Agenda packet — Santee City Council, September 14, 2022 (part 1 of 3)

MEETING INFORMATION
Wednesday, September 14, 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.

September 14, 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: Lakeside Christian Church – Marshall Masser

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ADJOURNMENT IN MEMORY: Pam Wilson
PRESENTATION: Introduction of 2022 Miss Santee, Miss Teen Santee and Junior Miss Santee 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) Adoption of a Resolution Accepting the City Hall Fiberoptic Cable Replacement Project (CIP 2022-30) as Complete. (Development Services – Engineering) (4) Purchase of a Vehicle Lift from Snap-On Industrial, per Sourcewell Contract #013020-SNP in an Amount Not to Exceed $40,101.53. (Fire – Garlow) (5) Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the Appropriation and Expenditure of Fiscal Year 2021 State Homeland Security Program Grant Funds in Accordance with All Program Requirements. (Fire – Garlow) (6) Adoption of a Resolution Accepting the Citywide Concrete Repair and Replacement Program 2021 (CIP 2021-05) Project as Complete. (Development Services – Engineering)
(7) Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing a Change in the Contracting Officer for Banking Services with Union Bank, N.A. (Finance – McDermott) September 14, 2022 | 6:30 p.m.
3 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:
(8) Public Hearing for the Development of Fanita Ranch, to Consider Certifying Final Revised Environmental Impact Report Including Recirculated Sections of the Final Revised Environmental Impact Report (AEIS2017-11, AEIS2022-4), and Approving the Fanita Ranch Development Plan and Development Review Permit (DR2022-4), Vesting Tentative Map (TM2022-1), and Conditional Use Permits for Public Parks (P2022-1 And P2022-2), and a Fire Station (P2022-3) (Development Services – Planning)
Recommendation:

1. Conduct and close the Public Hearing; and

2. Certify the Final Revised Environmental Impact Report (SCH # 2005061118) for the Fanita Ranch Project; adopt Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program under CEQA; and approve the Project, per Resolution No.112-2022; and

3. Approve Vesting Tentative Map (TM2022-1) per Resolution No. 113-2022; and

4. Approve Development Plan and Development Review Permit (DR2022-4) per Resolution No. 114-2022; and

5. Approve Conditional Use Permits P2022-1, P2022-2 and P2022-3 per Resolution Nos. 115-2022, 116-2022 and 117-2022, respectively.

NEW BUSINESS:
(9) Consideration of an Increase in the Fire Benefit Fee. (Finance – McDermott) Recommendation:

Provide direction to staff.

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.

September 14, 2022 | 6:30 p.m.
4 CITY COUNCIL REPORTS:

CITY MANAGER REPORTS:

CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS:

CLOSED SESSION:

ADJOURNMENT:

September 14, 2022 | 6:30 p.m.
5 Sep 01 SPARC Council Chamber
Sep 12 Community Oriented Policing Committee Council Chamber Sep 14 Council Meeting Council Chamber
Sep 15 SMHFPC Council Chamber
Sep 28 Council Meeting Council Chamber
Oct 06 SPARC Council Chamber
Oct 10 Community Oriented Policing Committee Council Chamber Oct 12 Council Meeting Council Chamber
Oct 26 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

SEPTEMBER & OCTOBER MEETINGS

vchlist
08/17/2022 11 :40:39AM
Bank code : ubqen
Voucher
1161
Date Vendor
8/16/2022 10482 TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT
1 Vouchers for bank code : ubgen
1 Vouchers in this report
P,epacedby
Da1"
� �k� ;2--"2.-
Approved by:-�-..::;....""'-'-,==
Date: 'Q / 11 / lO 2 L
Voucher List

CITY OF SANTEE
Invoice
116176
------- PO# Description/Account
WORKERS COMPENSATION LOSS!
Total:

Bank total:

Total vouchers
Page: 2
Amount
7,160.48
7,160.48
7,160.48
7,160.48
Page: 2
vchlist Voucher List Page: 3
08/17/2022 9:10:49AM CITY OF SANTEE
Bank code: ubqen
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount 131289 8/17/2022 10001 US BANK 00011117 SANTEE SALUTES GOLF CART REI 400.00 0007-1 VEHICLE LICENSE FEE 0.53
0007-2 VEHICLE LICENSE PLATE 23.00
OOOWESE RECREATION BROCHURE ADVERT 810.00
00105 ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP DUES 150.00
0048 MEETING SUPPLIES 75.52
014473 MEET & GREET SUPPLIES 57.92
0272304188707 3CMA CONFERENCE AIRFARE 168.60
052601 MEET & GREET SUPPLIES 227.45
056009618 CITY LAPTOP TRAVEL BAG 32.31
06010 DAY CAMP SUPPLIES 104.65
06222022 MEETING SUPPLIES 8.72
07072022 VEHICLE LICENSE FEE 0.53
07072022 FRAUDULENT CHARGE 480.00
07072022-CR VEHICLE LICENSE FEE -0.53
0722159 PLAQUE 140.67
080856 MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 103.18
083389 DAY CAMP FIELD TRIP PARKING 30.00
08738 MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 64.52
1 MARKETING SUBSCRIPTION 45.00
1000612742 SAFETY VESTS FOR NEW EMPLO'Y 84.08
1001 DAY CAMP SUPPLIES 14.97
101331270 2022 CALIFORNIA CODE BOOKS 1,448.73
101331297 MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL 265.00
10388537 SANTEE SALUTES ADVERTISING 60.00
10837 MEETING SUPPLIES 34.05
111-1256863-2389069 DAY CAMP SUPPLIES 45.20
111-7055632-4106637 EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS 24.76
112-0417705-2166654 OFFICE SUPPLIES 8.57
112-0756572-9732253 OFFICE SUPPLIES 35.95
11207565729732253-CR CREDIT - OFFICE SUPPLIES -35.95
112-1100463-4169858 OFFICE SUPPLIES 160.45
112-1610664-5998619 SIT & STAND DESKTOP 298.67
112-2291005-8775407 MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 185.32
112-2634546-5565048 OFFICE SUPPLIES 31.87
112-34 73680-7293049 OFFICE SUPPLIES 6.41
Page: 3
vchlist Voucher List Page: 4
08/17/2022 9:10:49AM CITY OF SANTEE
Bank code: ubqen
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount 131289 8/17/2022 10001 US BANK (Continued)
11234736807293049-CR CREDIT - OFFICE SUPPLIES -6.41
112-4 706709-2370609 MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 13.88
112-5227992-0636229 OFFICE SUPPLIES 35.95
112-5370501-4561046 BINDERS 35.76
112-8809307-5769045 HARD HATS FOR NEW EMPLOYEE: 41.36
112-9828260-8440216 OFFICE SUPPLIES 22.21
113-1480964-3225038 WELLNESS PROGRAM SUPPLIES 329.29
113-3713412-2864260 MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 455.94
11337134122864260-CR CREDIT - TRASH BAGS -0.40
1133713412864260-CR2 CREDIT - TRASH BAGS -1.21
1133713412864260-CR3 CREDIT - TRASH BAGS -0.40
1133713412864260-CR4 CREDIT - TRASH BAGS -1.21
1133713412864260-CR6 CREDIT - TRASH BAGS -0.40
1133713412864260-CR7 CREDIT - TRASH BAGS -0.36
113-3812242-3840244 WELLNESS PROGRAM SUPPLIES 462.20
113-4752209-3561019 WELLNESS PROGRAM SUPPLIES 71.10
113-6512699-3697855 MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 645.99
113-6686713-5421069 WELLNESS PROGRAM SUPPLIES 1,158.82
113-6799270-9565007 WELLNESS PROGRAM SUPPLIES 525.20
113-9911615-2371458 MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 50.94
114-0284910-0559437 OFFICE SUPPLIES - FINANCE 79.11
114-1801371-6739435 STATION SUPPLIES 103.38
114-22114 75-6729065 MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 173.44
114-4657221-3208215 WELDING SUPPLIES 196.53
114-5854130-5027 440 OFFICE SUPPLIES - FINANCE 13.99
114-6556498-0339440 WELDING SUPPLIES 39.73
114-6926732-8292258 VEHICLE SUPPLIES 132.92
114-7920152-8268267 WELLNESS PROGRAM SUPPLIES 141.15
114-9185112-4793837 WELLNESS PROGRAM SUPPLIES 29.99
114-9483825-9360258 OFFICE SUPPLIES - FINANCE 16.05
1180 DAY CAMP SUPPLIES 16.84
118385 MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 262.83
1208796428 ONLINE MEETING SOFTWARE 129.35
1208799532 ONLINE MEETING SOFTWARE 129.35
1208803261 ONLINE MEETING SOFTWARE 30.00
1222328000 SUBSCRIPTION RENEWAL 44.85
Page: 4
vchlist Voucher List Page: 5
08/17/2022 9:10:49AM CITY OF SANTEE
Bank code: ubqen
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount 131289 8/17/2022 10001 US BANK (Continued)
12290 MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 37.64
13074857 DAY CAMP FIELD TRIP 126.00
151009 SPECIAL EVENT SUPPLIES 243.09
159328870 ELECTRIC DESK RISER 269.37
16 SANTEE SALUTES STAFF MEAL 96.81
163911 SPECIAL EVENT SUPPLIES 90.34
19570414 DINNER FOR STATION 5 CREW 142.90
202207125120680 DAY CAMP FIELD TRIP TICKETS 1,759.64
20227 DAY CAMP FIELD TRIP TICKETS 1,609.67
20657 MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 61.40
20769 OFFICE SUPPLIES 37.15
214 SUMMER CONCERT STAFF DINNEF 19.36
21993991074963484 WELLNESS PROGRAM SUPPLIES 233.84
22023991007162172 WELLNESS PROGRAM SUPPLIES 420.19
2207 DAY CAMP FIELD TRIP 30.00
22102-2 STATION SUPPLIES 193.14
22329 MEETING REGISTRATION 15.00
22333 MEETING REGISTRATION 15.00
224244 MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL 50.00
240003 STAFF MEETING LUNCH 78.55
2405135PS MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL 147.50
2405139PS MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL 147.50
2471 MAST PARK BBQ CLEANER 32.26
260042 VEHICLE EQUIPMENT 477.84
261872 MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 140.00
26734 SMALL TOOLS 254.07
26840712 OUTREACH POSTER BOARDS 168.92
26847699 BREWS & BITES FLYERS 58.56
278-165687354 7 LUNCH FOR STAFF 36-MO STEP E) 94.73
29 FIRE ASSOCIATION MEETING 66.29
309-6 DAY CAMP PARTICIPANT FOOD 34.22
35349 SANTEE SALUTES SUPPLIES 182.09
3590 DAY CAMP SUPPLIES 102.72
35922 RESCUE EQUIPMENT 618.00
37220 EMPLOYEE MISTAKEN PURCHASE 26.18
37676 MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL 75.00
Page: 5
vchlist
08/17/2022 9:10:49AM
Bank code: ubqen
Voucher
131289
Date Vendor
8/17/2022 10001 US BANK
Voucher List

