhance transit and active transportation (biking and walking), and encourage smart growth, urban connectivity, and density by changing zoning to promote mixed-use developments, and disincentivizing parking.viii To reduce emissions, jurisdictions can identify areas for traffic calming measures, establish anti-idling requirements (especially around schools), and provide driver behavior incentives. Further, local jurisdictions have the opportunity to affect vehicle retirement, which can be prioritized in communities of concern to rapidly reduce the air pollution burden in those communities. Finally, local governments can increase use of alternative, low-carbon fuels and EVs, particularly for medium-and heavy-duty vehicles, in vii See Chapter 8, section 8.5 for a detailed analysis of CAP commitments as they relate to transportation. Note that this value includes projected EV sales changes but does not include CAP measures. viii Opportunities to increase density in in-fill areas have been identified in Chapter 3. More details on how to reduce VMT are in Chapter 8.

DRAFT – NOT FOR CITATION
16 existing and future fleets. Figure 9 shows a menu of policy opportunities to increase EV adoption, illustrating policy options that range in both effectiveness (i.e., how good the policy is at increasing EV adoption) and breadth (i.e., how many people it can reach).

Figure 9. A spectrum of policy options to accelerate EV adoption. Policies are likely to be more effective moving right and are likely to have a broader application moving down. Thus, the bottom right is predicted to be the most effective and to have the broadest application of the policy measure shown where the top left is predicted to be the least effective and to have the narrowest application of the policy measures shown.

Multiple opportunities for regional collaboration and coordination exist. The nature of onroad transportation and of existing institutional frameworks that coordinate transportation decisions suggests that regional collaboration on transportation decarbonization will be more effective than individual CAP measures. CCAs provide an example of a local mechanism, usually through Joint Powers Agreements (JPAs), that can support transportation electrification by developing programs to locally incentivize EV uptake beyond State and federal programs.

Similarly, other regional transportation decarbonization may be identified which can promote local funds for transportation decarbonization. Additionally, local jurisdictions can collaborate to assess the equity impacts of EV use versus increasing use of mass transit in various communities, and to align regional transportation equity analyses (e.g., SANDAG’s equity analyses) with CAP equity analyses (e.g., the City of San Diego’s equity analyses).

DRAFT – NOT FOR CITATION
17 Legal authority to regulate transportation decarbonization:ix Local jurisdictions and agencies in the San Diego region have broad authority over transportation, based both on locally derived land use authority over planning and development and delegated authority from the State and the federal governments. These authorities can be limited or preempted by State or federal laws, as is the case with regulating fuels and tailpipe emissions. Additionally, local jurisdictions can establish climate change policies and regulations to reduce GHGs from transportation in general plans (GPs), CAPs, zoning, or transit-oriented development regulations. Further, they can require infrastructure for fuel switching in buildings (e.g., EV charging equipment), build supporting infrastructure in public right-of-ways or on public land, and support alternative fuel production and infrastructure, such as hydrogen. Local jurisdictions can regulate their own fleets through purchasing, maintaining, or changing their fleets. They also have the authority to regulate indirect transportation emissions to keep local emissions in line with federal and State air quality standards. State statutes and regulations create an opportunity to align local action that decreases costs for implementation by bringing State funded projects to the region, particularly in communities of concern, and deploying technology developed by State or federal funding. Finally, jurisdictions appear to have more legal authority through land use, transportation infrastructure siting, delegated authority, and taxation powers to reduce transportation GHGs, than represented by commitments in CAPs. Additional work by local jurisdictions would be needed to assess the limits of their authority to increase on-road transportation GHG reductions.

Decarbonizing Buildings
The RDF Technical Analysis studies the building mix and associated emissions from the region’s infrastructure and building sector. Direct emissions from buildings come from on-site fossil fuel combustion and contribute to regional GHG emissions, so this chapter focuses on decarbonizing buildings by eliminating their fossil fuel-based emissions by 2045. The analysis focuses on electrifying systems that are responsible for end-use emissions, like space and water heating, and using lower-carbon fuels, like biomethane and hydrogen, where electrification is not yet feasible. The analysis considers three modeled pathways to reach a carbon-free building sector by 2050: a pathway that emphasizes high electrification of fossil-fuel systems, a pathway where heat pumps are highly efficient when electrified, and a pathway where low-carbon fuels are used to reduce emissions while a slower adoption of electrification occurs.x ixSee Chapter 8, section 8.5 “Decarbonize Transportation” and Appendix B for further discussion of legal authority. x More details on the modeled pathways are available in Chapter 4, section 4.4 and elsewhere in the chapter.

DRAFT – NOT FOR CITATION
18 Replacing fossil fuel-based space heating and water heating systems with electric systems should be a primary policy focus for building emission reductions. Space heating and water heating represent large shares of emissions from buildings in the San Diego region because they tend to rely on natural gas (Figure 10), so replacing these systems, as well as other fossil fuelbased systems like ovens and dryers, with electric versions will have large impacts on building decarbonization. Space and water heating are especially conducive to electrification because heat pump technologies available for both uses are more efficient than natural gas systems, providing more heating per unit of energy input. For building temperature regulation, electric heat pumps offer both heating and cooling from the same unit, making them ideal for homes that do not yet have air conditioning. Water heaters produce the most emissions in buildings, so replacing them with electrified versions will have outsized emissions reductions for the costs.

Finally, this analysis finds that costs do not differ substantially between new construction and the addition of electric units and retrofitting old appliances. Thus, regional policies should support increasing adoption of efficient heat pump-based space and water heating systems in both new and existing buildings.

Additionally, policies aimed at replacing fossil-fuel based space and water heating systems should focus on increasing uptake among low-income residents and rental building owners through assistance. Such policies would address some historic inequities in housing quality, environmental injustice, health disparities due to indoor air pollution, and/or utility costs and would ensure that low-income residents and renters are not excluded from building decarbonization goals and that they are not left paying increasingly higher gas rates.

Figure 10. Residential space and water heating energy use by fuel type (% of customer accounts) in the San Diego region. Source: DNV GL Energy Insights. 2021. 2019 California Residential Appliance Saturation Study (RASS).

DRAFT – NOT FOR CITATION
19 There are several near-term actions that are low-regret for building decarbonization. First, setting “electrification-ready” or “all-electric” standards for new construction and major renovations through building energy codes will reduce costs associated with transitioning away from fossil fuels. Second, some existing fossil fuel equipment systems will only turn over once by 2050. Replacing end-of-life fossil fuel heating systems with electrified systems is low-hanging fruit. This is a near-term priority. Third, improved data gathering is a low-cost, foundational action for future policy development. More data on building emissions and decarbonization will better inform decision makers as they craft policies to address the building sector’s contributions to a net zero region.

Low-carbon gaseous fuels can be used for hard-to-electrify end uses, though research and piloting are required. Some building systems are hard to electrify, so one way to reduce GHG emissions from those systems is to use fuels that do not emit net GHGs into the atmosphere.

Similarly, such fuels can be used for these or other systems prior to electrifying them. Lowcarbon gaseous fuels could include biomethane and/or hydrogen. However, each of these alternate fuels have cost and efficiency trade-offs as well as uncertainties, so more research and piloting will be necessary before implementation.

The gas utility’s risk of not recovering its investment in assets (that is, its stranded cost risk) can be mitigated by minimizing unnecessary extensions or replacements of the gas pipeline system and by accelerating depreciation of existing utility assets. Phasing out end-use natural gas consumption in buildings can lead to stranded natural gas assets, defined as infrastructure such as a natural gas pipeline that has stopped being used before reaching the end of its useful life. For companies like SDG&E, stranded assets represent potential financial losses because of the high capital costs of creating or replacing gas infrastructure. Mitigating these stranded assets will be an important policy consideration. One tool is to minimize unnecessary extension or replacement of gas pipeline infrastructure. SDG&E invests in natural gas assets when it extends pipes to serve new customers and when it replaces old or damaged pipes and other assets. Policies like requiring all new construction to be fully electric would mitigate stranded asset losses for new pipe investments going to new customers, but this would not mitigate losses from investing in replacing aging infrastructure. Exploring and piloting non-pipeline alternatives to both new and replacement infrastructure, including electrifying end uses instead of replacing infrastructure, could identify opportunities to mitigate risk.

CAPs have relatively few measures to electrify buildings and the GHG impact of the measures is relatively low, despite their importance to regional decarbonization. Only six CAPs include measures related to building electrification and the GHG reductions in CAPs associated with efficiency and electrification are relatively low. Compared to the level of electrification needed DRAFT – NOT FOR CITATION
20 in both new and existing buildings as outlined in Chapter 4, the CAP measures fall short of the level of building decarbonization in the RDF Technical Analysis pathways.

Policies for decarbonizing new and existing buildings are crucial. 80% of the buildings that will exist in 2050 already exist, so decarbonizing these buildings will be critical to decarbonizing the building sector. While State building codes regulate alterations and additions to certain existing buildings, local policies could further encourage or require energy efficiency and electrification in many other existing buildings.xi Decarbonizing municipal buildings may be a low-regret policy because implementing cost effective measures and electrifying those buildings may help reduce operating costs and modeling these actions may encourage owners of homes and businesses to act.

There is an opportunity and a need to assess social equity considerations of building decarbonization policies. In the context of building decarbonization, there are several aspects of equity to consider, including the high proportion of renters in communities of concern, the relative lack of data and analysis related to equity and building-related policies, and potential cost implications of building decarbonization policies, particularly electrification. Additional work would be needed to develop the capacity and tools to understand and address the equity implications of building and other decarbonization policies in the San Diego region.

Legal authority to regulate building decarbonization:xii Local jurisdictions have the authority to regulate GHG emissions from building end-use of fossil fuels and other energy sources, which is the primary means of decarbonizing buildings. Local jurisdictions also act with delegated authority over the built environment to require more stringent energy codes, directly regulate air pollution emissions from buildings, and procure alternate energy supplies in public buildings.

Additional authority may come from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by setting a more stringent threshold to determine environmental impact. Local governments are preempted from establishing energy efficiency appliance standards, regulating natural gas supply, transmission, and storage, and high global warming potential refrigerants (e.g., HFCs). xi See Chapter 8, section 8.6, for more details on examples of local authorities decarbonizing existing buildings. Also see Chapter7 section 7.3.1 for a local example.
xii See Chapter 8, section 8.6 “Decarbonize Buildings” and Appendix B for further discussion of legal authority.

DRAFT – NOT FOR CITATION
21 Natural Climate Solutions
The RDF Technical Analysis investigates the natural climate solutions (NCSs) available in the San Diego region and their potential to naturally sequester and store CO2 and other GHGs. NCSs are processes that protect or enhance natural and working lands’ (NWLs) ability to capture and store GHGs from the atmosphere through plants and soils. “Working lands” include agricultural lands like orchards, vineyards, pastures, etc. “Sequestration” is an annual measure of how many GHGs are removed from the atmosphere and “storage” is the total amount of GHGs that have been sequestered. Carbon storage in the region (Figure 11) is important because there are ways to prevent stored carbon from being released into the atmosphere, as occurs when land use changes from NWLs to urban areas, for example. By understanding a landscape’s carbon storage and sequestration potential, areas with high levels of stored carbon can be prevented from emitting their carbon into the atmosphere and areas with high sequestration potential can be protected.

Figure 11. Total stored carbon (measure in metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per hectare, or MT CO2e ha-1) estimates for the San Diego region. Warmer colors represent larger carbon stock estimates, cooler colors represent lower stock estimates, and white represents no carbon stock.

DRAFT – NOT FOR CITATION
22 Regional NWLs sequester and store large amounts of carbon dioxide, but they do not sequester enough to account for human-caused emissions. NWLs can act as stronger net sinks than they currently do, though this will require investments in bolstering NCSs and minimizing carbon emissions from land and land use activities. To accurately account for net carbon land use emissions, local data need to be collected and integrated into regional carbon calculations. The region can expand annual carbon sequestration and long-term carbon storage through investing in NCSs that both increase natural sequestration and that reduce emissions from the land, such as investing in “carbon farming,” restoring and expanding “blue carbon” habitats, planting trees and other plants in urban areas, preventing wildfires, and planting trees in NWLs. Local data can improve NCS policies and management techniques and thus increase regional sequestration.

The most effective and inexpensive NCS in the San Diego region is to avoid land use change by protecting natural and working lands, except where land use change is required for other decarbonization actions, like siting renewable energy infrastructure. Existing natural and working lands are natural carbon sinks, so preventing these lands from changing into urban or built-up areas will allow for 1) continued annual sequestration and 2) prevention of one-time emissions from vegetation removal, soil disturbance, etc. This report estimates that natural annual sequestration in NWLs may be up 2 million metric tons (MMT) of CO2 under ideal circumstances and that there may be 58 MMT of CO2 stored in vegetation, woody debris, leaf litter, and soils, some of which would be released with land use change. The annual sequestration in NWLs is important to continue to build natural CO2 storage. Natural sequestration was not included in the RDF technical analysis of emissions given the focus on the energy system. Land use change will be necessary to install utility-scale renewable energy infrastructure, which will support decarbonization, and to allow housing development. It will be important to minimize land use change in the areas with the largest natural carbon stores and with the highest sequestration potential and to protect areas with high co-benefits (such as areas that provide air and water quality improvements, biodiversity protection, and public health outcome improvements).

Other important regional NCSs considered by the RDF Technical Analysis may be less effective and/or more expensive for carbon sequestration, although they yield important co-benefits.

These include carbon farming (farming practices that increase carbon sequestration and storage and minimize GHG emissions on agricultural lands), wetland protection and expansion/restoration, and urban forestry. Large-scale habitat restoration and reforestation, which were not considered in this report, are expensive and may not be effective. Wildfire prevention will also be important for emissions and numerous other economic and social reasons. Other NCS options require significant capital investments and are likely to have smaller short-term sequestration returns than preservation.

DRAFT – NOT FOR CITATION
23 NCSs offer quantifiable co-benefits beyond decarbonization. Each of the analyzed NCSs offer numerous quantifiable co-benefits. These co-benefits include, but are not limited to, improved air and water quality, improved public health outcomes, biodiversity protection, ecosystem functioning protection, increased shading in urban areas, decreased water and fertilizer requirements on farms and rangelands, improved aesthetics in urban areas, and the potential to increase environmental justice. These co-benefits should be considered when crafting and implementing policies in order to build ecological, economic, and social resilience.

Equity must be a central consideration for all NCS decisions. NCSs should be viewed through the lens of both decarbonization and equity. Whenever possible, communities of concern should be prioritized for urban greening, tree planting, climate farming, and habitat restoration because these NCSs have outsized co-benefits of improving air and water quality as well as human health. Historically, these communities have received less investment and have borne disproportionate levels of environmental harm. All efforts should be made to actively address these historic inequities.

The only quantified CAP measure relevant to this pathway is urban tree planting, but there are opportunities to implement additional NCSs in a collaborative way. Additional measures are possible under local land use authority. Tree planting measures contribute on average just over 1% of local GHG reductions in CAPs. These can be enhanced through jurisdictional collaboration. Additional NCS CAP measures are possible under existing authority and can contribute to land conservation, preservation, and restoration on natural and working lands.

Private landowners and tribal governments can also preserve land, test and fund pilot projects for carbon removal and storage and collaborate with public agencies. Collectively, there is an opportunity to expand protections for natural and working lands to fulfill the new SB 27 (2021) mandate that calls for the creation of natural and working land carbon removal and storage projects.