CITY OF SANTEE
Invoice
(Continued)
39194
3PGT32
4133663159
4295
43245954
434633
45741P
4761
4874
4874-A
500578769-B
54400
54735
548966
558
57229
57233
57245
636668
65095
6538
71 722596-1
72811
731445
747445-B
7840
8007636473432303
8019
8278
86898
9155
983
BNl11090
C9RX
M1527730
PO#
Page: 6
Description/Account Amount
MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 255.69
3CMA CONFERENCE AIRFARE 148.48
CONFERENCE REGISTRATION 2,348.00
MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 73.95
MUSIC LICENSING FEE 779.00
FITNESS PROGRAM MEMBERSHIP 49.50
3CMA CONFERENCE REGISTRATIC 720.00
DAY CAMP SUPPLIES 60.27
DESK/OFFICE SIGNAGE 272.07
DESK SIGNAGE 26.94
MUSIC LICENSE FOR SPECIAL EVE 803.00
MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 76.88
MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 12.87
ELECTION SUPPLIES 12.93
SUMMER CONCERT STAFF DINNEF 42.00
ONLINE MEETING SERVICE -88.75
MEET & GREET SUPPLIES 26.01
ONLINE MEETING SERVICE -88.75
OFFICE SUPPLIES 126.97
MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL 75.00
DAY CAMP SUPPLIES 23.74
SANTEE SALUTES STAFF LUNCH 64.61
VEHICLE REPAIR PART 375.85
VEHICLE SUPPLIES 49.85
MEETING SUPPLIES 33.40
MUSIC LICENSE FOR SPECIAL EVE 1,025.00
SENIOR PROGRAM SUPPLIES 71.38
WELLNESS PROGRAM SUPPLIES 179.43
SENIOR PROGRAM SUPPLIES 16.98
BREWS & BITES PARTICIPANT CUF 2,297.26
DAY CAMP SUPPLIES 570.29
DAY CAMP FIELD TRIP 240.00
DAY CAMP SUPPLIES 127.69
ENGINEERING SUPPLIES 191.79
STAFF APPRECIATION SUPPLIES 79.00
VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 180.00
Page: 6
vchlist
08/17/2022 9:10:49AM
Bank code: ubqen
Voucher
131289
Date Vendor
8/17/2022 10001 US BANK
1 Vouchers for bank code : ubgen
1 Vouchers in this report
Prepared by:\.. ·��
Approved
Date:
by:
&:±1<
.-.=:;::::, Gl
-�?--
Date: 'B/n/10'2-L.

Voucher List

CITY OF SANTEE
Invoice
(Continued)
S026922438
U64VCEN3
--------
PO# Description/Account

SAFETY EQUIPMENT

MEMBERSHIP FEE
Total:

Bank total:

Total vouchers :

Page: 7
Amount
787.77

16.15 31,185.13
31,185.13
31,185.13
Page: 7
vchlist Voucher List
08/17/2022 12:23:44PM CITY OF SANTEE
Bank code: ubqen
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO#
131290 8/17/2022 12060 ACCOUNTING PRINCIPALS 12492272 53986 131291 8/17/2022 12506 BEST, MARLENE 09062022
131292 8/17/2022 14521 CHOICE BANK BOX 180 26284-INV
131293 8/17/2022 11055 CALIFORNIA SIGNS AND MARKETING 4905 131294 8/17/2022 10299 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS 11102-563942 53869 131295 8/17/2022 12665 CARROLL BUSINESS SUPPLY 979772-0 53870 979772-1 53870
131296 8/17/2022 10032 CINTAS CORPORATION #694 4126474709 53959 131297 8/17/2022 10291 ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS RESEARCH 94292625 131298 8/17/2022 14233 FLEETIO 47286 54018
131299 8/17/2022 11391 HUMPHREY, BREANNE 962022
131300 8/17/2022 10675 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF 250229 131301 8/17/2022 10120 KEARNY PEARSON FORD 1776921 53886 1777536-CM 53886
Description/Account
TEMPORARY ACCOUNTING SPECl1
Total:
3CMA CONFERENCE PER DIEM
Total:

SOFTWARE RENEWAL
Total:

WALL NAME PLAQUE
Total:

VEHICLE REPAIR PART
Total:

OFFICE SUPPLIES

OFFICE SUPPLIES
Total:

MISC RENTAL SERVICE
Total:

GIS RENEWAL
Total:

SOFTWARE SUBSCRIPTION
Total:
3CMA CONFERENCE PER DIEM
Total:

ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP DUES
Total:

VEHICLE REPAIR PART

CREDIT - CORE DEPOSITS
Page: 8
Amount
1,550.72
1,550.72
207.00
207.00
3,000.00
3,000.00
122.57
122.57

14.94 14.94
409.74

18.81 428.55

65.10 65.10
28,200.00
28,200.00
6,048.00
6,048.00
207.00
207.00
919.00
919.00
161.19
-107.75
Page: 8
vchlist Voucher List
08/17/2022 12:23:44PM CITY OF SANTEE
Bank code : ubqen
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO#
131301 8/17/2022 10120 10120 KEARNY PEARSON FORD (Continued) 131302 8/17/2022 10204 LIFE ASSIST INC 1231912 53891
1234192 53891
131303 8/17/2022 10308 O'REILLY AUTO PARTS 2968-100077 53896 2968-499117 53896
131304 8/17/2022 10344 PADRE DAM MUNICIPAL WATER DIST 90000366-JULY22 131305 8/17/2022 13382 PRECIS SOLAR 21 STE-PV00620
131306 8/17/2022 12062 PURETEC INDUSTRIAL WATER 1997965 54000 131307 8/17/2022 10408 RUTLEDGE, DONALD 71522
131308 8/17/2022 14640 SAN DIEGO AMERICAN PLANNING 0000734 131309 8/17/2022 10109 SAN DIEGO COUNTY FIRE CHIEFS A 07272022 131310 8/17/2022 10407 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC 04229703218-JULY22 131311 8/17/2022 14643 SANDOVAL, ANTONIO 08082022
131312 8/17/2022 13171 SC COMMERCIAL, LLC 2182340-IN 53902 2184445-IN 53902
Description/Account
Total:

EMS SUPPLIES

EMS SUPPLIES
Total:

VEHICLE REPAIR PARTS

VEHICLE REPAIR PARTS
Total:

GROUP BILL
Total:

PERMIT REFUND 21 STE-PV00620
Total:

DEIONIZED WATER SERVICE
Total:

INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT
Total:

JOB POSTING
Total:

ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP DUES
Total:

STREET LIGHTS
Total:

WORK BOOTS REIMBURSEMENT
Total:

DELIVERED FUEL

DELIVERED FUEL
Total:

Page: 9
Amount

53.44 169.17
193.60
362.77

21.53 8.43

29.96 58,731.17
58,731.17
162.40
162.40

60.84 60.84
1,274.00
1,274.00

50.00 50.00
350.00
350.00
42,499.20
42,499.20
162.35
162.35
712.54
756.67
1,469.21
Page: 9
vchlist
08/17/2022 12:23:44PM
Voucher List

CITY OF SANTEE
Bank code : ubqen
Voucher
131313
131314
131315
131316
131317
131318
Date Vendor
8/17/2022 13554 SC FUELS
8/17/2022 10585 SHARP REES-STEALY MEDICAL
--------- Invoice
0574972-DEF
0580417-DEF
0581368-DEF
0581368-F
370212922
370627768
370630682
8/17/2022 12223 SITEONE LANDSCAPE SUPPLY LLC 121263059-003 8/17/2022 10314 SOUTH COAST EMERGENCY VEHICLE 508978
8/17/2022 10217 STAPLES ADVANTAGE 3513133079
8/17/2022 10555 UNITIS CONTRACTOR SUPPLIES
29 Vouchers for bank code : ubgen
29 Vouchers in this report
Prepared by. ' . �'Ali� .
/ ,,--, Date,
� ,,_- £..-_
Approved by: n
I
ltiJ 2-2...

Date: �q,�J'....:....:...!....:'--
3513333388
3513333391
1008779
PO#
54029
54029
54029
53947
53906
53907
53936
53981
53982
53846
Description/Account

DIESEL EXHAUST FLUID (DEF)

FLEET CARD FUELING
Total:

TB TESTING

MEDICAL SERVICES

DMV EXAM
Total:

IRRIGATION SUPPLIES
Total:

VEHICLE REPAIR PARTS
Total:

OFFICE SUPPLIES

OFFICE SUPPLIES
Total:

TRASH CAN LINERS
Total:

Bank total:

Total vouchers
Page: 10
Amount

10.83 13.98

19.12 2,658.03
2,701.96

53.00 47.00
118.00
218.00
104.97
104.97
532.38
532.38
136.56

91.08 65.71
293.35
11,224.32
11,224.32
161,043.20
161,043.20
Page: 10
vchlist Voucher List
08/17/2022 3:06:31PM CITY OF SANTEE
Bank code: ubqen
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO#
131319 8/17/2022 13456 AGRICULTURAL PEST CONTROL 651198 53825 131320 8/17/2022 10979 CITY OF LA MESA 24514
131321 8/17/2022 10046 D MAX ENGINEERING INC 7357 53614 7363 53752
7364 53613
131322 8/17/2022 14653 DARE TRANSPORT, INC. Ref000081140 131323 8/17/2022 14656 DEN'S SMOKIN BBQ CATERING Ref000081143 131324 8/17/2022 14655 DIAPERWELL Ref000081142
131325 8/17/2022 10065 GLOBAL POWER GROUP INC 82178 53445 131326 8/17/2022 10600 HINDERLITER, DE LLAMAS & ASSOC SIN020522 53570 131327 8/17/2022 11724 ICF JONES & STOKES INC INV-00000033489 53609 INV-00000033730 53609
131328 8/17/2022 14637 MICOM, INC. 15980 54032
15980-R
131329 8/17/2022 10306 MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS INC 8281381735 53807 8281388278 53807
Description/Account

CITY HALL TERMITE REMEDIATION
Total:

LIVESCAN FINGERPRINTING
Total:

STORMWATER INSPECTIONS & RE

WATER QUALITY MONITORING

STORMWATER PROGRAM ASSISTP
Total:

CORRECT LICENSE TYPE REFUND
Total:

APPLICATION ERROR REFUND
Total:

DUPLICATE APPLICATION REFUND
Total:

ELECTRICAL REPAIRS & MAINT
Total:
2022 JUNE CANNABIS MGMT PROC
Total:

MSCP SUBAREA PLAN

MSCP SUBAREA PLAN
Total:

CITY HALL FIBEROPTIC REPL

RETENTION
Total:

APX 8000 RADIO
APX 8000 RADIO
Page: 11
Amount
38,100.00
38,100.00

80.00 80.00
684.30
2,751.76
20,362.53
23,798.59

43.00 43.00

92.00 92.00

49.00 49.00
1,193.00
1,193.00
6,000.00
6,000.00
1,141.25
34,052.50
35,193.75
32,720.00
-1,636.00
31,084.00
6,854.05
102.73
Page: 11
vchlist Voucher List
08/17/2022 3:06:31PM CITY OF SANTEE
Bank code: ubqen
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO#
131329 8/17/2022 10306 10306 MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS INC (Continued) 131330 8/17/2022 10083 MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES IN1727958 131331 8/17/2022 14657 OMEGA COMPUTER REPAIRS Ref000081157 Ref000081158
131332 8/17/2022 14654 PARKER, KEVIN Ref000081141
131333 8/17/2022 12904 PAT DAVIS DESIGN GROUP, INC 6965 53460 131334 8/17/2022 10442 PAYCO SPECIALTIES 1768-06-2022 53789 131335 8/17/2022 10092 PHOENIX GROUP INFO SYSTEMS 032022031 53605 042022031 53605
052022031 53605
062022031 53605
131336 8/17/2022 10446 PLAY WELL TEKNOLOGIES DB22097
131337 8/17/2022 10221 QUALITY CODE PUBLISHING LLC 2022-232 53589 131338 8/17/2022 10791 RECON ENVIRONMENTAL INC 65675 53341 65809 53341
131339 8/17/2022 10407 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC 04229703218 - JUN22 131340 8/17/2022 10768 SANTEE SCHOOL DISTRICT 9214
Description/Account
Total:

SAFETY APPAREL
Total:

CORRECTED LICENSE TYPE

CORRECTED LICENSE TYPE REFU
Total:

CORRECT LICENSE TYPE REFUND
Total:

GRAPHIC DESIGN WORK
Total:

STREET STRIPING MAINTENANCE
Total:

PARKING CITE PROCESS SVCS

PARKING CITE PROCESS SVCS
Total:

LEGO CONTRACT CAMP
Total:

MUNICIPAL CODE CODIFICATION
Total:

SANTEE GP AMEND & ZONE CHAN

SANTEE GP AMEND & ZONE CHAN
Total:

STREET LIGHTS
Total:

CHET HARRITT LIGHTS APRIL 2022
Page: 12
Amount
6,956.78
630.02
630.02

92.00 43.00
135.00

43.00 43.00
150.00
150.00
65,732.52
65,732.52
309.58
382.76
503.90
354.13
1,550.37
1,610.00
1,610.00
380.00
380.00
21,581.75
19,724.00
41,305.75
40,653.04
40,653.04
710.25
Page: 12
vchlist
08/17/2022 3:06:31 PM
Bank code: ubqen
Voucher
131340
131341
Date Vendor -----------------
8/17/2022 10768 SANTEE SCHOOL DISTRICT
8/17/2022 14658 STEEN, TRECIA
23 Vouchers for bank code : ubgen
23 Vouchers in this report
P,epa<edby� Date:

Approved by: �
Date: 'ti) n I 7 o 2 2-..

Voucher List

CITY OF SANTEE
Invoice
(Continued)
9229
9255
Ref000081159
PO# Description/Account
CHET HARRITI LIGHTS MAY 2022
CHET HARRITI LIGHTS JUNE 2022
Total:

DUPLICATE APPLICATION REFUND
Total:

Bank total:

Total vouchers
Page: 13
Amount
558.75

6.45 1,275.45

92.00 92.00
296,147.27
296,147.27
Page: 13
vchlist Voucher List Page: 14
08/24/2022 12:43:0SPM CITY OF SANTEE
Bank code: ubqen
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount 131342 8/24/2022 12060 ACCOUNTING PRINCIPALS 12500495 53986 TEMPORARY ACCOUNTING SPECl1 1,665.20 Total: 1,665.20
131343 8/24/2022 13456 AGRICULTURAL PEST CONTROL 649492 53971 PEST CONTROL SERVICES 654.67 Total: 654.67
131344 8/24/2022 11419 ANALYTICAL CHEMISTS INC 43502 53860 EQUIPMENT TESTING 95.00 Total: 95.00
131345 8/24/2022 14590 AP TRITON, LLC 2022-272 53850 COMMUNITY RISK ASSESSMENT 4,383.50 Total: 4,383.50
131346 8/24/2022 14638 APEX IMAGING SERVICES CD22023S REFUNDABLE SECURITY 875.00 Total: 875.00
131347 8/24/2022 10412 AT&T 000018668303 TELEPHONE 863.49 Total: 863.49
131348 8/24/2022 14306 AZTEC LANDSCAPING, INC J1192 53940 CUSTODIAL SERVICES - PARKS 597.18 J1193 53940 CUSTODIAL SERVICES - PARKS 4,523.69
Total: 5,120.87
131349 8/24/2022 12951 BERRY, BONNIE F. September 1, 2022 RETIREE HEALTH PAYMENT 91.00 Total: 91.00
131350 8/24/2022 10020 BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP LEGAL SVCS JULY 2022 LEGAL SVCS JULY 2022 91,837.90 Total: 91,837.90
131351 8/24/2022 11513 BOND, ELLEN 09012022-263 MEADOWBROOK HARDSHIP PRO<:: 77.47 Total: 77.47
131352 8/24/2022 11402 CARROLL, JUDI 09012022-96 MEADOWBROOK HARDSHIP PRO<:: 77.66 Total: 77.66
131353 8/24/2022 12349 CHOICE LOCKSMITHING 072822WP 53988 LOCKSMITH SERVICES 150.00 072922WP 53988 LOCKSMITH SERVICES 210.90
080222CH 53988 LOCKSMITH SERVICES 95.09
Page: 14
vchlist Voucher List
08/24/2022 12:43:05PM CITY OF SANTEE
Bank code: ubqen
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
131353 8/24/2022 12349 12349 CHOICE LOCKSMITHING (Continued) 131354 8/24/2022 10032 CINTAS CORPORATION #694 4127174630 131355 8/24/2022 11409 CLAYTON, SYLVIA 09012022-340
131356 8/24/2022 10268 COOPER, JACKIE September 1, 2022 131357 8/24/2022 12153 CORODATA RECORDS RS4817222
131358 8/24/2022 11862 CORODATA SHREDDING INC DN1372256 131359 8/24/2022 10358 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 23CTOFSAN01
23CTOFSASN01
131360 8/24/2022 10333 COX COMMUNICATIONS 064114701-AUG22 094486701-AUG22
131361 8/24/2022 14581 CUSTOM TRUCK BODY & EQUIPMENT, 3650 131362 8/24/2022 14347 DIAMOND EDUCATION 1030
131363 8/24/2022 13858 EL LATINO NEWSPAPER 87186
131364 8/24/2022 12593 ELLISON WILSON ADVOCACY, LLC 2022-08-07 131365 8/24/2022 10988 ESPINOLA, TOBY 08/18/2022
PO# Description/Account
Total:
53959 MISC RENTAL SERVICE
Total:

MEADOWBROOK HARDSHIP PRO(
Total:

RETIREE HEALTH PAYMENT
Total:
53973 RECORD STORAGE, RETRIEVAL &
Total:
53974 SECURE DESTRUCTION SERVICE�
Total:
54019 SHERIFF RADIOS
53941 800 MHZ RADIO ACCESS
Total:
8115 ARLETIE ST

CITY HALL GROUP BILL
Total:
53832 CARGO DECK FOR SQUAD VEHICL
Total:
53942 CONTINUING EDUCATION
Total:
53960 NOTICE OF ELECTION
Total:
53976 LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICE
Total:

WORK BOOTS REIMBURSEMENT
Page: 15
Amount
455.99

79.71 79.71

81.27 81.27

91.00 91.00
1,170.34
1,170.34

49.82 49.82
2,565.00
1,824.00
4,389.00
195.65
3,418.91
3,614.56
3,966.28
3,966.28
1,850.00
1,850.00
600.00
600.00
1,500.00
1,500.00
194.84
Page: 15
vchlist Voucher List
08/24/2022 12:43:0SPM CITY OF SANTEE
Bank code: ubqen
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO#
131365 8/24/2022 10988 10988 ESPINOLA, TOBY (Continued) 131366 8/24/2022 14529 EXTENDOBED 19139 53797
131367 8/24/2022 12638 GEORGE HILLS COMPANY, INC. INV1023460 54012 INV1023740 54012
131368 8/24/2022 10070 HAWTHORNE CAT MACHINERY 21347401 53994 131369 8/24/2022 10600 HINDERLITER, DE LLAMAS & ASSOC SIN020522 (B) 53570 131370 8/24/2022 12011 JAM SERVICES INC 159562
131371 8/24/2022 10204 LIFE ASSIST INC 1235724 53891
131372 8/24/2022 14659 MARINE CORPS LEAGUE - 8192022
131373 8/24/2022 14499 MARSHALL, NANCY J September 1, 2022 131374 8/24/2022 10982 MATSUSHITA, JUSTIN 08172022
131375 8/24/2022 14208 MINUTEMAN PRESS EL CAJON 63984 54015 131376 8/24/2022 10083 MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES IN1741374 53670 131377 8/24/2022 10344 PADRE DAM MUNICIPAL WATER DIST 90000367-AUG22 Description/Account
Total:

EXTENDOBED FOR 2015 FORD F-1
Total:

CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION FEES

CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION FEES
Total:

EQUIPMENT RENTAL
Total:

JULY CANNABIS MGMT SVCS
Total:

AUDIBLE PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTI
Total:

VEHICLE REPAIR SUPPLIES
Total:

ADOPTED MILITARY UNIT SUPPOR
Total:

RETIREE HEALTH PAYMENT
Total:

TUITION REIMBURSEMENT
Total:

BUSINESS CARDS - DDS ENGR
Total:

STRUCTURE TURNOUTS
Total:

GROUP BILL
Total:

Page: 16
Amount
194.84
5,947.00
5,947.00
3,416.66
1,416.66
4,833.32
770.44
770.44
1,500.00
1,500.00
144.64
144.64
3,242.95
3,242.95
3,050.00
3,050.00

91.00 91.00
1,991.40
1,991.40

91.26 91.26
6,650.08
6,650.08
54,416.16
54,416.16
Page: 16
vchlist Voucher List
08/24/2022 12:43:05PM CITY OF SANTEE
Bank code: ubqen
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO#
131378 8/24/2022 14614 PARADIGM MECHANICAL CORP 5038 53951 5039 53951
5040 53951
5041 53951
5043 53951
5044 53951
5045 53951
5048 53951
5049 53951
5050 53951
5051 53951
5061 53951
131379 8/24/2022 11442 PATIERSON, EDWARD 09012022-225
131380 8/24/2022 10101 PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL SUPPLY 8020047 53958 8020048 53958
8020049 53958
131381 8/24/2022 12237 RAYON, KYLE September 1 , 2022
131382 8/24/2022 14539 ROGERS ANDERSON MALODY & scon 71093 53811 131383 8/24/2022 13171 SC COMMERCIAL, LLC 2186650-IN 53902 131384 8/24/2022 13554 SC FUELS 0585411-DEF 54029
0585411-F 53947
131385 8/24/2022 14523 SCA OF CA, LLC 155597PS 53948
Description/Account

HVAC MAINT & REPAIRS

HVAC MAINT & REPAIRS
Total:

MEADOWBROOK HARDSHIP PRO(
Total:

EMS SUPPLIES

EMS SUPPLIES
Total:

RETIREE HEALTH PAYMENT
Total:

FY2021-22 AUDIT SERVICES
Total:

DELIVERED FUEL
Total:

DIESEL EXHAUST FLUID (DEF)

FLEET CARD FUELING
Total:

STREET SWEEPING SVCS
Total:

Page: 17
Amount
221.60
221.60
443.20
454.00
649.94
135.19
542.33
208.10
227.00
432.40
216.20
427.00
4,178.56

74.92 74.92
139.50

9.30 83.70
232.50

91.00 91.00
13,000.00
13,000.00
862.60
862.60

8.96 2,533.32
2,542.28
28,220.15
28,220.15
Page: 17
vchlist Voucher List
08/24/2022 12:43:05PM CITY OF SANTEE
Bank code: ubqen
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO#
131386 8/24/2022 12223 SITEONE LANDSCAPE SUPPLY LLC 122194481-001 53906 131387 8/24/2022 10837 SOUTHWEST TRAFFIC SIGNAL 81737 54024 81738 54024
81739 54024
81740 54024
131388 8/24/2022 14240 SPICER CONSULTING GROUP 1094 53572 131389 8/24/2022 11403 ST. JOHN, LYNNE 09012022-78
131390 8/24/2022 10217 STAPLES ADVANTAGE 3513133080 53935 131391 8/24/2022 10119 STEVEN SMITH LANDSCAPE INC 50045 53937 50046 53937
50173 53937
50174 53938
50175 53985
50210 53937
50211 53938
50212 53985
131392 8/24/2022 10536 THE FILIPINO PRESS INC 7719-22
131393 8/24/2022 10133 UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT 22-2300401 54013 720220694 54013
131394 8/24/2022 12480 UNITED SITE SERVICES 114-13259241 53950 114-13272719 53950
Description/Account

IRRIGATION SUPPLIES
Total:

TRAFFIC SIGNAL SERVICE CALLS

USA MARKOUTS

TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINTENANCE

SPEED SIGN INSTALL
Total:

SPECIAL DISTRICTS ADMIN
Total:

MEADOWBROOK HARDSHIP PROC:

Total:

OFFICE SUPPLIES
Total:

A 1 LANDSCAPE SERVICES
A 1 LANDSCAPE SERVICES
A 1 LANDSCAPE SERVICES
A 2 LANDSCAPE SERVICES
A 3 LANDSCAPE SERVICES
A 1 LANDSCAPE SERVICES
A 2 LANDSCAPE SERVICES
A 3 LANDSCAPE SERVICES
Total:

NOTICE OF ELECTION
Total:

DIG ALERT SERVICES - STATE FEE

DIG ALERT - MONTHLY TICKETS
Total:

TEMPORARY FENCE RENTAL

PORTABLE TOILET RENTAL
Page: 18
Amount
225.93
225.93
2,041.65
1,153.31
4,234.62
1,681.95
9,111.53
2,656.25
2,656.25

77.79 77.79

85.86 85.86
3,659.64
2,195.72
54,517.92
20,182.33
12,208.54
2,508.76
792.32
1,238.00
97,303.23
175.00
175.00

53.58 193.75
247.33
174.97
137.50
Page: 18
vchlist
08/24/2022 12:43:0SPM
Bank code : ubqen
Voucher
131394
131395
131396
131397
131398
131399
Date Vendor
8/24/2022 12480 12480 UNITED SITE SERVICES
8/24/2022 10475 VERIZON WIRELESS
8/24/2022 10136 WEST COAST ARBORISTS INC
8/24/2022 12930 WILLIAMS, ROCHELLE M.
8/24/2022 12641 WITIORFF, VICKY DENISE
8/24/2022 10318 ZOLL MEDICAL CORPORATION
58 Vouchers for bank code : ubgen
58 Vouchers in this report
Prnparnd
Date:
by �
�p'2_
(0,MApproved by:

Date: 'OJ Z.'-1. / Z 02 L
Voucher List

CITY OF SANTEE
Invoice
(Continued)
9913175984
188933
188934
188935
188936
September 1, 2022
September 1, 2022
3544296
3545978
PO# Description/Account
Total:

CELL PHONE SERVICE
Total:
53939 URBAN FORESTRY MANAGEMENT
53939 URBAN FORESTRY MANAGEMENT
53939 URBAN FORESTRY MANAGEMENT
53939 URBAN FORESTRY MANAGEMENT
Total:

RETIREE HEALTH PAYMENT
Total:

RETIREE HEALTH PAYMENT
Total:
53917 EMS SUPPLIES
53917 EMS SUPPLIES
Total:

Bank total:

Total vouchers
Page: 19
Amount
312.47
1,386.97
1,386.97
8,151.60
5,336.00
4,335.80
1,382.40
19,205.80

91.00 91.00

31.00 31.00
791.96
3,465.76
4,257.72
390,882.71
390,882.71
Page: 19
PyBatch Payroll Processing Report
08/23/2022 9:35:46AM CITY OF SANTEE
8/4/2022 to 8/17/2022-2 Cycle b