There are also opportunities to include local data in land management and planning as well as in CAPs. For instance, CAPs can utilize the California Air Resource Board’s (CARB’s) carbon accounting methodology in natural and working lands and universities’ data to create stronger goals and measures. Additionally, the region can implement regular carbon accounting and track changes in carbon in natural and working lands over time to understand how carbon stocks are being preserved and whether net emissions occurred due to changes in land use.

Legal authority to regulate negative emissions from natural climate solutions and land use:xiii It is unclear if local jurisdictions’ ability to use their authority over land use, zoning, land preservation, and agricultural easements extends to activities on private natural and working xiii See Chapter 8, section 8.8 “Natural Climate Solutions” and Appendix B for further discussion of legal authority.

DRAFT – NOT FOR CITATION
24 land beyond land use designation that would affect GHG emissions or sequestration. The region’s land use jurisdiction is further complicated because it is composed of federal, State, tribal, and privately held land, submerged land, and waters. Various statutes and agencies regulate the different land types, with none focused on GHG emissions or sequestration as it relates to land use. State land use and regulating agencies also operate with a wide range of statutory mandates, which apply to lands under multiple jurisdictions and impact GHG emissions and accounting. California's statutes and executive orders require State land use agencies to account for GHG emissions from natural and working lands. Additionally, these State agencies are beginning to assess and regulate carbon removal and storage on these lands with significant targets in 2030. An opportunity exists for local jurisdictions to work with landowners and managers to achieve State, regional, and local goals related to natural and working lands.

Employment Impacts of Decarbonization for the San Diego Region The RDF Technical Analysis calculates the net change in jobs in the energy sector in response to the central case of the modeled decarbonization pathways from the EER model. The analysis focuses on employment changes from 2021-2030, following California’s Jobs and Climate Action Plan for 2030, to inform workforce development strategies. Additionally, this report analyzes overall average annual job creation from 2020-2050, based on the full timeline in the EER model. For phasing out fossil fuels and modeling associated job losses, the analysis focuses on the 2021-2030 period, where the central case of the EER model estimates modest reductions in fossil fuel-based activities. This is primarily due to the model’s estimates of steady natural gas consumption and a 20% decrease in oil consumption by 2030, relative to current consumption levels. The RDF Technical Analysis focuses on the quantitative impacts to employment as a result of deep decarbonization efforts in the energy, building, and transportation sectors and informs a report by Inclusive Economicsxiv on workforce development strategies.

Between 2021 – 2030, the regional decarbonization pathways would generate an average of nearly 27,000 jobs per year in the San Diego region. Through the creation of direct, indirect, and induced jobs, the RDF Technical Analysis estimates that the decarbonization pathways will create 27,000 jobs per year for the region.xv Table 1 shows that expenditures on energy xiv To access the Inclusive Economics report titled “Putting San Diego County on the High Road: Climate Workforce Recommendations for 2030 and 2050,” please visit the County of San Diego’s engagement platform and select the report for download or for commenting at https://engage.sandiegocounty.gov/rdf. xv For a more detailed accounting of these jobs, please refer to Chapter 6, section 6.3.

DRAFT – NOT FOR CITATION
25 demand will create approximately 13,500 jobs between 2021 and 2030. Table 2 shows that expenditures on energy supply will create approximately 13,500 jobs between 2021 and 2030.

The RDF Technical Analysis estimates that no workers in the region’s fossil fuel-based industries will have to experience job displacement before 2030, even with contractions in fossil fuel demand. The energy supply mix in the EER model suggests that there will be small to no changes in the consumption of fossil fuels before 2030.xvi This suggests that there will not be job losses in the oil and gas sectors in the San Diego region prior to 2030.

San Diego County and local governments should begin now to develop a viable set of just transition policies for the workers in the community who will experience job displacement between 2031 – 2050. After 2030, the EER model’s central case estimates large contractions in both oil and gas. The model predicts 95% contraction rates in oil and 75% in gas by 2050. It is important for regional governments to begin to develop policies for a just transition for these workers now so that they can transition into jobs of equivalent or better quality in the clean energy economy or elsewhere.

The costs of a just transition will be much lower if the transition is able to proceed steadily rather than through a series of episodes. Under a steady transition, the proportion of workers who will retire voluntarily in any given year will be predictable, which will avoid the need to provide support for a much larger share of workers at any given time. The rate of the transition from fossil fuel to renewable energy-based jobs will impact the equity and fairness of the transition. Sudden changes and contractions would potentially result in sudden job losses, where steady changes and contractions would potentially result in fewer job losses as employees could transition to new jobs or could voluntarily retire.

Geothermal production of the five sites identified in Imperial County would generate 1,900 jobs per year over a 10-year period. Chapter 2 identifies five areas for geothermal energy production in Imperial County. This chapter’s analysis finds that there will be 1,900 jobs created per year in the Southern California region over a 10-year period for the development and operation of these five geothermal power plants. Some of these jobs may be created in the San Diego region.
xvi Details on the EER model’s Central Case, which was used here, can be found in Appendix A.

DRAFT – NOT FOR CITATION
26 Table 1 Average number of jobs created in the San Diego region annually through energy demand expenditures from 2021-2030, by subsectors and technology. Figures assume 1 percent average annual productivity growth.

Investment Area
Average
Annual
Expenditure
Direct Jobs Indirect Jobs Direct Jobs +
Indirect Jobs
Induced
Jobs
Direct Jobs +
Indirect Jobs +
Induced Jobs
Vehicles $7.7 billion 3,427 1,427 4,854 1,508 6,362
HVAC $897.0 million 1,345 699 2,044 764 2,808
Refrigeration $761.9 million 1,315 491 1,806 711 2,517
Appliances $188.6 million 143 77 220 78 298
Construction $113.4 million 263 149 412 146 558
Lighting $106.6 million 177 95 272 100 372
Manufacturing $45.7 million 40 32 72 27 99
Other commercial
and residential
$38.9 million 59 30 89 33 122
Agriculture $17.2 million 144 21 165 45 210
Mining $2.4 million 1 1 2 1 3
TOTAL $9.9 billion 6,914 3,022 9,936 3,413 13,349
Source: IMPLAN 3.1
Table 2 Average number of jobs created in the San Diego region annually through energy supply expenditures from 2021-2030, by subsectors and technology. Figures assume 1 percent average annual productivity growth.

Investment Area Average Annual
Expenditure
Direct
Jobs
Indirect
Jobs
Direct Jobs +
Indirect Jobs
Induced
Jobs
Direct Jobs +
Indirect Jobs +
Induced Jobs
Fossil fuels $4.4 billion 2,538 3,777 6,315 3,805 10,120 Clean renewables $629.5 million 1,488 601 2,089 848 2,937 Transmission and
storage
$45.9 million 34 17 51 31 82
Additional supply
technologies
$45.1 million 118 35 153 57 210
Other
investments
$4.5 million 10 3 13 6 19
TOTAL $5.1 billion 4,188 4,433 8,621 4,747 13,368
Source: IMPLAN 3.1
DRAFT – NOT FOR CITATION
27 Local Policy Opportunityxvii
The RDF Technical Analysis assesses current GHG reduction commitments in Climate Action Plans (CAPs) to determine if additional activity would be needed to put the region on a trajectory to meet decarbonization goals. Additionally, it identifies opportunities for local jurisdictions in the region to take further action to support the decarbonization pathways for energy production, transportation, buildings, and natural climate solutions.

To do this, several novel analyses were conducted. First, it analyzes the authority of local governments and agencies to influence and regulate GHG emissions and summarizes the authority of key federal, State, and local agencies, and key legislation and regulation at the federal and State levels to help to clarify the ability of local governments to act to reduce GHG emissions.xviii Second, it reviews all CAPs in the region to determine how often a given measure was included in CAPs, the relative GHG impacts of CAP commitments, and the integration of social equity considerations.xix Third, it does a scenario analysis to estimate the total regional GHG reductions that would result from all adopted and pending CAPs’ commitments. It then estimates the potential GHG impact of a scenario that applies the best CAP commitments to all jurisdictions.xx This scenario analysis takes the CAP commitment for a given CAP policy category – say goals for planting trees in urban or rural areas – that will produce the single greatest relative GHG reductions and then applies that commitment to every jurisdiction in the San Diego region, regardless of current or planned commitments in that category. This may be considered the upper limit of potential GHG reductions from current CAP commitments. Finally, this chapter uses the results from these analyses, in addition to results from other research and analyses, to identify opportunities for further local action and regional collaboration in each of the four decarbonization pathways.xxi
Local jurisdictions have the authority to influence and regulate GHG emissions. Local governments can influence and regulate GHG emissions by accelerating State statutory targets and policies, adopting ordinances to go beyond State law, and using unique authority to adopt and implement policies. Local authority comes from both constitutionally derived power, which is a broad authority to promote public health, safety, or the general welfare of the community, xvii See Chapter 8 for more details.
xviii See Appendix B for more details.
xix See Chapter 8, section 8.3 for an overview and sections 8.5-8.8 for sector specific findings. These are also used to illustrate the gap between the deep decarbonization goals in Chapters 2 through 5 and the regional CAP commitments.
xx See section 8.4.
xxi These opportunities were included in each relevant section for this Executive Summary, but they are included in the sector specific section in Chapter 8.

DRAFT – NOT FOR CITATION
28 and delegated authority from State statutes. The full extent of a local jurisdiction’s power to regulate GHG emissions is unknown.xxii
Current CAP commitments are insufficient to reach decarbonization goals. Current local CAP GHG reduction commitments for transportation, electricity, and buildings contribute a relatively small portion of the total reductions needed to reach net zero GHG emissions in 2045 (Figure 12). Even if the most aggressive CAP measures are applied to all jurisdictions in the region, significant emissions would remain, mostly from natural gas building end-uses and onroad transportation (Figure 12).

Figure 12. This graph shows the projected GHG emissions in the San Diego region from electricity, natural gas, and on-road transportation in each of the scenarios analyzed. The reference scenario, where there are no CAP commitments, only shows reductions based on State and federal laws, mandates, actions, and goals. The Current CAP Commitments scenario shows the remaining GHG emissions from a subset of total emissions if all current CAPs were applied in full as written. The Best CAP Commitment Scenario shows the remaining GHG emissions if the best CAP commitment from each policy category is applied to every jurisdiction in the region, regardless of current CAP commitments. This graph shows that no analyzed scenario will allow the region to reach net zero emissions by 2050. Note that these analyses assume no new State and federal laws, mandates, actions, and goals, and that current ones do not change at any point in this period. Further, these analyses do not include all GHG emissions for the region.
xxii See section 8.2 and Appendix B for a more detailed discussion of authority.

DRAFT – NOT FOR CITATION
29 Opportunities exist for more jurisdictions to adopt additional CAP measures and strengthen existing measures. Based on the comparative analysis of CAPs, there is an opportunity for more jurisdictions to adopt CAP measures that are already adopted by some jurisdictions in the region. Similarly, based on the scenario analysis of the combined GHG impacts of CAP measures, there is an opportunity for most jurisdictions to strengthen their existing CAP measures, especially in the transportation and building sectors. These sectors produce large GHG emissions (Figure 13, right), but on average represent disproportionately low emissions reductions in CAPs in 2035 (Figure 13, left).

Figure 13. This graph shows the average contribution of each decarbonization pathway to the total GHG reduction from local CAP measures in 2035 (left) and the distribution of 2016 regional emissions by emission source (right). It shows that emissions from transportation (blue, right side) account for nearly half of regional emissions, but on average corresponding reductions from CAP commitments only represent slightly more than a quarter of local GHG reductions in CAPs (blue, left side). Similarly, electricity accounts for about a quarter of regional emissions (dark orange, right side) but associated reductions contribute on average just under half of GHG reductions from CAP commitments. Note that because emissions associated with buildings come from both onsite natural gas combustion and electricity production, the building decarbonization portion of the bar is shaded to show both light and dark orange to correspond with both natural gas buildings (light orange) and the electricity supply (dark orange).

Additional work would be needed to integrate social equity into climate planning. Based on a preliminary review, the integration of social equity in adopted and pending CAPs is limited, inconsistent, and lacks specificity. Additional work would be needed to develop the capacity and tools to understand and address the equity implications of all decarbonization policies in the San Diego region, including data collection and analysis; regional guidance documents; and regional working groups to coordinate, advise, track, and monitor how equity is being addressed in climate planning.

DRAFT – NOT FOR CITATION
30 The San Diego Region as a Model
Although the San Diego region only accounts for 0.08% of global emissions, the decarbonization efforts undertaken by the region can have a measurable impact on global emissions by generating followership among others and sharing durable innovations that can be expanded and replicated. San Diego should actively seek to make its efforts visible and communicate lessons learned in national and international fora. The creation of the San Diego Regional Decarbonization Framework can serve as a case study for other jurisdictions across the U.S. and globally to learn from and adapt in their own long-term decarbonization planning endeavors. In addition to showcasing this effort alongside various national and international fora,xxiii the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN) is producing a Guidebook that will serve as a toolkit for other municipalities, universities, and communities to follow the process undertaken by the County of San Diego in their own decarbonization processes.

SDSN is working to share the RDF within three horizontal levels across its networks. SDSN will share the RDF and its key findings in national meetings and fora in the United States, international groups and consortiums, and the United Nations. For example, the project was presented during the Innovate4Cities Conference in October 2021 and the inputs of this event will serve to inform the 2022 IPCC Sixth Assessment Report on impact, adaptation, and vulnerability to global climate change. These global consortiums provide an opportunity to showcase the results of this project and San Diego as a model to the world. With access to these audiences, the RDF can help inform global roadmaps and pathways to net zero.

A Guidebook for Regional Decarbonization is being prepared for use by local jurisdictions to aid in creating unique decarbonization frameworks. This Guidebook will provide background information as well as specific steps and advice on logistics, methodology, stakeholder engagement, long-term planning, and more. Although the resources within this Guidebook are relevant and applicable to decarbonization framework project teams beyond the US, frameworks being created in the context of emerging economies will likely use different approaches, perspectives, and strategies in climate action planning. This Guidebook will be free and available online at UC San Diego’s SDG Policy Initiative’s website (http://sdgpolicyinitiative.org/guidebook/) as a way to facilitate the creation of regional decarbonization frameworks and provide a practical roadmap for jurisdictions to work toward net-zero goals.
xxiii Chapter 9 and Appendix C present extensive lists of US and global consortiums that San Diego County and other jurisdictions with decarbonization frameworks can connect with, attend, and join the networks of in order to disseminate their findings across different scales.

vchlist Voucher List
04/20/2022 10:52:34AM CITY OF SANTEE
Bank code: ubqen
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
130241 4/20/2022 13287 ANIXTER 187406149
130242 4/20/2022 10412 AT&T 000017943947
130243 4/20/2022 10516 AWARDS BY NAVAJO 0322329
130244 4/20/2022 10022 BRAUN NORTHWEST INC 32218
130245 4/20/2022 13990 C.P. RICHARDS SIGNS, INC. 59000
59028
130246 4/20/2022 10299 CAR QUEST AUTO PARTS 11102-554401 130247 4/20/2022 10032 CINTAS CORPORATION #694 4114875459 130248 4/20/2022 10039 COUNTY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY INC 558577 130249 4/20/2022 10333 COX COMMUNICATIONS 038997 401-APR22 130250 4/20/2022 10988 ESPINOLA, TOBY 03282022
130251 4/20/2022 13393 FIRE CATI, LLC 10507
130252 4/20/2022 11196 HD SUPPLY FM 9201306308
PO# Description/Account
53732 FIBEROPTIC EQUIPMENT
Total:

TELEPHONE
Total:
53429 NAMETAGS
Total:
53620 BRAUN NORTH STAR 171-3 AMBUL
Total:
53690 AMBULANCE GRAPHICS
53690 AMBULANCE GRAPHICS
Total:
53407 VEHICLE REPAIR PARTS
Total:
53483 UNIFORM/PARTS CLEANER RNTL
Total:
53435 SHOP SUPPLIES
Total:
10601 N MAGNOLIA AVE SANTEE T
Total:

DEPARTMENT SUPPLIES
Total:
53770 ANNUAL FIRE HOSE TESTING
Total:
53409 STATION SUPPLIES
Total:

Page: 2
Amount
6,513.38
6,513.38
802.12
802.12

47.41 47.41
254,865.01
254,865.01
923.50
500.00
1,423.50

28.21 28.21

66.51 66.51

38.40 38.40
160.65
160.65
152.26
152.26
4,032.60
4,032.60
338.90
338.90
Page: 2
vchlist Voucher List Page: 3
04/20/2022 10:52:34AM CITY OF SANTEE
Bank code : ubqen
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount 130253 4/20/2022 10256 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 3152079 53410 STATION SUPPLIES 32.10 Total: 32.10
130254 4/20/2022 11724 ICF JONES & STOKES INC INV-00000025131 53609 MSCP SUBAREA PLAN 7.462.50 Total: 7,462.50
130255 4/20/2022 14530 INAAM WEHAB REV LIVING TRUST TPM2008-04 REFUNDABLE DEPOSIT/SECURITY 98,406.70 Total: 98,406.70
130256 4/20/2022 11009 KNN PUBLIC FINANCE 2795 CONTINUING DISCLOSURE ANNUJI 500.00 Total: 500.00
130257 4/20/2022 10204 LIFE ASSIST INC 1190871 53477 EMS SUPPLIES 286.52 1192456 53477 EMS SUPPLIES 2,558.35
Total: 2,844.87
130258 4/20/2022 14470 M.W STEEL GROUP, INC 2200-01 53741 SANTEE ART AND ENTERTAINMEN. 8,851.03 Total: 8,851.03
130259 4/20/2022 10079 MEDICO HEALTHCARE LINEN 20577667 53546 MEDICAL LINEN SERVICE 20.62 20577670 53546 MEDICAL LINEN SERVICE 13.01
Total: 33.63
130260 4/20/2022 10344 PADRE DAM MUNICIPAL WATER DIST 29700016 MARCH2022 CONSTRUCTION METER 251.50 90000366-MAR2022 GROUP BILL 20,416.05
Total: 20,667.55
130261 4/20/2022 10606 S.D. COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT. SHERIFF JAN 2022 LAW ENFORCEMENT 1,374,389.35 Total: 1,374,389.35
130262 4/20/2022 13171 SC COMMERCIAL, LLC 2094528-IN 53480 DELIVERED FUEL 937.78 2096810-IN 53480 DELIVERED FUEL 1,312.10
Total: 2,249.88
130263 4/20/2022 10585 SHARP REES-STEALY MEDICAL 366212922 TB TEST 106.00 366287050 MEDICAL SERVICES 49.00
366367648 DMV EXAM 118.00
366374039 53740 ANNUAL FIREFIGHTER PHYSICALE 65.00
Page: 3
vchlist
04/20/2022 10:52:34AM
Bank code : ubqen
Voucher
130263
130264
130265
130266
130267
Date Vendor -----------------
4/20/2022 10585 SHARP REES-STEALY MEDICAL
4/20/2022 10217 STAPLES ADVANTAGE
4/20/2022 10250 THE EAST COUNTY
4/20/2022 12480 UNITED SITE SERVICES
4/20/2022 14520 WAYNE AND MONA HARRIS
27 Vouchers for bank code : ubgen
27 Vouchers in this report
Voucher List

CITY OF SANTEE
Invoice
(Continued)
366374040
366374041
366374042
366374043
366375101
366375102
366375103
366375104
366375105
3503223506
3503638703
3503638704
0016360
114-12961266
114-12973605
CD21025S
PO#
53740
53740
53740
53740
53740
53740
53740
53740
53467
53548
53467
53574
53419
53419
Description/Account

ANNUAL FIREFIGHTER PHYSICALE

MEDICAL SERVICES

MEDICAL SERVICES

ANNUAL FIREFIGHTER PHYSICALE

PRE-PLACEMENT PHYSICAL

PRE-PLACEMENT PHYSICAL

PRE-PLACEMENT PHYSICAL

PRE-PLACEMENT PHYSICAL

PRE-PLACEMENT PHYSICAL
Total:

OFFICE SUPPLIES - PAPER

OFFICE SUPPLIES - DDS

OFFICE SUPPLIES
Total:

CLERK OFFICE PUBLICATIONS
Total:

PORTABLE TOILETS, TEMP FENCE

PORTABLE TOILETS, TEMP FENCE
Total:

SECURITY DEPOSIT REFUND
Total:

Bank total:

Total vouchers
Page: 4
Amount

61.00 40.00

47.00 83.00
292.00

40.00 42.00

56.00 57.00
1,056.00
119.34

61.49 30.34
211.17
245.00
245.00
450.68
2,325.12
2,775.80
292.50
292.50
1,788,487.03
1,788,487.03
Page: 4
vchlist
04/21/2022 11 :41 :48AM
Bank code : ubqen
Voucher List

CITY OF SANTEE
Voucher
130268
Date Vendor Invoice ------- PO #
4/21/2022 12724 AMERICAN FIDELITY ASSURANCE 0447306
130269 4/21/2022 12903 AMERICAN FIDELITY ASSURANCE CO 6049872 130270 4/21/2022 12722 FIDELITY SECURITY LIFE 165219907 130271 4/21/2022 14452 MEDICAL AIR SERVICES ASSC, MASA 1235116 130272 4/21/2022 14458 METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE 71263310 130273 4/21/2022 10784 NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE April 2022 130274 4/21/2022 10335 SAN DIEGO FIREFIGHTERS FEDERAL April 2022 130275 4/21/2022 10424 SANTEE FIREFIGHTERS PPE 04/13/22 130276 4/21/2022 12892 SELMAN & COMPANY, LLC April 2022 130277 4/21/2022 10776 STATE OF CALIFORNIA PPE 04/13/22 130278 4/21/2022 14467 TEXAS LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY SMOFOU20220413001 130279 4/21/2022 10001 US BANK PPE 04/13/22
12 Vouchers for bank code : ubgen
Description/Account
VOLUNTARY LIFE INS-AM FIDELIT'r
Total:

FLEXIBLE SPENDING ACCOUNT
Total:

EYEMED - VOLUNTARY VISION
Total:

MEDICAL AIR TRANSPORT SVCS
Total:

VOLUNTARY LEGAL
Total:

VOLUNTARY AD&D
Total:

LONG TERM DISABILITY-SFFA
Total:

DUES/PEG/BENEVOLENT/BC EXP
Total:

ID THEFT PROTECTION
Total:

WITHHOLDING ORDER
Total:

VOLUNTARY INS RIDERS
Total:

PARS RETIREMENT
Total:

Bank total:

Page: 5
Amount
4,774.60
4,774.60
1,861.31
1,861.31
1,034.18
1,034.18

98.00 98.00
168.00
168.00

74.50 74.50
1,445.50
1,445.50
3,420.06
3,420.06
200.00
200.00
449.53
449.53
110.35
110.35
589.28
589.28
14,225.31
Page: 5
vchlist
04/21/2022 11 :41 :48AM
Bank code: ubqen
Voucher List

CITY OF SANTEE
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account
12 Vouchers in this report
Prnparnd.b� ¥='
Date: '-1-/ Jj g 7
Approved by: �&/�
Date: t/., ;2../ , ;;2.?- ·
Total vouchers :

Page: 6
Amount
14,225.31
Page: 6
PyBatch
04/18/2022 5:30:04PM

EARNINGS SECTION
Type Hours/units Rate Amount Src
ststkn 65.50 2,184.58
tech 350.00
tiller 236.00 222.80
tillot 72.00 3,467.04
tup 246.69
unif 725.00
unifp 550.00
vacp 152.08 4,419.66
vtkn 397.31 18,519.00
wcbf 74.67
Grand 14,327.10 572,675.66
Totals
Payroll Processing Report

CITY OF SANTEE
3/31/2022 to 4/13/2022-2 Cycle b

DEDUCTIONS SECTION
Plan Base Wages Deduction Benefit/Cont LvPlan
roth 28,551.50 4,960.06
sb-1 66.96
sb-3 61.04
sffa 2,828.46
sffapc 448.80
st1 cs3 101,156.40 3,034.70 -3,034.70
st2cs3 12,621.55 378.65 -378.65
texlif 55.16
vaccpr 628.00
vaccpt 304.40
vcanpr 433.53
vcanpt 156.90
vgcipt 88.81
vision 502.48
voladd 37.21
voldis 234.94
vollif 250.57
vollpb -250.57
206,487.39 69,270.17
--r\�'::::,�
,�?c: L-\ \ \�\6-d.
�'i ��� � \ d-"- \ �d-.

Page: 7

LEAVE SECTION
Accrued
Gross:

Net:

Taken
572,675.66
366,188.27
Banked Lost
<< No Errors/ 13 Warnings >>
�
Page: 7
vchlist
04/28/2022 2:44:26PM
Bank code: ubqen
Voucher
730668
730676
Date Vendor
4/22/2022 10959 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENT/457
4/22/2022 10782 VANTAGEPOINT TRNSFR AGT/801801
2 Vouchers for bank code: ubgen
2 Vouchers in this report
Pmpa"'1r g �� Date: Y �� ·
Apprn,edt �Mi�� Date: "'JJ,.,
Voucher List

CITY OF SANTEE
Invoice
PPE 04/13/22
PPE 04/13/22
------- PO# Description/Account
ICMA-457
Total:

RETIREE HSA
Total:

Bank total:

Total vouchers
Page: 8
Amount
33,058.42
33,058.42
4,304.99
4,304.99
37,363.41
37,363.41
Page: 8
vchlist
04/28/2022 3:20:16PM
Bank code: ubqen
Voucher
2178
2192
Date Vendor
4/25/2022 10955 DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
4/25/2022 10956 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD
2 Vouchers for bank code : ubgen
2 Vouchers in this report
Prepare� b
. Date: l/' l,;i, � ' � J-. �
Appro
·
v
·
e
· Date: .
d by i/_: �11£- lJ , funuig:i
Voucher List

CITY OF SANTEE
Invoice
PPE 04/13/22
PPE 04/13/22
PO# Description/Account

FED WITHHOLD,& MEDICARE
Total:

CA STATE TAX WITHHELD
Total:

Bank total:

Total vouchers
Page: 9
Amount
79,665.79
79,665.79
26,039.47
26,039.47
105,705.26
105,705.26
Page: 9
vchlist
04/28/2022 3:31 :25PM
Bank code: ubqen
Voucher List

CITY OF SANTEE
Voucher
4223
Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account
4/26/2022 10353 PERS 04 22 3 RETIREMENT PAYMENT
Total :
1 Vouchers for bank code : ubgen Bank total:
1 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers :

P
D
�
ate:
pa<�
Y
d�
A �I ') .>-�
��;0m,ed .,��� Fwe
Page:

Amount
119,106.36
119,106.36
119,106.36
119,106.36
Page:
10 10
vchlist Voucher List
04/27/2022 12:23:27PM CITY OF SANTEE
Bank code: ubqen
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
130280 4/27/2022 12060 ACCOUNTING PRINCIPALS 12346813
12355522
130281 4/27/2022 10010 ALLIANT INSURANCE SERVICES INC 1926673 130282 4/27/2022 10510 AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC 992195897 130283 4/27/2022 11445 AMERICAN MESSAGING L 1072898WD
130284 4/27/2022 10262 AUSTIN, ROY 04062022
130285 4/27/2022 12951 BERRY, BONNIE F. May 1, 2022
130286 4/27/2022 10019 BERT W SALAS INC CIP 2021-21
130287 4/27/2022 10020 BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP LEGAL SVCS MAR 2022 130288 4/27/2022 11513 BOND, ELLEN 05012022-263
130289 4/27/2022 14521 CHOICE BANK BOX 180 26296-INV
130290 4/27/2022 14510 CAMPBELL, HILLARY 2004428.001
130291 4/27/2022 10876 CANON SOLUTIONS AMERICA INC 4040471849 4040471850
PO# Description/Account
53612 TEMPORARY ACCOUTING SPECIAL
53612 TEMPORARY ACCOUNTING SPECl1
Total:

HOP DOWN BUNNY TRAIL
Total:
53648 CLOUD STORAGE
Total:

FD PAGER SERVICE
Total:

RETIREE HEALTH INSURANCE
Total:

RETIREE HEALTH PAYMENT
Total:

RETENTION RELEASE
Total:

LEGAL SVCS MAR 2022
Total:

MEADOWBROOK HARDSHIP PROC:

Total:

SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE
Total:

REFUND OF PARK PICNIC SHELTEI
Total:
53552 SCANNER MAINTENANCE
53552 PLOTIER MAINT & USAGE
Page: 11
Amount
1,801.87
1,552.55
3,354.42
957.00
957.00
205.62
205.62
190.21
190.21
1,511.25
1,511.25

91.00 91.00
14,195.83
14,195.83
88,289.18
88,289.18

77.47 77.47
641.74
641.74

80.00 80.00
106.46

25.23 Page: 11
vchlist Voucher List
04/27/2022 12:23:27PM CITY OF SANTEE
Bank code: ubQen
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
130291 4/27/2022 10876 10876 CANON SOLUTIONS AMERICA INC (Continued) 130292 4/27/2022 11402 CARROLL, JUDI 05012022-96
130293 4/27/2022 10032 CINTAS CORPORATION #694 4114191628 130294 4/27/2022 11409 CLAYTON, SYLVIA 05012022-340
130295 4/27/2022 10268 COOPER, JACKIE May 1, 2022
130296 4/27/2022 12153 CORODATA RECORDS 4782218
130297 4/27/2022 10358 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 22CTOFSAN09
22CTOFSASN09
130298 4/27/2022 10486 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO CIP2022-01
130299 4/27/2022 10486 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 04252022
130300 4/27/2022 10333 COX COMMUNICATIONS 052335901-APRIL22 064114701-APRIL22
066401501-APRIL22
132585001-APRIL22
130301 4/27/2022 10608 CRISIS HOUSE 674
130302 4/27/2022 14525 CRONE, ANNETTE RES2201A
PO# Description/Account
Total:

MEADOWBROOK HARDSHIP PROC:

Total:
53483 UNIFORM/PARTS CLEANER RNTL
Total:

MEADOWBROOK HARDSHIP PRO(
Total:

RETIREE HEALTH PAYMENT
Total:
53565 RECORD STORAGE, RETRIEVEL &
Total:
53559 SHERIFF RADIOS
53508 800 MHZ ACCESS (FIRE/PS)
Total:

COUNTY RECORDER FEE - NOE
Total:

COUNTY RECORDER FEE - NOE
Total:
8950 COTTONWOOD AVE
8115 ARLETTE ST
10601 N MAGNOLIA AVE APT 5
9130 CARL TON OAKS DR
Total:
53674 CDBG SUBRECIPIENT
Total:

DEPOSIT REFUND
Page: 12
Amount
131.69

77.66 77.66

66.51 66.51

81.27 81.27

91.00 91.00
513.43
513.43
3,705.00
1,767.00
5,472.00

50.00 50.00

50.00 50.00
178.74
194.75

50.57 108.90
532.96
611.18
611.18
1,694.00
Page: 12
vchlist Voucher List
04/27/2022 12:23:27PM CITY OF SANTEE
Bank code: ubqen
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
130302 4/27/2022 14525 14525 CRONE, ANNETIE (Continued) 130303 4/27/2022 14347 DIAMOND EDUCATION 1017
130304 4/27/2022 12483 DISCOUNT SIGNS AND BANNERS 5584
130305 4/27/2022 12593 ELLISON WILSON ADVOCACY, LLC 2022-04-08 130306 4/27/2022 12638 GEORGE HILLS COMPANY, INC. INV1022461 130307 4/27/2022 10600 HINDERLITER, DE LLAMAS & ASSOC SIN016052 130308 4/27/2022 14459 HMC GROUP 160918
161531
130309 4/27/2022 10411 HOWARD HENRY WAYNE JR 14
130310 4/27/2022 10272 JENKINS, CARROLL 04062022
130311 4/27/2022 13247 JOHNSON, DOUGLAS 04062022
130312 4/27/2022 10204 LIFE ASSIST INC 1191792
1193830
1195822
130313 4/27/2022 10538 MEALS ON WHEELS 3-21-22
PO# Description/Account
Total:
53595 CONTINUING EDUCATION
Total:
53439 IDENTIFICATION DECALS
Total:
53567 LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICE
Total:
53596 CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION FEES
Total:
53570 2022 MAR CANNABIS MGMT PROG
Total:
53747 SANTEE COMMUNITY CENTER
53747 SANTEE COMMUNITY CENTER
Total:
53764 RADIO REPAIR
Total:

RETIREE HEALTH INSURANCE
Total:

REITREE HEALTH INSURANCE
Total:
53477 EMS SUPPLIES
53477 EMS SUPPLIES
53477 EMS SUPPLIES
Total:
53677 CDBG SUBRECIPIENT
Total:

Page: 13
Amount
1,694.00
1,788.00
1,788.00

21.55 21.55
1,500.00
1,500.00
1,541.67
1,541.67
625.00
625.00
15,963.09
40,742.61
56,705.70
455.00
455.00
3,101.22
3,101.22
1,020.60
1,020.60
814.03

68.96 367.85
1,250.84
1,230.00
1,230.00
Page: 13
vchlist Voucher List
04/27/2022 12:23:27PM CITY OF SANTEE
Bank code: ubqen
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO#
130314 4/27/2022 10079 MEDICO HEALTHCARE LINEN 20581583 53546 20581586 53546
130315 4/27/2022 10083 MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES IN1675725 53454 130316 4/27/2022 14499 NANCY J MARSHALL May 1, 2022
130317 4/27/2022 10085 NATIONAL SAFETY COMPLIANCE INC 89520 130318 4/27/2022 10218 OFFICE DEPOT 236947533001 53708
236949669001 53708
130319 4/27/2022 10805 OHO INC 81119 53784
130320 4/27/2022 10344 PADRE DAM MUNICIPAL WATER DIST 90000367-APRI L22 130321 4/27/2022 11442 PATTERSON, LUANNE 05012022-225
130322 4/27/2022 11888 PENSKE FORD 186961 53486
130323 4/27/2022 13669 PORTILLO CONCRETE, INC CIP 2021-05 #1 53773 CIP 2021-05 #1R
130324 4/27/2022 10101 PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL SUPPLY 8018683 53412 8018684 53412
6018685 53412
Description/Account

MEDICAL LINEN SERVICE

MEDICAL LINEN SERVICE
Total:

SAFETY APPAREL
Total:

RETIREE HEALTH PAYMENT
Total:

DRUG/ALCOHOL TESTING
Total:

OFFICE SUPPLIES - FINANCE

OFFICE SUPPLIES - FINANCE
Total:

TEST EQUIPMENT
Total:

GROUP BILL
Total:

MEADOWBROOK HARDSHIP PRO(
Total:

VEHICLE REPAIR PARTS
Total:

CITYWIDE CONCRETE REPAIR AN[

RETENTION
Total:

OXYGEN CYLINDERS & REFILLS

OXYGEN CYLINDERS & REFILLS

OXYGEN CYLINDERS & REFILLS
Total:

Page: 14
Amount

20.62 13.01

33.63 223.78
223.78

91.00 91.00
235.45
235.45
262.87
195.19
458.06
578.62
578.62
18,840.63
18,840.63

74.92 74.92
244.58
244.58
130,709.00
-6,535.45
124,173.55
290.70

56.70 102.60
450.00
Page: 14
vchlist Voucher List
04/27/2022 12:23:27PM CITY OF SANTEE
Bank code: ubqen
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO#
130325 4/27/2022 12062 PURETEC INDUSTRIAL WATER 1966824 53592 1969203 53592
1969204 53592
130326 4/27/2022 12237 RAYON, KYLE May 1, 2022
130327 4/27/2022 12256 ROE, DARLENE 05012022-318
130328 4/27/2022 14415 SAN DIEGO FOOD SYSTEM ALLIANCE 4277 53668 130329 4/27/2022 13061 SAN DIEGO HUMANE SOCIETY & APR-22 53530 130330 4/27/2022 11594 SAN DIEGO METROPOLITAN TRANSIT 1800015983 130331 4/27/2022 10702 SANTEE SANTAS FOUNDATION INC SSDF 21-002 53681 130332 4/27/2022 13171 SC COMMERCIAL, LLC 2099436-IN 53480 2101803-IN 53480
130333 4/27/2022 13554 SC FUELS 0517363-F 53481
0525821-DEF 53488
0525821-F 53481
0526774-DEF 53488
0526774-F 53481
0530873 53481
0530873-DEF 53488
0533061-DEF 53488
0533061-F 53481
Description/Account

DEIONIZED WATER SERVICE

DEIONIZED WATER SERVICE

DEIONIZED WATER SERVICE
Total:

RETIREE HEALTH PAYMENT
Total:

MEADOWBROOK HARDSHIP PROC:

Total:

SB 1383 REQUIREMENTS
Total:

ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES
Total:

CUYAMACA STREET RESURFACIN<
Total:

CDBG SUBRECIPIENT
Total:

DELIVERED FUEL

DELIVERED FUEL
Total:

FLEET CARD FUELING

DIESEL EXHAUST FLUID (DEF)

FLEET CARD FUELING

DIESEL EXHAUST FLUID (DEF)

FLEET CARD FUELING

FLEET CARD FUELING

DIESEL EXHAUST FLUID (DEF)

DIESEL EXHAUST FLUID (DEF)

FLEET CARD FUELING
Total:

Page: 15
Amount
112.66

59.14 39.44
211.24

91.00 91.00

78.74 78.74
3,600.00
3,600.00
36,794.00
36,794.00
2,064.27
2,064.27
7,030.00
7,030.00
492.73
938.15
1,430.88
390.15

14.44 2,711.29

5.35 2,277.39
1,429.96

4.96 3.95
976.34
7,813.83
Page: 15
vchlist Voucher List
04/27/2022 12:23:27PM CITY OF SANTEE
Bank code: ubqen
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO#
130334 4/27/2022 10110 SECTRAN SECURITY INC 22040504 53532 130335 4/27/2022 10837 SOUTHWEST TRAFFIC SIGNAL 81534 53587 81535 53587
81536 53587
81537 53587
130336 4/27/2022 11403 ST. JOHN, LYNNE 05012022-78
130337 4/27/2022 10217 STAPLES ADVANTAGE 3503826918 53573 3504675344 53548
130338 4/27/2022 10027 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 572455 53801 130339 4/27/2022 10250 THE EAST COUNTY 00116529
00116545
00116957 53574
130340 4/27/2022 10133 UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT 320220690 53563 dsb20210905 53563
130341 4/27/2022 10550 UNIFORMS PLUS INC 55818 53469
130342 4/27/2022 12480 UNITED SITE SERVICES 114-12976799 53419 114-12980758 53419
130343 4/27/2022 11194 USAFACT INC 2033458
Description/Account

ARMORED CAR TRANSPORT SVC
Total:

USA MARKOUTS

TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALL

TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINTENANCE

TRAFFIC SIGNAL SERVICE CALLS
Total:

MEADOWBROOK HARDSHIP PRO(
Total:

AS-NEEDED OFFICE SUPPLIES - Cl

OFFICE SUPPLIES - DDS
Total:

FINGERPRINTING
Total:

RFP- MASTER DRAINAGE STUDY L
NOTICE OF PUBLIC COMMENT - C[

CLERK OFFICE PUBLICATIONS
Total:

DIG ALERT SERVICES

DIG ALERT SERVICES - STATE FEE
Total:

CLASS B UNIFORMS
Total:

PORTABLE TOILETS, TEMP FENCE

PORTABLE TOILETS, TEMP FENCE
Total:

BACKGROUND CHECK
Total:

Page: 16
Amount
141.67
141.67
528.84
2,073.19
4,032.71
3,396.65
10,031.39

77.79 77.79
180.31

69.01 249.32
207.00
207.00
101.50
185.50
231.00
518.00
348.25

49.91 398.16
959.74
959.74
174.97
159.79
334.76
113.40
113.40
Page: 16
vchlist
04/27/2022 12:23:27PM
Bank code : ubi:ien
Voucher List

CITY OF SANTEE
Page: 17
Voucher
130344
Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount
130345
130346
4/27/2022 10475 VERIZON WIRELESS
4/27/2022 12930 WILLIAMS, ROCHELLE M.
4/27/2022 12641 WITTORFF, VICKY DENISE
67 Vouchers for bank code : ubgen
67 Vouchers in this report
Pcepaced byd::k
Date: '-f/,;i..;-;/ ·;;t_:::

Approved by: JAJ/iu.,¥.i{ df.,L,tt_.f1
Date: t.f/:7: 7 i>-?-:
9903864661
9903864662
May 1, 2022
May 1, 2022

CELL PHONE SERVICE

WIFI SERVICE & EQUIPMENT
Total:

RETIREE HEALTH PAYMENT
1,369.32
5,705.22
7,074.54

91.00 Total : 91.00
RETIREE HEALTH PAYMENT 31.00
Total : 31.00
Bank total:

Total vouchers
� U o ; 0,JL£Jl cfJve)L j
iic.io·tt) -C>f S", 1 &, o. oq
'f o, ·7 lf J _ G/t
412,950.95
412,950.95
Page: 17

April 15, 2022
RFB #22/23-20061
Bid Results
for

HVAC MAINTENANCE & REPAIRS
Bids received, verified:

1. Paradigm Mechanical Corp. Total: $ 26,336.00

2. B & B Mechanical Inc. Total: $ 28,331.68

3. Alpha Mechanical (correction) Total: $ 39,319.48

4. Pipe Trades (correction) Total: $ 54,965.36

5. ACCO Engineered Systems (correction) Total: $ 57,558.00

1 Introduction
The State of California has passed a variety of legislation in the past 20 years aiming to reduce the volume of
greenhouse gases (GHG) being emitted from various
types of source points. In 2006 the State established the first three emission reduction targets which included
target goal years of 2010, 2020, and 2050. In 2016, a
new emission reduction target was added for 2030.

In order to comply with state regulations, the City of
Santee developed a plan to reduce the volume of GHG
emissions from various activities. In January 2020 the
Santee City Council adopted that plan, named the
Sustainable Santee Plan (SSP). Using a variety of data
sources, local GHG emissions were quantified and goals
were established to reduce emissions over time. This is to be achieved through implementation of specific
measures outlined in the SSP.

The first step in developing the plan was to determine the City’s GHG emissions inventory. This was completed for
a number of years (2005, 2008, 2012, 2013), and those
numbers were used for modeling, forecasting, and target setting. The City established two targets as part of the plan, the first is to reduce emissions 40% below 2005
levels by 2030. The second target is to reduce emissions 49% below 2005 levels by 2035.

To achieve the targeted emission reductions, strategies were outlined in the form of goals and measures to
achieve those reductions. The strategies were divided
into three categories; those that would be applied broadly to the community, those that would be applied to
municipal property and activities, and those that the City would implement to show leadership and commitment to
support the SSP. Most measures were modeled to
determine the volume of GHG reduction attained with
complete implementation. Implementation of each
measure helps the City get closer to achieving the two
emissions reduction targets.

Goals
10 Community Goals
Measures
17 Community Measures
9 Municipal Measures
12 Supportive Measures
Targets
2030 - 40% below 2005 levels
2035 - 49% below 2005 levels
SSP Strategy
2 Summary
The City is actively implementing the SSP and has made progress on a number of measures.

Implementation has begun on Community Measures (i.e. 1.1, 2.1, 3.1, 4.1a, 5.1, 6.1b, 7.1a,

8.1a, 10.1), with some progress also made on Municipal and Supportive Measures. The status of these measures is shown on the attached table.

Through adoption of Ordinance 591, the Zoning Code was amended to incorporate three of the top four volume reduction measures. Ordinance 591 codified:
• The requirement for all new buildings to be designed to meet tier 2 of the California Green Building Standards;
• The requirement of energy audits and implementation of recommendations for all remodels; and
• That electric vehicle charging stations must be incorporated in all new development.

The SSP measures include energy audits for existing and commercial structures. This was recommended at a time when SDG&E sponsored such programs. SDG&E sponsorship of energy audits is currently directed to low-income households, mobile home parks, and large commercial entities. For the typical single-family home owner wishing to remodel or add on to their residence, “self-audits” occur when permits are pulled because electrical, plumbing and mechanical permit issuance reflects increased energy efficiency in existing developments meeting Green Building Code requirements.

Regarding the City’s goal of increasing tree shade canopies to reduce the urban heat island effect, progress was made in that the City Council approved an Urban Forestry Plan in December 2021 which included an inventory and analysis of existing trees, identification of trees requiring pruning or removal, and areas appropriate for additional planting.

In 2021, the City Council also held a public workshop in October and a noticed public hearing in December on building electrification as one of the measures to reduce GHG and achieve carbon neutrality consistent with the state’s decarbonization goals. Staff has been monitoring San Diego County’s progress on a proposed Regional Decarbonization Framework Plan.

The City remains committed to implementing the SSP, which includes joining a Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) program, and we are continuing to pursue a CCA in good faith and in accordance with the SSP criteria, which are to:
i. Prioritize the program with the highest projected excess revenue to reinvest back into the Santee community;
ii. Prioritize programs with a commitment to pooling reinvestment dollars so they are equally shared among all participating cities;
iii. Prioritize programs that prioritize family-sustaining middle class jobs; and iv. Exclude programs that include coal and nuclear generation. 3 The City has studied a stand-alone CCA program as well as two local CCA programs currently operating in our region (San Diego Community Power and Clean Energy Alliance).

We have also continued discussions with the County of San Diego and other cities in our region regarding the option of creating a new CCA. However, these options have not yet met the City’s criteria. To date, the County as well as 13 of the 18 cities in the region have chosen to join one of the two existing CCA programs. Other than Santee, only four other cities in the region remain, and all have chosen to take no action with regards to CCA at this time. We will continue to pursue all of our options to best meet the City’s needs, including review of potential turnkey programs that may become available in the future.

Next Steps
Good steps were taken in 2021 towards implementing the SSP and implementation of a number of SSP measures were achieved in 2021. However, comprehensive implementation has not begun. Recognizing the time and effort it takes to implement the SSP and other sustainability programs in the City, and to coordinate these efforts with other regional partners, the SSP states that a Sustainability Program Manager be designated. As an important element to achieving SSP targets, a practical next step would be to designate a Sustainability Manager who would focus on active monitoring of SSP measures, tracking GHG reduction progress, and updating the SSP for consistency with state requirements.