EARNINGS SECTION DEDUCTIONS SECTION LEAVE SECTION
Type Hours/units Rate Amount --
Src Plan Base Wages Deduction Benefit/Cont LvPlan Accrued Taken Banked Lost ststkn 1.00 33.99 rhsa2% 184,779.08 3,659.02
tech 350.00 rhsaal 559.98
tiller 288.00 276.72 rhsabc 19,664.80 393.30
tillot 48.00 1,199.55 roth 32,790.58 4,216.48 tup 255.32 sb-1 71.61 unif 700.00 unifp 525.00 sb-3 49.29
vacp 357.41 12,924.52 sffa 2,640.86
vtkn 229.50 12,682.17 sffapc 419.52
wcbf -2,206.69 st1 cs3 93,818.64 2,814.57 -2,814.57
wcdf 40.00 2,206.69 st2cs3 13,062.03 391.86 -391.86
texlif 55.16
vaccpr 575.05
vaccpt 270.41
vcanpr 430.49
vcanpt 154.10
vgcipt 88.81
vision 527.77
voladd 37.21
voldis 234.94
vollif 250.57
vollpb -250.57
Grand 15,588.12 636,682.17 225,173.14 70,887.26 I
Gross: 636,682.17
Totals Net: C411";'�
<< No Errors/ 20 Warnings >>
-----r-A__� � �
Page: 20
PPE 8/17/22
Pay Date: 08/25/22
Page: 20
vchlist Voucher List
08/25/2022 10:23:20AM CITY OF SANTEE
Bank code: ubqen
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
131410 8/25/2022 12724 AMERICAN FIDELITY ASSURANCE 0492118 131411 8/25/2022 12903 AMERICAN FIDELITY ASSURANCE CO 6059029A 131412 8/25/2022 12722 FIDELITY SECURITY LIFE 165383217 131413 8/25/2022 10844 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD PPE 08/17/22 131414 8/25/2022 10508 LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF August 2022 131415 8/25/2022 14452 MEDICAL AIR SERVICES ASSC, MASA 1321517 131416 8/25/2022 14458 METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE 73097575 131417 8/25/2022 10784 NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE August 2022 131418 8/25/2022 10335 SAN DIEGO FIREFIGHTERS FEDERAL August 2022 131419 8/25/2022 10424 SANTEE FIREFIGHTERS PPE 08/17/22 131420 8/25/2022 12892 SELMAN & COMPANY, LLC August 2022 131421 8/25/2022 10776 STATE OF CALIFORNIA PPE 08/17/22 131422 8/25/2022 14467 TEXAS LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY SMOFOU20220714001 A PO# Description/Account

VOLUNTARY LIFE INS-AM FIDELITY
Total:

FLEXIBLE SPENDING ACCOUNT
Total:

EYEMED - VOLUNTARY VISION
Total:

WITHHOLDING ORDER
Total:

LIFE/LTD INSURANCE
Total:

MEDICAL AIR TRANSPORT SVCS
Total:

VOLUNTARY LEGAL
Total:

VOLUNTARY AD&D
Total:

LONG TERM DISABILITY-SFFA
Total:

DUES/PEC/BENEVOLENT/BC EXP
Total:

ID THEFT PROTECTION
Total:

WITHHOLDING ORDER
Total:

VOLUNTARY INS RIDERS
Page: 21
Amount
4,718.06
4,718.06
1,955.06
1,955.06
1,082.73
1,082.73
465.18
465.18
2,684.77
2,684.77

98.00 98.00
210.00
210.00

74.50 74.50
1,416.00
1,416.00
3,191.63
3,191.63
180.00
180.00
449.53
449.53
110.35
Page: 21
vchlist
08/25/2022 10:23:20AM
Voucher List

CITY OF SANTEE
Bank code: ubqen
Voucher
131422
131423
131424
Date Vendor Invoice
8/25/2022 14467 14467 TEXAS LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY (Continued) 8/25/2022 10001 US BANK
8/25/2022 14600 WASHINGTON STATE SUPPORT
15 Vouchers for bank code : ubgen
15 Vouchers in this report
Prepared b.Y', --r�:�, 4_ £».-=
Date: -�
Date: -
PPE 08/17/22
PPE 08/17/22
PO# Description/Account
Total:

PARS RETIREMENT
Total:

WITHHOLDING ORDER
Total:

Bank total:

Total vouchers
Page: 22
Amount
110.35
1,247.50
1,247.50
751.84
751.84
18,635.15
18,635.15
Page: 22
vchlist Voucher List
08/25/2022 8:00:41AM CITY OF SANTEE
Bank code: ubqen
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO#
131400 8/25/2022 14664 BREMNER-EINSIDLER, CAROL Ref000081312 131401 8/25/2022 13442 EBBIN MOSER + SKAGGS LLP 4969 52777 4970 52777
131402 8/25/2022 10057 SAFEBUILT, LLC LOCKBOX#88135 06/2022 (June) 131403 8/25/2022 10490 HARRIS & ASSOCIATES INC 53526 53763 53529 53791
131404 8/25/2022 14167 HOME START, INC. 5710-06302022 53306 131405 8/25/2022 12003 JAMAR TECHNOLOGIES INC 0056953 53810 131406 8/25/2022 14575 KNN PUBLIC FINANCE, LLC 2890 53828 131407 8/25/2022 13245 NEXTECH SYSTEMS, INC INV1407 53812 131408 8/25/2022 10606 S.D. COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT. SHERIFF JUNE 2022 131409 8/25/2022 14665 WEATHER-TECH ROOFING INC Ref000081313 10 Vouchers for bank code : ubgen
10 Vouchers in this report
Page: 23
Description/Account Amount
DUPLICATE PAYMENT REFUND 92.00
Total: 92.00

MSCP SUBAREA PLAN

MSCP SUBAREA PLAN
Total:

SHARE OF FEES
Total:

IS/MND - CANNABIS ORDINANCE

ESSENTIAL HOUSING PROJECT - E
Total:

CDBG-CV RENTAL ASSISTANCE
Total:

TRAFFIC EQUIPMENT
Total:

MUNICIPAL ADVISORY SERVICES
Total:

SPEED FEEDBACK SIGNS
Total:

LAW ENFORCEMENT
Total:

LICENSE TYPE REFUND
Total:

Bank total:

Total vouchers
10,165.00
8,025.00
18,190.00
153,954.85
153,954.85
26,585.90
23,801.48
50,387.38
23,461.89
23,461.89
2,855.34
2,855.34
1,875.00
1,875.00
14,109.23
14,109.23
1,327,789.23
1,327,789.23

36.00 36.00
1,592,750.92
1,592,750.92
Page: 23
vchlist
08/25/2022 8:00:41AM
Bank code: ubqen
Voucher Date Vendor
., �_j?z_ Pcepaced by ',.. �. 2 """2._ Date.