Adoption of the updated General Plan Housing Element resulted in a sixth cycle Housing Element sites inventory that differs from unit counts analyzed in the SSP. In addition, the State of California Air Resources Board (CARB) is undertaking a 2022 Scoping Plan Update that will assess progress towards achieving Senate Bill 32 targets for 2030 and lay out a plan to achieve carbon neutrality by mid-century. In order to conform with the 2022 scoping plan, an SSP update is recommended in fiscal year 2022-23 to include a new emissions inventory and evaluation of measures.

Conclusion
The table on the following pages outlines all of the goals and measures identified in the Sustainable Santee Plan, and the City’s progress towards achieving each. This report serves as the annual progress report for calendar year 2021. 4 Measure
# Measure Metric Notes 2021 2030 Goal Progress
GHG Reduction
Potential
(MTCO2e)
Community Measures
CM1.1a
Increase Energy
Efficiency in Existing
Residential Sector
Require all minor residential building
permits (less than 30% of dwelling size,
and do not include bathrooms or kitchens)
to perform an energy audit and
implement the recommendations.
2030: 65 units
2035: 130 units
Ordinance adopted
The City does not require
energy audits for building
modifications, but all new
appliances would meet
energy audit standards
0 energy audits
performed
16 permits issued
25% 45
CM1.1b
Increase Energy
Efficiency in Existing
Residential Sector
Require all major residential building
permits (greater than 30% of dwelling
size, and/or include bathrooms or
kitchens) to perform an energy audit
(including HVAC) and implement the
recommendations.
2030: 800 units
2035: 1,600 units
Ordinance adopted
The City does not require
energy audits for building
modifications, but all new
appliances would meet
energy audit standards
0 energy audits
performed
505 permits issued
63% 7,811
CM2.1a
Increase Energy
Efficiency in New
Residential Sector
All new residential units, including ADU's,
must meet or exceed CA Green Building
Standards Tier 2 Voluntary Measures.
2030: 1,500 units
2035: 2,000 units
Ordinance adopted 0 permits
approved with Tier
2 standards
0%
2030: 13,524
2035: 17,750
CM3.1a
Increase Energy
Efficiency in Existing
Commercial Sector
All commercial buildings greater 10k sq.ft.
seeking minor building permits (less than
30% of total area) must perform energy
audits and implement recommendations.
2030: 44 businesses
2035: 88 businesses
Ordinance adopted
The City does not require
energy audits for building
modifications, but all new
appliances would meet
energy audit standards
0 energy audits
performed
0% 660
5 Measure
# Measure Metric Notes 2021 2030 Goal Progress
GHG Reduction
Potential
(MTCO2e)
CM3.1b
Increase Energy
Efficiency in Existing
Commercial Sector
All commercial buildings greater 10k sq. ft.
seeking major building permits (greater
than 30% of total area) must perform
energy audits and implement
recommendations to obtain CA Green
Building Standards Tier 1 Voluntary
Measures.
2030: 300 businesses
2035: 600 businesses
Ordinance adopted
The City does not require
energy audits for building
modifications, but all new
appliances would meet
energy audit standards
0 energy audits
performed
0% 8,010
CM4.1a
Increase Energy
Efficiency in New
Commercial Sector
Require all new commercial buildings to
meet or exceed CA Green Building
Standards Tier 2 Voluntary Measures.
2021: adopt ordinance to codify
requirement in municipal code
2030: 70 businesses
2035: 165 businesses
Ordinance adopted 0 permits
approved with Tier
2 standards
0%
2030: 8,705
2035: 12,337
CM5.1a Decrease Urban
Heat Island Effect
Require tree planting along all streets,
sidewalks, and parking lots. Goal is
shading 14% of pavement during summer.
2030: 14% of pavement shaded
2035: 23% of pavement shaded
2030: 3,510 Net new trees
planted
2035: 5,270 Net new trees
planted
(Based on increase in trees
from 8,200 trees in the City as
of 2019)
The modified numbers are
based off a very basic model
that was run.
-87 -1%
2030: 47
2035: 22
6 Measure
# Measure Metric Notes 2021 2030 Goal Progress
GHG Reduction
Potential
(MTCO2e)
CM5.2a Decrease Urban
Heat Island Effect
2021: Adopt an ordinance requiring
enhanced cool roofs on commercial and
municipal buildings.
2030: 80,000 square feet of commercial
roofs
2035: 120,000 square feet of commercial
roofs
Ordinance adopted 6,700 square feet
of roofing replaced
13%
2030: 1
2035: 1
CM6.1a Decrease VMT
2030: construct 25 miles of active
transportation routes (sidewalks and
pedestrian paths) from the trolley stop to
surrounding residential areas.
n/a 0 miles 0%
2030: 315
2035: 263
CM6.1b Decrease VMT
2021: adopt ordinance to codify
requirement in municipal code
Require commercial centers within 0.25
miles of the trolley stop to reduce parking
spaces by 10% from current requirements
Ordinance adopted 0 new commercial
centers or major
redesign
10% Shared with 6.1a
above
CM6.2a Decrease VMT
Increase bike routes by the following
amounts:

Class 1: from 2.0 to 15.5 miles
Class 2: from 14.5 to 34.3 miles
Class 3: from 9.3 to 21.7 miles
n/a 0 miles 0%
2030: 311
2035: 259
CM7.1a Increase Use of
Electric Vehicles
2021: adopt ordinance to codify
requirement in municipal code
2030: install 3,000 e-chargers
2035: install 4,500 e-chargers
n/a
Ordinance adopted
5 e-chargers
installed

0.1%
2030: 21,723
2035: 47,414
CM8.1a Improve Traffic Flow
2030:

Retime 40 traffic signals
Replace 10 traffic signals with Smart
Signals
Install 1 roundabout
2035:

Retime 20 more traffic signals
n/a 6 traffic signals
retimed 12%
2030: 2,430
2035: 2,130
7 Measure
# Measure Metric Notes 2021 2030 Goal Progress
GHG Reduction
Potential
(MTCO2e)
CM9.1a Reduce Waste at
Landfills
Require solid waste collector to provide
recycling containers for all customers.

Data provided by Waste
Management 25.8% 37%
2030: 7,233
2035: 8,238
CM9.1b Reduce Waste at
Landfills
2030: divert 70% total solid waste
generated in city
2035: divert 80% total solid waste
generated in city
Ordinance adoption
Currently require 65%
diversion
0% Same as above
CM10.1a
Require New
Development to
Install Solar
Require new structures to install PV
systems.

Single-family: 2 kW per home
Multi-family: 1 kW per home
Commercial: 1.5 W per square foot of
building
Ordinance adopted
2021: adopt ordinance to
codify requirement in
municipal code
2030: install 3.1MW of solar
2035: install 4.7 MW of solar
779 solar permits
(3.90 MW)
231%
2030: 1,800
2035: 2,783
CM10.2a
Community Choice
Aggregation
Program
2030: 100% renewable energy, 75% zero
emissions, 95% public participation
2035: 100% renewable energy, 85% zero
emissions, 95% public participation
Ordinance 569, adopted
October 23, 2019, authorizes
the City to implement a CCA
Pending 0%
2030: 46,322
2035: 56,932
Municipal Measures
MM-1.1
Increase Energy
Efficiency in
Municipal Buildings
Procurement policy for energy efficient
equipment n/a Began discussion 10%
2030: 19
2035: 19
MM-1.2
Increase Energy
Efficiency in
Municipal Buildings
Install cool roofs 2030: 400 square feet of cool
roofs installed No progress 0% -
8 Measure
# Measure Metric Notes 2021 2030 Goal Progress
GHG Reduction
Potential
(MTCO2e)
MM-1.3
Increase Energy
Efficiency in
Municipal Buildings
Upgrade or retrofit HVAC and water
pumping equipment
In 2015, all HVAC equipment
in Buildings 1 - 8 was removed
and replaced with high
efficiency heat pump roof
mounted units that are
regularly serviced for good
maintenance and indoor air
quality
No progress 0%
2030: 12
2035: 12
MM-2.1
Increase Energy
Efficiency in
Community
Buildings and
Infrastructure
Retrofit outdoor lights, including traffic
signals with energy-efficient lighting n/a No progress 0% 2030: 212
2035: 421
MM-3.1
On-road Energy
Efficiency
Enhancements
Encourage or incentive city employee
carpools n/a No progress 0%
2030: 6
2035: 14
MM-3.2
On-road Energy
Efficiency
Enhancements
Encourage or incentivize city employee
purchase of electric vehicles n/a No Progress 0%
2030: 5
2035: 11
MM-3.3
On-road Energy
Efficiency
Enhancements
Replace or supplement vehicle fleet with
hybrid/electric
A new lease contract
approved by the City Council
on May 18, 2021 with
Enterprise Fleet Management
will allow the City to lease
newer vehicles including
hybrids and EVs
No progress 0%
2030: 7
2035: 16
MM-3.4
On-road Energy
Efficiency
Enhancements
Install one electric vehicle charger at City
Hall n/a Design Complete 50% Calculated as part of
M-3.2
MM-4.1
Reduce Long-term
Energy
Consumption
Implement all strategies above n/a In progress 5% 2035: 558 Supportive Measures
SM-1 Supportive Measure Designate a Sustainable Program Manager to implement SSP n/a No progress 0% n/a
9 Measure
# Measure Metric Notes 2021 2030 Goal Progress
GHG Reduction
Potential
(MTCO2e)
SM-2 Supportive Measure Establish a City webpage dedicated to SSP that provides info to public n/a No progress 0% n/a
SM-3 Supportive Measure
Establish an email recipient list for people
to get periodic updates on SSP-related
info
n/a No progress 0% n/a
SM-4.a Supportive Measure Establish online permitting to facilitate upgrades to residences and businesses. n/a In progress 50% n/a SM-4.b Supportive Measure
Update the City’s official street tree list to
include more water-efficient varieties.

Urban Forestry Plan with
street tree list approved by
City Council on December 20,
2021
Complete 100% n/a
SM-4.c Supportive Measure
Update the Zoning Ordinance to add
clarity on desired recreational amenities in
multifamily complexes to replace the
previously desired pool and water
features.
n/a No progress 0% n/a
SM-4.d Supportive Measure
Conduct a municipal energy audit, and
continue to do so every two years, to
inform City staff on municipal energy use
and opportunities for improvement.
n/a No progress 0% n/a
SM-4.e Supportive Measure
Conduct a study to evaluate the feasibility
of installing EV charging stations on City
property.

EV charging now available at
City Hall and Mast Park In progress 50% n/a
SM-4.f Supportive Measure
Upgrade or incorporate water-conserving
landscape at City facilities, to the extent
feasible.
n/a Ongoing 10% n/a
SM-4.g Supportive Measure
Plant trees in City-owned spaces to reduce
urban heat island effect and building
energy use and increase carbon
sequestration, to the extent feasible.
n/a Ongoing 10% n/a
SM-5 Supportive Measure
Track energy efficiency retrofits of existing
residential and commercial land uses
within the city through the permit
application process
n/a Ongoing 10% n/a
SM-6 Supportive Measure
Track LEED and Energy Star participation
of new construction within the city
through the permit application process
n/a Ongoing 10% n/a
10 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Residential Energy Efficiency 1.1a
Residential Energy Efficiency 1.1b
Residential Energy Efficiency 2.1a
Commercial Energy Efficiency 3.1a
Commercial Energy Efficiency 3.1b
Commercial Energy Efficiency 4.1a
Urban Heat Island 5.1aUrban Heat Island 5.2a
Decrease VMT 6.1a
Decrease VMT 6.1b
Decrease VMT 6.2a
Electric Vehicles 7.1a
Improve Traffic Flow 8.1a
Reduce Waste 9.1a
Reduce Waste 9.1b
Solar Install 10.1a
CCA 10.2a
% Completed
Measures
Progress Toward 2030 Goals

RESOLUTION NO.

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

SANTEE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE FIRST

AMENDMENT TO THE EMPLOYEE BENEFITS

CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH KEENAN &

ASSOCIATES TO EXTEND THE AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, On April 1, 2017, the City of Santee (“City”) entered into an Employee Benefits Consulting Services Agreement (“Agreement”) with Keenan & Associates (“Keenan”), and the current term of the Agreement expires on June 30, 2022; and WHEREAS, the City has been satisfied with the services provided by Keenan and desires to extend the Agreement, and the City has agreed to terms for a First Amendment to the Agreement to provide for a three (3) year extension of the Agreement with the option for two (2) additional one (1) year terms, subject to Council approval; and WHEREAS, for the previous five (5) years Keenan has retained commissions in the amount of $92,500.00 received from insurance carriers for the placement of insurance coverages for the City, with amounts received by Keenan in excess of this amount being refunded back to the City each year. The First Amendment will provide a five percent (5%) increase to $97,125.00 in the amount of commissions to be retained by Keenan each year that will remain unchanged through the life of the Agreement.

WHEREAS, staff recommends that the City Council approve the First Amendment and authorize the City Manager to execute it.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santee, California, that the First Amendment to the Employee Benefits Consulting Services Agreement with Keenan & Associates to Extend the Agreement is hereby approved and the City Manager is authorized to execute the First Amendment.

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
Renewal Amendment No. 1
Keenan & Associates – License #0451271
Confidential Information – For Keenan-Client Use Only
(Rev. 1/10) Page 1 of 2
RENEWAL AMENDMENT No.

This Amendment hereby amends the Agreement for Services (“Agreement”) dated July 1, 2017 by and between Keenan & Associates (“Keenan”) and City of Santee (“Client”) (hereinafter Keenan and Client may be referred to individually as “Party” and collectively as the “Parties”) as follows:

WHEREAS, the current term of the Agreement shall expire on June 30, 2022; and WHEREAS, the Parties desire to continue their relationship subject to the terms and conditions outlined in the Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows:

1. The Agreement is hereby renewed for an additional three (3) year term beginning on July 1, 2022 and ending on June 30, 2025 (“Renewal Term”), where the Agreement shall automatically renew for up to two (2) additional one (1) year terms from July 1, 2025 and ending on June 30, 2026 and July 1, 2026 and ending on June 30, 2027, unless either Party gives the other Party at least sixty (60) days written notice of its intent not to exercise the automatic renewal (“Automatic Renewal”).

2. In Exhibit C, the amount of “$92,500” per annum shall be replaced with “ninety-seven thousand, one hundred twenty-five dollars ($97,500)” per annum amount effective July 1, 2022 for the Renewal Term. In addition, Exhibit C is amended so that, the event of the Automatic Renewal, an amount of ninety-seven thousand, one hundred twenty-five dollars ($97,500) per annum shall be effective July 1, 2023 for the Automatic Renewal.

3. The following is added to Exhibit A-2, Item 2 Plan Implementation, the following is added to G: “For clarification and in no way limiting the items of this section, the Parties acknowledge that Keenan shall assist with Benefit Guides with the final version delivered electronically.”

4. All the remaining terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect, and shall govern the conduct of the Parties during the Renewal Term.

5. The effective date of this Amendment is July 1, 2022.

6. Each person signing this Amendment to the Agreement on behalf of a Party represents and warrants that he or she has the necessary authority to bind such Party and that this Amendment is binding on and enforceable against such Party.

Signature page to follow.