Approve�r
Date. 2S/ la2 z
Voucher List

CITY OF SANTEE
Invoice -------
PO# Description/Account
Page: 24
Amount
Page: 24
vchlist
08/26/2022 9:35:58AM
Bank code : ubqen
Voucher
802795
802819
Date Vendor
8/26/2022 10959 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENT/457
8/26/2022 10782 VANTAGEPOINT TRNSFR AGT/801801
2 Vouchers for bank code : ubgen
2 Vouchers in this report
Prepared by:�
Date � 2Q__
. :

Approved by:

Date: �\�cl lCZ- L
Voucher List

CITY OF SANTEE
Invoice
PPE 08/17/22
PPE 08/17/22
------- PO# Description/Account
ICMA-457
Total:

RETIREE HSA
Total:

Bank total:

Total vouchers
Page:

Amount
32,872.76
32,872.76
4,612.30
4,612.30
37,485.06
37,485.06
Page: 25
25 vchlist
08/29/2022 8:06:35AM
Bank code: ubqen
Voucher
41465
41469
Date Vendor
8/29/2022 10955 DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
8/29/2022 10956 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD
2 Vouchers for bank code : ubgen
2 Vouchers in this report
Pcepaced ,,.:s;1".L, Jh__
Date §�L_ Approved by: �
Date: 6 l3c / ?..o l. L
Voucher List

CITY OF SANTEE
Invoice
PPE 08/17/22
PPE 08/17/22
PO# Description/Account

FED WITHHOLD & MEDICARE
Total:

CA STATE TAX WITHHELD
Total:

Bank total:

Total vouchers
Page:

Amount
91,662.66
91,662.66
30,907.42
30,907.42
122,570.08
122,570.08
Page: 26
26 vchlist
08/30/2022 8:03:59AM
Voucher List

CITY OF SANTEE
Bank code:

Voucher
8224
ub!'.len
Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account
8/30/2022 10353 PERS 08 22 4 RETIREMENT PAYMENT
Total:
1 Vouchers for bank code : ubgen Bank total:
1 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers :

Prnpa<ed by �JJil)/fL
Date: &_. � z_q___.

Approved
Date:
by:
'ci/gO/ lvl-2...-
Q. :::::X:

Page:

Amount
121,179.95
121,179.95
121,179.95
121,179.95
Page: 27
27 PyBatch
09/01/2022 8:50:41AM

EARNINGS SECTION
Type Hours/units
Grand Totals
reth
Grand
Totals

0.00 Rate Amount Src Plan
Payroll Processing Report

CITY OF SANTEE
9/1/2022 to 9/30/2022-1 Cycle m

DEDUCTIONS SECTION
Base Wages Deduction Benefit/Cont LvPlan
5,824.00
Employees: 32
catax 5,824.00
5,824.00

46.00 fedtax 211.00
5,824.00 257.00 0.00
---r��
Page: 28

LEAVE SECTION
Accrued
Gross:

Net:

Taken
5,824.00
5,567.00
Banked
<< No Errors/ No Warnings >>
41 �� 0-,L �{(l
Page: 28
Lost
vchlist Voucher List
09/01/2022 1:21:34PM CITY OF SANTEE
Bank code: ubqen
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
131425 9/1/2022 10003 A & B SAW & LAWNMOWER SHOP 0001017 131426 9/1/2022 14626 HC WEST, LLC sos 1223558-1
131427 9/1/2022 13456 AGRICULTURAL PEST CONTROL 651198-B 131428 9/1/2022 11999 AMERICAN ASPHALT SOUTH INC CIP2022-07 #1 FINAL CIP2022-07 #1 R
131429 9/1/2022 12903 AMERICAN FIDELITY ASSURANCE CO 6059727 131430 9/1/2022 11445 AMERICAN MESSAGING L1072898WH
131431 9/1/2022 10412 AT&T 301053963-SEPT22
131432 9/1/2022 10516 AWARDS BY NAVAJO 0822122
0822123
131433 9/1/2022 11356 CALIFORNIA STATE FIRE TRAINING 1001-0500 131434 9/1/2022 13167 CARLTON OAKS GOLF & RESORT 083122 131435 9/1/2022 10299 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS 11102-565037
131436 9/1/2022 12349 CHOICE LOCKSMITHING 081022COS
PO# Description/Account
54033 SMALL TOOL PARTS & REPAIRS
Total:
53969 BACKFLOW REPAIRS
Total:
53825 CITY HALL TERMITE REMIDIATION
Total:
53835 CITYWIDE CRACK SEALING PROGi

RETENTION
Total:

FLEXIBLE SPENDING ACCOUNT
Total:

FD PAGER SERVICE
Total:

MAST PARK
Total:
53864 FIREFIGHTER NAMETAGS
53864 DEPUTY CHIEF NAMETAGS
Total:

EVALUATOR APPLICATION FEE
Total:

SPONSORSHIP CONTRIBUTION
Total:
53869 VEHICLE REPAIR PARTS
Total:
53988 LOCKSMITH SERVICES
Page: 29
Amount
181.02
181.02
540.00
540.00
5,300.00
5,300.00
182,155.00
-9,107.75
173,047.25
1,955.06
1,955.06
166.52
166.52

90.95 90.95

71.12 23.71

94.83 50.00

50.00 349.11
349.11

68.91 68.91
169.80
Page: 29
vchlist Voucher List
09/01/2022 1:21:34PM CITY OF SANTEE
Bank code : ubqen
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
131436 9/1/2022 12349 12349 CHOICE LOCKSMITHING (Continued) 131437 9/1/2022 10032 CINTAS CORPORATION #694 4127857314 4127991551
131438 9/1/2022 10040 COUNTYWIDE MECHANICAL SYSTEMS 51659 131439 9/1/2022 10333 COX COMMUNICATIONS 063453006-AUG22 112256001-AUG22
131440 9/1/2022 11168 CTE INC CLARK TELECOM AND 3131
3131 R
131441 9/1/2022 13129 DAVID TURCH AND ASSOCIATES 08222022 131442 9/1/2022 12655 DELL MARKETING LP 10604816752
131443 9/1/2022 10251 FEDERAL EXPRESS 7-864-14489
131444 9/1/2022 10009 FIRE ETC 170992
131445 9/1/2022 10724 FIREMASTER 0000988274
131446 9/1/2022 12760 FOCUS PSYCHOLOGICAL SANTEE2022-7
131447 9/1/2022 11875 HALL, RONN 2022-2
PO# Description/Account
Total:
53959 UNIFORM/PARTS CLEANER RNTL
53959 STATION SUPPLIES
Total:
54046 EMERGENCY HVAC REPAIR
Total:
9534 VIA ZAPADOR
9130 CARLTON OAKS DR
Total:
53954 MAGNOLIA SIGNAL UPGRADE PRO

RETENTION
Total:
53975 HIGHWAY 52 COALITION SUPPORl
Total:
53953 WORKSTATION & MONITOR
Total:

SHIPPING CHARGES
Total:
53880 EQUIPMENT REPAIR PART
Total:
54047 INERGEN SYSTEM MAINT & REPAlf
Total:
53922 PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES
Total:

PER DIEM LEAGUE OF CAL CITIES
Total:

Page: 30
Amount
169.80

65.10 46.80
111.90
1,389.48
1,389.48

94.54 93.72
188.26
92,718.00
-4,635.90
88,082.10
5,000.00
5,000.00
1,575.40
1,575.40