Renewal Amendment No. 1
Keenan & Associates – License #0451271
Confidential Information – For Keenan-Client Use Only
(Rev. 1/10) Page 2 of 2
City of Santee Keenan & Associates
Signature: Signature:

By: By: Laurie LoFranco
Title: Title: Municipality Practice Leader
Address: 10601 Magnolia Ave
Santee, CA 92071
Address: 2355 Crenshaw Blvd., Ste 200
Torrance, CA 90501
Attention: Attention: Julie Revoir
Email: Email: [email protected]

PUBLIC HEARING AND RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTEE, CALIFORNIA APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GPA2022-1 TO AMEND THE HOUSING ELEMENT (SIXTH CYCLE: 2021-2029) OF THE SANTEE

GENERAL PLAN
May 11, 2022 City Council Meeting
A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The City’s current Housing Element was adopted by the City Council on July 14, 2021 and covers the Sixth Cycle planning period from April 15, 2021 to April 15, 2029. The Housing Element is the City’s main housing policy and planning document that identifies housing needs and constraints, sets forth goals, policies and programs that address these needs and constraints, and plans for projected housing needs for all income levels over an eight-year planning period that coincides with a Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) from the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). The Housing Element consists of five sections and five supporting appendices that cover the following main topics:
• A detailed analysis of the City’s demographic, economic and housing characteristics; • Identification of governmental and nongovernmental constraints to housing production;
• A summary of resources available for the development, rehabilitation, and preservation of housing;
• Development of objectives, policies, and programs that address housing needs and constraints;
• A review of the City’s progress in implementing current housing policies and programs;
• Identification of candidate sites within the City (Sites Inventory) that would be able to accommodate new housing to meet the City’s RHNA.
• An analysis of barriers that restrict access to opportunity and identification of measures to counter these barriers (Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing).

The Housing Element is a mandatory element of the City’s General Plan and must be certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) as meeting strict statutory requirements.

B. BACKGROUND
On July 14, 2021 the City Council adopted the Housing Element (Sixth Cycle). Although the draft Housing Element had not received a full compliance determination by HCD, the City was statutorily required to adopt a new Housing Element by August 12, 2021. In addition, based on meetings with HCD to evaluate the draft Housing Element, Staff and the City’s Housing Element consultant, Veronica Tam and Associates, anticipated that Staff Report (GPA2022-1)
Adopted Housing Element Revisions
May 11, 2022

the Housing Element presented to the City Council would fully meet the requirements of State housing law.

However, after subsequent review by HCD, the adopted Housing Element was determined to be deficient in its analysis and programs related to Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (see attached letter from HCD, dated October 18, 2021). Based on this assessment from HCD, Staff worked with Veronica Tam and Associates to provide additional analysis and more measurable program action items related to AFFH. The adopted Housing Element has since been revised to include a more robust AFFH section (Appendix E). A notice of revisions to the adopted Housing Element was posted on the City’s website and e-mailed to interested parties on February 11, 2022, with the revised Housing Element document made available from the City’s website. The revised Housing Element was also transmitted to HCD for reassessment. HCD has since determined that with these revisions the Housing Element would be fully compliant with State housing law (see attached letter from HCD, dated April 14, 2022).

C. REVISION HIGHLIGHTS
Primary changes to the adopted Housing Element include additional analysis and programs related to Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, as summarized below:

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Assembly Bill 686 amended Government Code Section 8899.50 to mandate that all jurisdictions affirmatively further fair housing through their respective Housing Elements and housing programs. Affirmatively furthering fair housing means improving access for disadvantaged segments of the community to housing in high opportunity areas through targeted measures that remove barriers that may impede such access and by locating affordable housing sites as identified in the Sites Inventory in high opportunity areas. High opportunity areas have relatively low poverty and unemployment levels and relatively high educational attainment, median home values, and environmental quality levels.

Affirmatively furthering fair housing policy attempts to avoid the concentration or segregation of disadvantaged groups into low opportunity areas (i.e. areas with low school performance, limited access to services and transit, high unemployment, and high pollution levels).

To meet AFFH requirements, Appendix E of the Housing Element provides a detailed analysis of data to identify any potential patterns of segregation of disadvantaged groups within the City. While no areas of the City were found to have any noticeable patterns of segregation based on various AFFH data sources and mapping tools, HCD required the City to provide additional analysis to demonstrate that the City was not deliberately taking actions, such as through restrictive zoning, to impair the ability of those from disadvantaged communities from accessing housing in the City. A narrative is provided commencing on page E-19 of Appendix E that describes the City’s historic settlement Staff Report (GPA2022-1)
Adopted Housing Element Revisions
May 11, 2022

patterns and demographic trends that demonstrate that the City is not deliberately taking actions that restrict settlement of individuals and families from disadvantaged communities into the City.

To demonstrate that the City is placing affordable housing in high opportunity areas, the Housing Element Sites Inventory includes the indicator “high resource area TCAC/HCD opportunity map” within the description of each housing site where the site is located within a census tract designated as a high opportunity area. Most of the City’s housing sites designated for low-income capacity are located within the City’s Town Center, a high opportunity area with access to employment, services, parks and public transit. Additional analysis related to the placement of affordable housing sites within high opportunity areas is provided on pages E-56 and E-57 of Appendix E. This section also includes additional elaboration on census tracts within the City identified as having a greater proportion of people with special needs (disabled) and lower income households, with the conclusion that by placing the City’s planned housing sites within high opportunity areas, the City’s site selection will not exacerbate these conditions.

In addition to examining affordable housing sites as identified in the Sites Inventory relative to access to opportunity, the Housing Element has been revised to include an analysis related to placement of affordable housing sites within areas of the City that are considered cost burdened (i.e. where housing conditions are overcrowded and/or residents overpay for housing). The additional analysis is provided on page E-39 of Appendix E and demonstrates that most units included in the City’s Sites Inventory are in tracts where fewer than 40 percent of owners are cost burdened.

A narrative on the City’s historical pattern of investment is also provided on page E-49 of Appendix E. This additional narrative describes how the dissolution of redevelopment in California has had a detrimental impact on the provision of new affordable housing within the City, as the City has limited funding to help subsidize affordable housing.

Meaningful Actions to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing Although the adopted Housing Element included AFFH programs, HCD requested that additional programs be added and that existing programs be bolstered with more measurable action items. As part of this effort, Housing Element Program 9 (page 90) has been revised to include a more clearly defined metric to promote affordable housing opportunities to developers within an established timeframe (starting in 2023).

To comply with AB 1397 provisions related to replacement housing requirements, Program 11 has been added to the Housing Element (page 91). Replacement housing requirements apply to sites on the Sites Inventory where affordable housing was demolished or vacated within the last 5 years. Although none of the sites identified in the Sites Inventory have or have had income-restricted residential units, under this program the City would commit to adding language in its Zoning Ordinance codifying these Staff Report (GPA2022-1)
Adopted Housing Element Revisions
May 11, 2022

provisions of AB 1397. Replacement housing requirements would need to meet the same requirements as those in State Density Bonus Law, which apply to developers seeking a density bonus, incentives or concessions after vacating or demolishing affordable or rentcontrolled units.

Additional metrics and milestones have also been added to the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Program of the City (Program 14), commencing on page 94 and listed in Table 42 of the Housing Element. With these revisions to City would commit to the following:
• By 2022, expand outreach and education of the State’s new Source of Income Protection (SB 329 and SB 222), defining public assistance including housing choice vouchers (HCVs) as legitimate source of income for housing. This would include increased outreach and education to the southern census tracts with disproportionate needs.
• Annually promote fair housing awareness during the Fair Housing Month (April). • Annually require evidence of effective outreach from Fair Housing Provider. • Complete an ADA Transition Plan that builds upon the adopted Active Santee Plan.
• Prioritize CDBG and general City funds for improvements in the southern portions of the City (within disadvantaged census tracts). For example, in areas of the City with a high concentration of disabled individuals, ADA ramp improvements would need to be prioritized.
• Prioritize identified CIP projects located within disadvantaged census tracts, such as prioritizing the proposed Prospect Ave./Mesa Rd. intersection improvements and the proposed replacement of induction street lights with LED lights along Prospect Ave.
• Promote key lower income housing opportunity sites for affordable housing development 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. In this regard, the City is working on completing a comprehensively designed plan and the corresponding environmental clearance to streamline and facilitate development on these sites. • By 2023, create a registry for “first right of refusal” for displaced lower income tenants to return (to the site) if affordable housing is created in the new project.

Staff Report (GPA2022-1)
Adopted Housing Element Revisions
May 11, 2022

• Focus fair housing outreach and education on areas with high displacement risk with further enhancement of the City’s website (such as with additional mapping and targeted outreach).

D. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS
Pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), on July 14, 2021, the City of Santee adopted an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (State Clearinghouse Number 2021030332) for the Housing Element update (Sixth Cycle: 2021- 2029), which determined that all environmental impacts would be less than significant. The proposed amendment includes additional, minor modifications to the Housing Element, primarily relating to Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, that would bring the Housing Element into compliance with state law. None of the conditions under State CEQA Guidelines section 15162 requiring the need for further subsequent environmental review have occurred as none of these modifications would result in any additional physical changes to the environment than those previously analyzed and found to be less than significant under CEQA.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

1. Open and close the Public Hearing; and

2. Adopt the Resolution approving General Plan Amendment GPA2022-1 to amend the Housing Element (Sixth Cycle: 2021-2029) of the Santee General Plan STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
Marlene Best, City Manager
City of Santee
10601 Magnolia Avenue
Santee, CA, 92071
Dear Marlene Best:

RE: Santee’s 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Adopted Housing Element Thank you for submitting the City of Santee’s (City) housing element which was adopted July 16, 2021 and received for review on July 21, 2021. Pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (h), the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is reporting the results of its review.

The adopted housing element addresses most statutory requirements described in HCD’s March 29, 2021 letter; however, additional revisions are necessary to fully comply with State Housing Element Law. The revisions needed are as follows:

Affirmatively further[ing] fair housing in accordance with Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 8899.50) of Division 1 of Title 2…shall include an assessment of fair housing in the jurisdiction. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(10)(A).) Sites Inventory: The element provides general information regarding identified sites and affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH) but must provide analysis to meet this requirement. Specifically, the element reports the regional housing need allocation (RHNA) by income group and various concentrations of socio-economic characteristics. However, the element must analyze the magnitude of the impact and whether sites are isolated and evaluate whether sites exacerbate or improve segregation and integration at a neighborhood level. In addition, the analysis of the sites inventory and AFFH must address disproportionate housing needs, including displacement risk.

Local Data and Knowledge: The element should incorporate local data and knowledge into the assessment of fair housing. Local data and knowledge include sources not captured in regional, state, or federal data analysis and may include service providers, advocates, City knowledge and other entities utilized in the outreach for the regional analysis of impediments.

October 18, 2021
Marlene Best, City Manager

Other Relevant Factors: While the element discusses lending patterns and mobilehome parks, it must include additional other relevant factors to fair housing issues in the jurisdiction. For instance, the element can analyze historical land use and investment practices and demographic trends.

Goals and Actions: The element must be revised to add or modify goals and actions based on the outcomes of a complete analysis. Goals and actions must be significant and meaningful enough to overcome identified fair housing issues. In addition, Program 13 (Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing) generally must be revised with metrics, milestones, and specific commitment to AFFH. For example, for fair housing outreach and enforcement, bullets one and three should commit to when policies and programs will be revised. For place-based strategies, bullets one, two and three should commit to milestones.

In addition, several programs could be integrated with specific commitment, metrics and milestones to affirmatively further fair housing. These Programs include Programs 1 (Mobile Home Assistance Program and Conversion Regulations), 2 (Maintenance and Improvement of Existing Housing), 2, (Maintenance and Improvement of Existing Housing, 4 (Housing Choice Voucher), 5 (Homebuyer Assistance), 9 (Inventory of Available Sites and Monitoring No Net Loss) and 11 (Accessory Dwelling Units). Finally, the housing element must include a program to provide replacement housing. (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (g)(3).) The replacement housing program must adhere to the same requirements as set forth in Government Code section 65915, subdivision (c), paragraph (3).

The element will comply once the element has been revised and re-adopted to address the above findings.

Pursuant to Government Code section 65583.3, subdivision (b), the City must utilize standards, forms, and definitions adopted by HCD when preparing the sites inventory.

Please see HCD’s housing element webpage at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/communitydevelopment/housing-element/index.shtml for a copy of the form and instructions. The City can reach out to HCD at [email protected] for technical assistance.

Please note, upon adoption of the housing element, the City must submit an electronic version of the sites inventory with its adopted housing element to [email protected].

The City’s statutory deadline to adopt a housing element was April 15, 2021. For your information, pursuant to Assembly Bill 1398 (Chapter 358, Statutes of 2021), if a local government fails to adopt a compliant housing element within 120 days of this statutory deadline, then any rezoning to accommodate the regional housing needs allocation, including for lower-income households, shall be completed no later than one year from the statutory deadline. Otherwise, the local government’s housing element will no longer Marlene Best, City Manager

comply with State Housing Element Law, and HCD may revoke its finding of substantial compliance pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (i).

For your information, some general plan element updates are triggered by housing element adoption. HCD reminds the City to consider timing provisions and welcomes the opportunity to provide assistance. For information, please see the Technical Advisories issued by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research at:
http://opr.ca.gov/docs/OPR_Appendix_C_final.pdf and
http://opr.ca.gov/docs/Final_6.26.15.pdf.

Several federal, state, and regional funding programs consider housing element compliance as an eligibility or ranking criteria. For example, the CalTrans Senate Bill (SB) 1 Sustainable Communities grant; the Strategic Growth Council and HCD’s Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities programs; and HCD’s Permanent Local Housing Allocation consider housing element compliance and/or annual reporting requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65400. With a compliant housing element, the City will meet housing element requirements for these and other funding sources.

HCD appreciates the hard work and dedication the City’s housing element team provided throughout the course of the housing element review. We are committed to assisting the City in addressing all statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law. If HCD can provide assistance in implementing the housing element, please contact Jose Ayala, of our staff, at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Senior Program Manager
Paul McDougall
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
April 14, 2022
Chris Jacobs, Principal Planner
Department of Development Services
City of Santee
10601 Magnolia Avenue
Santee, CA 92071
Dear Chris Jacobs:

RE: City of Santee’s 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Revised Draft Housing Element Thank you for submitting the City of Santee’s (City) revised draft housing element received for review on February 15, 2022. Pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (b), the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is reporting the results of its review.

The revised draft element meets the statutory requirements described in HCD’s October 19, 2021 review. The housing element will comply with State Housing Element Law (Article 10.6 of the Gov. Code) when it is adopted, submitted to and approved by HCD, in accordance with Government Code section 65585.

Public participation in the development, adoption and implementation of the housing element is essential to effective housing planning. Throughout the housing element process, the City should continue to engage the community, including organizations that represent lower-income and special needs households and those that previously commented on the draft housing element, by making information regularly available and considering and incorporating comments where appropriate.

As a reminder, the City’s 6th cycle housing element was due April 15, 2021. As of today, the City has not completed the housing element process for the 6th cycle. The City’s 5th cycle housing element no longer satisfies statutory requirements. HCD encourages the City to re-adopt, and submit to HCD to regain housing element compliance. For more information on housing element adoption requirements, please visit HCD’s website at:
http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/housing-elementmemos/docs/sb375_final100413.pdf.

For your information, pursuant to Assembly Bill 1398 (Chapter 358, Statutes of 2021), as the City failed to adopt a housing element that was found in compliance within 120 days of the statutory deadline (April 15, 2021), Program 9 (Rezoning: Inventory of Available Chris Jacobs, Principal Planner

Sites and Monitoring No Net Loss) must be completed no later than one year from the statutory deadline. Otherwise, the local government’s housing element will no longer comply with State Housing Element Law, and HCD may revoke its finding of substantial compliance pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (i).

Several federal, state, and regional funding programs consider housing element compliance as an eligibility or ranking criteria. For example, the CalTrans Senate Bill (SB) 1 Sustainable Communities grant; the Strategic Growth Council and HCD’s Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities programs; and HCD’s Permanent Local Housing Allocation consider housing element compliance and/or annual reporting requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65400. With a compliant housing element, the City meets housing element requirements for these and other funding sources.

HCD appreciates the hard work, cooperation and responsiveness the City’s housing element team provided throughout the housing element review. If HCD can provide assistance in implementing the housing element, please contact Jose Ayala, of our staff, at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Paul McDougall
Senior Program Manager
Draft Housing Element City of Santee

Housing Element
Page i
Table of Contents
Section 1: Introduction ..............................................................................................................1 A. Purpose and Content of Housing Element..............................................................................1 B. State Requirements......................................................................................................................2 C. Data Sources and Methodology.................................................................................................2 D. General Plan Consistency ...........................................................................................................3 Section 2: Community Profile....................................................................................................4 A. Population Characteristics and Trends......................................................................................4 B. Employment Profile .....................................................................................................................9 C. Household Characteristics.........................................................................................................11 D. Special Needs Populations.........................................................................................................16 E. Housing Stock Characteristics...................................................................................................22 F. Project-Based Rental Housing Assistance...............................................................................31 G. Estimates of Housing Needs.....................................................................................................34 Section 3: Housing Constraints...............................................................................................36 A. Nongovernmental Constraints..................................................................................................36 B. Governmental Constraints ........................................................................................................39 Section 4: Housing Resources.................................................................................................63 A. Available Sites for Housing ......................................................................................................63 B. Financial Resources ...................................................................................................................74 C. Administrative Resources .........................................................................................................75 D. Energy Conservation Opportunities........................................................................................77 Section 5: Housing Plan ..........................................................................................................79 A. Quantified Objectives.................................................................................................................80 B. Objectives, Policies, and Programs ..........................................................................................80 Appendix A: Public Participation..........................................................................................A-1 A. Housing Element Workshops................................................................................................ A-1 B. Stakeholder Consultation........................................................................................................A-2 C. Public Input Considerations...................................................................................................A-8 Appendix B: Accomplishments under Adopted Housing Element .....................................B-1 Appendix C: Sites Inventory..................................................................................................C-1 Appendix D: Undeveloped/ Underutilized General Industrial (IG) Sites ...........................D-1 Appendix E: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing............................................................E-1 A. Introduction and Overview of AB 686................................................................................. E-1 B. Assessment of Fair Housing Issues....................................................................................... E-3 C. Fair Housing Issues, Contributing Factors, and Meaningful Actions....................E-565350 Page ii
List of Tables
Table 1: Population Growth ............................................................................................................................4 Table 2: Age Characteristics (2018)................................................................................................................5 Table 3: Racial Composition in Neighboring Cities and Region (2018)....................................................7 Table 4: Employment Profile (2018)...............................................................................................................9 Table 5: Average Yearly Salary by Occupation, San Diego County (2011 and 2020)............................10 Table 6: Household Characteristics (2018) ..................................................................................................11 Table 7: Household Income Distribution, Santee and San Diego County (2010 and 2018)................13 Table 8: Overcrowding1 (2018) ......................................................................................................................14 Table 9: Cost Burden by Tenure and Income Level (2010 and 2017).....................................................15 Table 10: Special Needs Groups....................................................................................................................16 Table 11: Homeless Population by Jurisdiction (2020)..............................................................................21 Table 12: San Diego Regional Housing Stock (2013 and 2020) ...............................................................22 Table 13: Housing Stock Composition (2020) ............................................................................................22 Table 14: Age of Housing Stock....................................................................................................................24 Table 15: Housing Tenure (2018)..................................................................................................................24 Table 16: Tenure by Household Size (2018)................................................................................................25 Table 17: Median Home Sales Prices (2015 and 2020) ..............................................................................26 Table 18: Home Asking Prices (August 2020).............................................................................................26 Table 19: Apartment Rental Rates (September 2020) ................................................................................27 Table 20: Average Rental Rates by Jurisdiction Fall 2011 and Fall 2019.................................................28 Table 21: Housing Affordability Matrix San Diego County (2020) .........................................................30 Table 22: Inventory of Assisted Rental Housing ........................................................................................31 Table 23: Market Value of At-Risk Housing Units.....................................................................................32 Table 24: Rent Subsidies Required ................................................................................................................33 Table 25: Housing Assistance Needs of Low and Moderate Income Households in Santee ..............35 Table 26: Disposition of Home Loans: 2017 ..............................................................................................38 Table 27: Basic Residential Development Standards..................................................................................44 Table 28: Use Regulations in Residential Districts .....................................................................................47 Table 29: Development Review Bodies........................................................................................................54 Table 30: Approval Required .........................................................................................................................57 Table 31: Residential Development Fees.....................................................................................................59 Table 32: Fee Comparisons (2019-2020)......................................................................................................60 Table 33: RHNA Housing Needs for 2021-2029 .......................................................................................64 Table 34: RHNA Credits and Remaining Need..........................................................................................64 Table 35: Projects Under Review ..................................................................................................................65 Table 36: Fanita Ranch Land Use Summary*..............................................................................................66 Table 37: Residential Sites Inventory (Summary)........................................................................................68 Table 38: Adequacy of Sites to Accommodate RHNA..............................................................................71 Table 39: Location of Sites by TCAC Designation ....................................................................................72 Table 40: Quantified Housing Objectives (2021-2029)..............................................................................80 Table 41: Rezoning for RHNA......................................................................................................................90 Table 42: Fair Housing Issues, Contributing Factors, and Meaningful Actions ........................... 959594 Table E-1: Characteristics of Clients Served by CSA and Santee Population (2013-2019)............... E-4 Table E-2: Racial Composition in Neighboring Cities and Region (2018) ......................................... E-6 Page iii
Table E- 3: Dissimilarity Indices ................................................................................................................ E-6 Table E-4: RHNA Unit Distribution by % Minority Concentration.................................................... E-7 Table E-5: RHNA Units by % Population with Disabilities.................................................................. E-9 Table E-6: RHNA Units by % Children in Married-Couple Households .........................................E-13 Table E-7: RHNA Distribution by % Children in Female-Headed Households (FHH) ................ E-13 Table E-8: RHNA Unit Distribution by % LMI Households in Census Tract ................................ E-16 Table E-9: Percent White Population by Census Tract ........................................................................E-20 Table E-10: Domains and List of Indicators for Opportunity Maps.................................................. E-23 Table E-11: Minority Concentration and 2021 TCAC/HCD Resource Category ........................... E-24 Table E-12: RHNA Units by TCAC Opportunity Areas.....................................................................E-24 Table E-13: Opportunity Indicators by Race/Ethnicity.......................................................................E-29 Table E-14: RHNA Units by CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores...................................................................E-35 Table E-14: Housing Problems by Race, Santee vs. San Diego County ............................................E-38 Table E-15: Housing Problems, Elderly and Large Households, Santee vs. San Diego County....E-38 Table E-16: Loan Applications and Denial by Race......................................................................E-504745 Table E-17: Environmental Justice Element Existing Condition Findings for Disadvantaged Communities........................................................................................................................................E-514846 Table E-18: Special Needs Groups..................................................................................................E-565350 List of Figures
Figure 1: Age Distribution (2010 and 2018) ..................................................................................................6 Figure 2: Race (2010 and 2018)........................................................................................................................7 Figure 3: Minority Concentration Areas (2018) ............................................................................................8 Figure 4: Household Size (2010 and 2018) ..................................................................................................12 Figure 5: Median Household Income (2018)...............................................................................................13 Figure 6: Cost Burden by Tenure and Income Category (2017)...............................................................15 Figure 7: Important Farmland (2018)...........................................................................................................20 Figure 8: Housing Stock Composition (2020).............................................................................................23 Figure 9: Permitting process for single-family detached housing.............................................................55 Figure 10: Permit process for multifamily housing.....................................................................................56 Figure 11: Typical Existing Conditions of Underutilized Sites.................................................................70 Figure 12: Location of Residential Sites Inventory by TCAC Resource Category Designation ..........73 Figure E-1: Race/Ethnic Composition Changes ..................................................................................... E-5 Figure E-2: Minority Concentration and Predominantly White Areas................................................. E-8 Figure E-3: Distribution of Population with Disabilities......................................................................E-10 Figure E-4: Mobile Home Park Distribution.......................................................................................... E-11 Figure E-5: Distribution of Adults Living Alone and Adults in Living with Spouse ....................... E-14 Figure E-6: Children in Married Households and Single Female-Headed Households................... E-15 Figure E-7: Low and Moderate Income Household Distribution....................................................... E-17 Figure E-8: Housing Choice Voucher Concentration...........................................................................E-18 Figure E-9: Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs) ............................ E-21 Figure E-10: Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs)...................................................... E-22 Figure E-11: TCAC Opportunity Areas in Santee................................................................................. E-25 Figure E-12: TCAC Opportunity Areas in the Southern County Region..........................................E-26 Page iv
Figure E-13: GreatSchools Ratings..........................................................................................................E-30 Figure E-14: TCAC Education Score Map............................................................................................. E-31 Figure E-15: AllTransit Performance Score............................................................................................ E-32 Figure E-16: Number of Transit Stops within ½ Mile of Households .............................................. E-32 Figure E-17: Jobs Proximity Index ..........................................................................................................E-33 Figure E-18: TCAC Economic Score ......................................................................................................E-34 Figure E-18: TCAC- Environmental Score ............................................................................................ E-35 Figure E-19: RHNA Unit Distribution by CalEnviroscreen 4.0 Score .............................................. E-36 Figure E-20: Change in Cost-Burdened Renter Households, 2014 to 2019......................................E-40 Figure E-21: Cost-Burdened Owner Households, 2019...............................................................E-434241 Figure E-22: Overcrowded Households .........................................................................................E-474442 Figure E-23: Median Year Housing Built........................................................................................E-484543 Figure E-24: Sensitive Communities Map.......................................................................................E-494644 Figure E-25: Environmental Justice Element Disadvantaged Communities.............................E-535047 Figure E-26: Active Santee Project Prioritization Areas...............................................................E-555249

Section 1: Introduction
A. Purpose and Content of Housing Element
The Housing Element of the General Plan is designed to provide the City with a coordinated and comprehensive strategy for promoting the production of safe, decent, and affordable housing within the community. California Government Code Section 65580 states the intent of creating housing elements:

The availability of housing is of vital statewide importance, and the early attainment of decent housing and a suitable living environment for every Californian, including farmworkers, is a priority of the highest order.

Per State law, the Housing Element has two main purposes:
(1) To provide an assessment of both current and future housing needs and constraints in meeting these needs; and
(2) To provide a strategy that establishes housing goals, policies, and programs.

The Housing Element is an eight-year plan for the 2021-2029 period. The Housing Element serves as an integrated part of the General Plan, but is updated more frequently to ensure its relevancy and accuracy. The Housing Element identifies strategies and programs that focus on:
(1) Matching housing supply with need
(2) Maximizing housing choice throughout the community
(3) Assisting in the provision of affordable housing
(4) Removing governmental and other constraints to housing investment (5) Promoting fair and equal housing opportunities
The Housing Element consists of the following major components:
• A profile and analysis of the City’s demographics, housing characteristics, and existing and future housing needs (Section 2, Community Profile).
• A review of the constraints to housing production and preservation. Constraints include potential market, governmental, policy, and environmental limitations to meeting the City’s identified housing needs (Section 3, Housing Constraints). • An assessment of resources available to meet the City’s objectives regarding housing production and preservation. Resources include land available for new construction and redevelopment, as well as financial and administrative resources available (Section 4, Housing Resources).
• A statement of the Housing Plan to address the City’s identified housing needs, including housing goals, policies and programs (Section 5, Housing Plan).

In addition, the Housing Element contains a number of appendices:

Appendix A: Public Participation – Summarizes the outreach efforts for the development of the Housing Element.

Appendix B: Accomplishments under Adopted Housing Element – Assesses the effectiveness and continued appropriateness of the housing programs set forth in the fifth cycle Housing Element.

Appendix C: Sites Inventory – Provides detailed information of the selected sites for RHNA.

Appendix D: Undeveloped/Underutilized General Industrial (IG) Sites – Updates the status of available parcels for emergency shelters.

Appendix E: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing – Provides an analysis of barriers that restrict access to opportunity and a commitment to specific meaningful actions to affirmatively further fair housing.

B. State Requirements
State law requires housing elements to be updated periodically to reflect a community’s changing housing needs. A critical measure of compliance with the State Housing Element Law is the ability of a jurisdiction to accommodate its share of the regional housing needs – Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). For the San Diego region, the regional growth projected by the State was for the period between June 30, 2020 and April 15, 2029. However, the Housing Element is an eight-year document covering the planning period from April 15, 2021 to April 15, 2029. The City’s RHNA and resources available to meet the RHNA are discussed in Section 4, Housing Resources.

The RHNA is based, in part, upon the growth that the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) has estimated for the City of Santee in its 2050 Regional Growth Forecast. This forecast was adopted in 2013 and is based on current adopted land use plans and policies. SANDAG forecasts that Santee will grow to 66,313 residents and 23,886 housing units by 2050.

C. Data Sources and Methodology
In preparing the Housing Element, various sources of information were consulted. These include:
• Census 2010 and American Community Survey (ACS) data
• Housing market data from Corelogic
• Employment data from the California Employment Development Department • Lending data from financial institutions provided under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA)
• Recent data available from service agencies and other governmental agencies

D. General Plan Consistency
The City of Santee General Plan 2020 was adopted on August 23, 2003 and is comprised of the following nine elements: Land Use; Housing; Mobility; Recreation; Trails; Conservation; Noise; Safety; and Community Enhancement. The Housing Element is being updated at this time in conformance with the 2021-2029 update cycle for jurisdictions in the SANDAG region and has been reviewed with the rest of the General Plan to ensure internal consistency. As portions of the General Plan are amended in the future, the Plan (including the Housing Element) will be reviewed to ensure that internal consistency is maintained.

Pursuant to new State law, the City is updating the Safety Element concurrent with the Housing Element update to include an analysis of fire, flood, geologic, seismic, traffic and public safety hazards and policies to reduce the potential loss of life from these hazards. The Safety Element will address new State requirements including environmental justice issues and climate change adaptation and resilience. This update is anticipated to be completed by January 2022.

Section 2: Community Profile
The City of Santee incorporated in 1980. Santee is an urbanized community developed primarily in the 1970s and 1980s. Located in the eastern part of the San Diego metropolitan area, Santee is bordered by El Cajon on the south and southeast, the City of San Diego on the west and northwest, and the County of San Diego on east and northeast.

Most of the City's residentially zoned land has already been developed with a diversity of housing types, including single-family homes, mobile home parks, townhomes, condominiums and apartments. However, several hundred acres within the Specific Plan District and the Town Center District remain undeveloped and available for future housing development.

A. Population Characteristics and Trends
The following section describes and analyzes the various population characteristics and trends in Santee that affect housing need.

1. POPULATION GROWTH
According to the Census, Santee’s population rose by almost nine percent from 53,413 in 2010 to 57,999 in 2020 (Table 1Table 1). The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) forecasts that the Santee population will reach 63,812 by the year 2035. This represents a growth of 10 percent or 5,813 people.

Table 1: Population Growth
Jurisdiction
Population % Change
2010-2020
Projected
% Change
2020-2035 2000 2010 2020 2035
(Projected)
El Cajon 94,819 99,478 104,393 109,383 4.9% 4.8%
La Mesa 54,749 57,065 59,966 70,252 5.1% 17.2%
Lemon Grove 24,954 25,320 26,526 28,673 4.8% 8.1%
San Diego 1,223,400 1,301,617 1,430,489 1,665,609 9.9% 16.4% Santee 53,090 53,413 57,999 63,812 8.6% 10.0%
San Diego County 2,813,833 3,095,313 3,343,355 3,853,698 8.0% 15.3% Sources: Census 2000 and 2010; California Department of Finance, 2020; and SANDAG 2050 Series 13 Regional Growth Forecast (data extracted on 07/2020).

Formatted: Font: Garamond

2. AGE COMPOSITION
The age structure of a population is also an important factor in evaluating housing and community development needs and determining the direction of future housing development. Typically, each age group has distinct lifestyles, family types and sizes, incomes, and housing preferences. As people move through each stage of life, housing needs and preferences change. For example, young householders without children will have different housing preferences than middle-age householders with children or senior householders living alone. Consequently, evaluating the age characteristics of a community is important in determining the housing needs of residents.

Santee’s population is, as measured by the median age of its residents, older than in neighboring communities and the County as a whole. In 2018, Santee’s median age was 38.8 years, while the County’s median age was 35.6. The proportion of residents aged 65+ in Santee (14 percent) was the second highest among its neighbors but saw the highest increase in the past 10 years from 11 percent to 14 percent (see Figure 1Figure 1). The proportion of residents under 18 was consistent with countywide average (Table 2Table 2).

Table 2: Age Characteristics (2018)
Jurisdiction Under 18 years 65+ years Median Age
2010
Median Age
2010 2018 2010 2018 2018
El Cajon 25.7% 25.4% 11.0% 11.9% 33.7 32.4
La Mesa 19.6% 20.7% 14.2% 14.4% 37.1 37.6
Lemon Grove 25.5% 25.3% 11.2% 12.9% 35.0 35.4
San Diego City 21.4% 20.1% 10.7% 12.3% 33.6 34.7
Santee 23.8% 21.6% 10.7% 14.2% 37.2 38.8
San Diego County 23.4% 22.0% 11.4% 13.3% 34.6 35.6
Sources: Census 2010; American Community Survey (2014-2018 Estimates) As shown in Table 2Table 2, a shift in the ages of Santee residents occurred between 2010 and 2018.

The child population decreased slightly while the senior population increased by 3.5 percentage points.

These changes in age structure represent a significant change in the age composition of Santee towards an aging population, which could affect the housing needs of Santee residents during the planning period.

This trend has been taking place since 1990, when only eight percent of Santee residents were 65+.

From 2000 to 2010, the proportion of Santee residents over 65 increased also increased from nine percent to 11 percent. Overall, the senior population in Santee has increased by 6 percentage points in the past 30 years. At the same time, the proportion of Santee residents under the age of 18 has declined dramatically, from 29 percent in 1990 to 22 percent in 2018.

A decrease in residents aged 18-64 has also taken place in the last decade, with this age group decreasing from 66 percent to 64 percent of the population. Both young adult residents and older adults saw slight decreases between 2010 and 2018 while adults aged 25 to 44 saw a minimal increase (Figure 1Figure 1). As a result, Santee’s median age rose by 1.6 years between 2010 and 2018. These changes match the general trends seen in San Diego County in the past 10 years, but they are more pronounced in Santee.

Formatted: Font: Garamond
Formatted: Font: Garamond
Formatted: Font: Garamond
Formatted: Font: Garamond

Figure 1: Age Distribution (2010 and 2018)
Sources: Census 2010; American Community Survey (2014-2018 Estimates)

3. RACE AND ETHNICITY
Different racial and ethnic groups often have different household characteristics, income levels, and cultural backgrounds, which may affect their housing needs and preferences. Studies have also suggested that different racial and ethnic groups differ in their attitudes toward and/or tolerance for “housing problems” as defined by the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), including overcrowding and housing cost burden. According to these studies, perceptions regarding housing density and overcrowding tend to vary between racial and ethnic groups. Especially within cultures that prefer to live with extended family members, household size and overcrowding also tend to increase. In general, Hispanic and Asian households exhibit a greater propensity than White households for living in extended families. However, with the housing crisis in California, and the recent economic challenges presented by COVID-19, extended family members sharing housing arrangements or adult children moving back with parents have become a trend in many California communities.

The racial composition of Santee residents in 2018 was 69 percent White, 18 percent Hispanic, five percent Asian, two percent Black, five percent for those who declared more than one race, and less than once percent for American Indian/Alaskan and Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (Figure 2Figure 2).

Between 2010 and 2018, the proportion of all races/ethnicities increased while the White population decreased. Hispanic and Asian population had the greatest proportional increases.

Formatted: Font: Garamond

Figure 2: Race (2010 and 2018)
Sources: Census 2010; American Community Survey (2014-2018 Estimates) Despite these decreases in White population, 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 (Table 3Table 3). The City’s proportion of Black/African Americans is also significantly lower than surrounding cities and within the County.

Table 3: 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).

Figure 3Figure 3 shows the distribution of minority populations in Santee. Minority individuals comprise between 27 and 34 percent of the population in most Census tracts in the City. However, there is one tract (166.08) in the northeastern portion of the community with 22 percent minority, and one tract (166.15) in the center of the City where minorities are highly concentrated (41 percent of tract population).

Formatted: Font: Garamond
Formatted: Font: Garamond, 12 pt, Not Small caps

Figure 3: Minority Concentration Areas (2018)

B. Employment Profile
An assessment of the needs of the community must take into consideration the type of employment held by City residents. Incomes associated with different jobs and the number of workers in a household determines the type and size of housing a household can afford. In some cases, the types of jobs themselves can affect housing needs and demand (such as in communities with military installations, college campuses, and seasonal agriculture). Employment growth typically leads to strong housing demand, while the reverse is true when employment contracts.

1. OCCUPATION AND LABOR PARTICIPATION
The American Community Survey (ACS) provides information about employment, specifically the number of City residents by industry type, who are employed by businesses either outside or within their community. As of 2018, Educational Services/Health Care/Social Assistance and Professional/Scientific/Management services were the two largest occupational categories for City residents (Table 4Table 4). These categories account for almost 37 percent of the jobs held by employed residents. Similarly, these categories accounted for 36 percent of jobs held by County residents. The proportion of City residents in all other occupations was roughly similar to the occupation profile of County residents, with a higher proportion of Santee residents being employed in construction and retail.

Table 4: Employment Profile (2018)
Sector
Santee San Diego County
Estimate Percent Estimate Percent
Educational services, and health care and social
assistance 6,743 23.8% 332,860 21.3%
Professional, scientific, and management, and
administrative and waste management services 3,630 12.8% 236,691 15.1% Retail trade 3,466 12.2% 163,799 10.5%
Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and
accommodation and food services 2,633 9.3% 186,676 11.9% Construction 2,316 8.2% 91,902 5.9%
Manufacturing 2,295 8.1% 144,583 9.2%
Finance and insurance, and real estate and rental
and leasing 1,845 6.5% 97,145 6.2%
Public administration 1,710 6.0% 78,150 5.0%
Other services, except public administration 1,351 4.8% 84,047 5.4% Transportation and warehousing, and utilities 1,162 4.1% 63,842 4.1% Wholesale trade 612 2.2% 37,263 2.4%
Information 541 1.9% 34,501 2.2%
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and
mining 13 0.0% 13,471 0.9%
Totals 28,317 1,564,930
Source: American Community Survey (2014-2018 Estimates) Formatted: Font: Garamond

Management occupations were the highest paid occupations in the San Diego region in the first quarter of 2020, and had a 17 percent increase in average yearly salaries from 2011 to 2020 (Table 5Table 5). Even with a 44 percent increase in average salary, food preparation and related services remained the lowest paid occupation in the County. Overall, average yearly salaries for all occupations increased by 8.4 percent.

Table 5: Average Yearly Salary by Occupation, San Diego County (2011 and 2020) Occupation
Salary % Change
2011 2020 (2011-2020)
Management $117,046 $136,531 16.6%
Legal $105,882 $120,265 13.6%
Computer and Mathematical $82,631 $104,627 26.6%
Healthcare Practitioners and Technical $89,872 $102,053 13.6% Architecture and Engineering $83,115 $99,949 20.3%
Life, Physical, and Social Science $77,716 $87,579 12.7% Business and Financial Operations $71,815 $80,850 12.6% Educational Instruction and Library $60,992 $66,690 9.3% Total all occupations $50,800 $61,770 8.4%
Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media $56,963 $61,614 8.2% Construction and Extraction $51,871 $60,047 15.8%
Protective Service $50,581 $58,837 16.3%
Community and Social Services $49,734 $56,793 14.2%
Installation, Maintenance, and Repair $45,202 $54,945 21.6% Sales and Related $38,263 $45,974 20.2%
Office and Administrative Support $37,260 $45,385 21.8% Production $34,324 $43,823 27.7%
Transportation and Material Moving $32,255 $39,362 22.0% Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance $30,880 $36,248 34.6% Healthcare Support $26,928 $35,609 15.3%
Personal Care and Service $26,240 $34,806 32.6%
Farming, Fishing, and Forestry $26,009 $33,243 27.8%
Food Preparation and Serving-Related $22,133 $31,942 44.3% Source: California Employment Development Department, Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) Q1, 2011, Q1, 2020.

Formatted: Font: Garamond

C. Household Characteristics
The Census defines a household as all persons who occupy a housing unit, which may include single persons living alone, families related through marriage or blood, and unrelated individuals living together. Persons living in retirement or convalescent homes, dormitories, or other group living situations are not considered households. Information on household characteristics is important to understand the growth and changing needs of a community.

1. HOUSEHOLD TYPE
According to the ACS, 19,650 households were located in Santee in 2018. Of these households, 21 percent were single-person households (no change from the 2010 Census), and households headed by seniors (65+) comprised 25 percent, an increase of nearly six percentage points since the 2010 Census.

Single-person households represented a lower proportion of Santee’s households than in neighboring jurisdictions and countywide. Conversely, 34 percent of Santee households consisted of families with children, a larger proportion than found in neighboring San Diego City and La Mesa but similar to the County (Table 6Table 6). When compared to Census 2010 numbers, Santee’s household composition is slowly trending toward senior-headed households and away from families with children and large households.

Table 6: Household Characteristics (2018)
Jurisdiction
Single
Person
Households
Senior
Headed
Households
Families
with
Children
SingleParent
Households
Large Households
OwnerOccupiedRenterOccupied
El Cajon 21.3% 19.4% 40.1% 11.1% 4.3% 10.8%
La Mesa 31.3% 24.6% 29.3% 9.1% 2.7% 3.7%
Lemon Grove 21.9% 25.2% 38.5% 11.4% 10.1% 6.5%
San Diego 27.4% 19.8% 29.1% 7.5% 4.6% 5.3%
Santee 21.0% 24.6% 33.7% 4.9% 5.9% 3.5%
San Diego County 23.7% 22.3% 33.1% 8.3% 6.0% 5.9%
Source: American Community Survey (2014-2018 Estimates) Different household types generally have different housing needs. Seniors or young adults typically comprise the majority of single-person households and tend to reside in apartment units, condominiums, or smaller single-family homes. Families often prefer single-family homes. Santee’s housing stock provides a range of unit types to meet the needs of its residents (Table 13Table 13).

Roughly, 65 percent of the City’s housing stock is comprised of single-family units, while approximately 24 percent of the units consist of multifamily units such as apartments and condominiums (Source: American Community Survey).

Formatted: Font: Garamond
Formatted: Font: Garamond

2. HOUSEHOLD SIZE
Household size identifies sources of population growth and household overcrowding. A city's average household size will increase over time if there is a trend towards larger families. In communities where the population is aging, the average household size may decline. The average household size in Santee in 2018 was 2.83, an increase from the 2.72 of the 2010 Census, and slightly lower than the County as a whole (2.87) (Figure 4Figure 4). The County also had a similar increasing household size trend, increasing from 2.75 to 2.87 from 2010 to 2018.

Figure 4: Household Size (2010 and 2018)
Sources: 2010 Census and 2014-2018 ACS

3. HOUSEHOLD INCOME
Household income is an important consideration when evaluating housing and community development needs because lower income typically constrains a household's ability to secure adequate housing or services. While housing choices, such as tenure (owning versus renting) and location of residences are very much income-dependent, household size and type often affect the proportion of income that can be spent on housing.

According to SANDAG estimates, six percent of Santee households in 2018 had incomes lower than $15,000, while 10 percent of households earned incomes between $15,000 and $29,999 (Table 7Table 7). This represents a proportional change in lower income categories since 2010. Approximately 23 percent of City households earned incomes between $30,000 and $60,000, while roughly 29 percent had incomes between $60,000 and $99,999. Another 32 percent of Santee households earned $100,000 or more. Proportionally, more households in Santee earn incomes higher than $75,000 when compared to countywide households (49 percent in Santee compared to 45 percent in the region).

SANDAG estimated that the median household income in Santee was $84,226 as of January 2018, while the median income for the County was estimated to be $77,217 (Figure 5Figure 5).

2.84 2.3

2.96 2.6 2.75 2.72

3.06 2.52

3.13 2.71 2.87 2.83
0 0.5
1 1.5
2 2.5
3 3.5
El Cajon La Mesa Lemon
Grove
San Diego
City
San Diego
County
Santee
Formatted: Font: Garamond
Formatted: Font: Garamond
Formatted: Font: Garamond

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 8Table 8). Of these, 39 percent were in owner-occupied households, and

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

Formatted: Font: Garamond

61 percent 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 9Table 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 6Figure 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.

Formatted: Font: Garamond

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 10Table 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 11Table 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.

Formatted: Font: Garamond

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 12Table 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 13Table 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.

Formatted: Font: Garamond
Formatted: Font: Garamond

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 14Table 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).

Formatted: Font: Garamond

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 15Table 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 16Table 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.

Formatted: Font: Garamond, 12 pt, Not Small caps
Formatted: Font: Garamond, 12 pt
Formatted: Font: Garamond

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 17Table 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.

Formatted: Font: Garamond

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 18Table 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 19Table 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 Formatted: Font: Garamond
Formatted: Font: Garamond

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 20Table 20). In general, average rents for units in Santee were slightly lower than average rents of similar units in neighboring jurisdictions (Table 20).

Formatted: Font: Garamond

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 21Table 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 21Table 21). The maximum affordable home purchase price for extremely low income households ranges from $60,846 for a oneperson household to $68,801 for a five-person household. Extremely low income households generally cannot afford housing at market rate.

Formatted: Font: Garamond, 12 pt, Not Small caps
Formatted: Font: Garamond

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 21Table 21). The maximum affordable home purchase price for very low income households ranges from $130,009 for a one-person household to $175,652 for a five person household. Based on the rental data presented in Table 19Table 19 and Table 20Table 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 18Table 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 19Table 20Table 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 19Table 19 and Table 18Table 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 18Table 18). This far exceeds the affordable purchase price for large households. Table 18Table 18 does include some single- family home and condo/townhome listings that meet the affordable price for large families, but they are two-bedroom units.

Formatted: Font: Garamond
Formatted: Font: Garamond
Formatted: Font: Garamond
Formatted: Font: Garamond
Formatted: Font: Garamond
Formatted: Font: Garamond
Formatted: Font: Garamond
Formatted: Font: Garamond
Formatted: Font: Garamond

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 22Table 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 Formatted: Font: Garamond

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 23Table 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 20Table 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.

Formatted: Font: Garamond
Formatted: Font: Garamond, 9 pt, Bold

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 24Table 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 21Table 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.

Formatted: Font: Garamond
Formatted: Font: Garamond, 10 pt

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 25Table 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.

Formatted: Font: Garamond, 11 pt

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 26Table 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.

Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Not Bold

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 27Table 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 28Table 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