53.63 53.63

31.25 31.25
325.00
325.00
800.00
800.00
241.00
241.00
Page: 30
vchlist Voucher List Page: 31
09/01/2022 1:21:34PM CITY OF SANTEE
Bank code: ubqen
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount 131448 9/1/2022 11807 IMPERIAL SPRINKLER SUPPLY 5256474-01 54042 IRRIGATION PARTS 1,529.62 Total: 1,529.62
131449 9/1/2022 13063 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF 71641 ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP FEES 100.00 Total: 100.00
131450 9/1/2022 10357 LAWCX LAWCX2023-0025 EXCESS WORKERS COMP PREMIL 229,981.00 Total: 229,981.00
131451 9/1/2022 13851 LAWSON PRODUCTS, INC 9309791394 53890 VEHICLE REPAIR SUPPLIES 1,484.63 Total: 1,484.63
131452 9/1/2022 10204 LIFE ASSIST INC 1236900 53891 EMS SUPPLIES 1,800.90 1236901 53891 EMS SUPPLIES 241.90
1237329 53891 EMS SUPPLIES 156.24
1237632 53891 EMS SUPPLIES 484.00
Total: 2,683.04
131453 9/1/2022 11783 MINTO, JOHN 2022-1 PER DIEM LEAGUE OF CAL CITIES 241.00 Total: 241.00
131454 9/1/2022 10507 MITEL LEASING 903861146 MONTHLY RENTAL 122670 1,878.80 Total: 1,878.80
131455 9/1/2022 10306 MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS INC 8281434287 53774 PORTABLE RADIO BATIERIES 6,004.96 Total: 6,004.96
131456 9/1/2022 10308 O'REILLY AUTO PARTS 2968-1 00911 53896 VEHICLE REPAIR PARTS 43.79 2968-101750 53896 VEHICLE REPAIR PARTS 134.68
Total: 178.47
131457 9/1/2022 13117 ORTIZ, ANNETIE 09/01/2022-3 PER DIEM LEAGUE OF CAL CITIES 241.00 Total: 241.00
131458 9/1/2022 14614 PARADIGM MECHANICAL CORP 5092 53951 HVAC MAINT & REPAIRS 448.60 5094 53951 HVAC MAINT & REPAIRS 448.60
5095 53951 HVAC MAINT & REPAIRS 205.40
5096 53951 HVAC MAINT & REPAIRS 210.80
Page: 31
vchlist Voucher List
09/01/2022 1:21:34PM CITY OF SANTEE
Bank code: ubqen
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
131458 9/1/2022 14614 14614 PARADIGM MECHANICAL CORP (Continued) 131459 9/1/2022 10446 PLAY WELL TEKNOLOGIES 0822279
131460 9/1/2022 14537 RANKIN, MATT 2022-9122
131461 9/1/2022 10097 ROMAINE ELECTRIC CORPORATION 12-056954 131462 9/1/2022 10407 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC 04229703218-AUG22 22373580042-AUG22
34223805628-AUG22
43940205509-AUG22
79900685777-AUG22
85097 421694-AUG22
131463 9/1/2022 13171 SC COMMERCIAL, LLC 2192999-IN
2195650-IN
131464 9/1/2022 13554 SC FUELS 0587996-DEF
0587996-F
131465 9/1/2022 10110 SECTRAN SECURITY INC 22080508
131466 9/1/2022 14038 SINGH GROUP INC 41298
131467 9/1/2022 12223 SITEONE LANDSCAPE SUPPLY LLC 122819986-001 131468 9/1/2022 10314 SOUTH COAST EMERGENCY VEHICLE 509114 PO# Description/Account
Total:

INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT
Total:

PER DIEM LEAGUE OF CAL CITIES
Total:
53980 VEHICLE REPAIR PARTS
Total:

STREET LIGHTS

TRAFFIC SIGNALS

ROW / MEDIANS
LMD
PARKS

CITY HALL GROUP BILL
Total:
53902 DELIVERED FUEL
53902 DELIVERED FUEL
Total:
54029 DIESEL EXHAUST FLUID (DEF)
53947 FLEET CARD FUELING
Total:
54004 ARMORED CAR TRANSPORT - AU(
Total:
53905 DEAD ANIMAL REMOVAL
Total:
54055 IRRIGATION PARTS
Total:
53907 VEHICLE REPAIR PARTS
Page: 32
Amount
1,313.40
5,290.00
5,290.00
241.00
241.00
703.05
703.05
41,622.54
1,683.27
-476.16
946.29
18,219.91
12,891.16
74,887.01
593.67
1,307.47
1,901.14

19.10 3,456.74
3,475.84
141.67
141.67
1,443.71
1,443.71
623.61
623.61
739.98
Page: 32
vchlist
09/01/2022 1 :21 :34PM
Bank code: ubqen
Voucher Date Vendor
Voucher List

CITY OF SANTEE
Invoice
131468 9/1/2022 10314 10314 SOUTH COAST EMERGENCY VEHICL (Continued) 131469 9/1/2022 11341 SRM CONTRACTING & PAVING #1R
CIP 2022-1 2P
CIP 2022-1 2R
PAYMENT#1
131470 9/1/2022 10027 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 596691
131471 9/1/2022 10119 STEVEN SMITH LANDSCAPE INC 50047-071822 50062
131472 9/1/2022 10250 THE EAST COUNTY 00121545
00121566
131473 9/1/2022 10257 TYLER TECHNOLOGIES INC 045-386200 045-387205
045-388702
131474 9/1/2022 12480 UNITED SITE SERVICES 114-13284094 114-13286360
131475 9/1/2022 10475 VERIZON WIRELESS 9000295568
131476 9/1/2022 10475 VERIZON WIRELESS 9913175985
52 Vouchers for bank code : ubgen
52 Vouchers in this report
PO# Description/Account
Total:

RETENTION
53847 CITYWIDE PAVEMENT REPAIR AND

RETENTION
53779 CUYAMACA STREET RESURFACIN<
Total:

FINGERPRINTING SERVICES
Total:
53418 A 2 LANDSCAPE SERVICES
53418 A 2 LANDSCAPE SERVICES
Total:
53967 PROPOSED CANNABIS ORDINANC
54017 RFP CONCESSION SERVICES
Total:
53803 PERMITTING SOFTWARE IMPLEME
53803 PERMITTING SOFTWARE IMPLEME
53803 PERMITTING SOFTWARE IMPLEME
Total:
53950 PORTABLE TOILET RENTAL
53950 UNITED SITE SERVICES
Total:
54014 TABLET COMMAND DISPATCH
Total:

WIFI SERVICE
Total:

Bank total:

Total vouchers
Page: 33
Amount
739.98
-13,594.71
41,220.00
-2,061.00
271,894.18
297,458.47
192.00
192.00
7,859.03
11,906.37
19,765.40
280.00
136.50
416.50
6,273.69
5,780.00
1,480.00
13,533.69
404.07
137.50
541.57
7,781.94
7,781.94
1,598.70
1,598.70
956,182.67
956,182.67
Page: 33
vchlist
09/01/2022 1 :21 :34PM
Bank code: ubqen
Voucher Date Vendor
Prep�
red by: ::---
(j; : ('-;5 :::::)
-
Date.
, • •
Approved by: __-�
Date: q /I/ llVoucher List

CITY OF SANTEE
Invoice -------
PO# Description/Account
Page: 34
Amount
Page: 34

RESOLUTION NO.

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

ACCEPTING THE CITY HALL FIBEROPTIC CABLE REPLACEMENT PROJECT (CIP 2022-30), AS COMPLETE
WHEREAS, the City Council awarded the construction contract for the City Hall Fiberoptic Cable Replacement Project (CIP 2022-30) to Micom, Inc. on February 9, 2022 in the amount of $32,720.00; and
WHEREAS, City Council authorized the City Manager, Director of Development Services or City Engineer to approve construction change orders in a total amount not to exceed $4,908.00; and
WHEREAS, one change order in the amount of $1,984.00 was approved for additional conduit and pull box work; and
WHEREAS, the project was completed for a total contract amount of $34,704.00; and
WHEREAS, Micom, Inc. has completed the project in accordance with the contract plans and specifications.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santee, California, that the work for the construction of the City Hall Fiberoptic Cable Replacement Project (CIP 2022-30) is accepted as complete on this date and the City Clerk is directed to record a Notice of Completion.

ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Santee, California, at a Regular meeting thereof held this 14th day of September, 2022, by the following roll call vote to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:

JOHN W. MINTO, MAYOR
ATTEST:

ANNETTE ORTIZ, CMC, CITY CLERK

RESOLUTION NO. ____

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE APPROPRIATION AND EXPENDITURE OF FY 2021 STATE HOMELAND SECURITY PROGRAM GRANT FUNDS IN

ACCORDANCE WITH ALL PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS
WHEREAS, on July 19, 2022, the San Diego County Office of Emergency Services approved the City of Santee’s (“City”) FY 2021 State Homeland Security Program (“SHSP”) grant request in the amount of $35,356.00; and WHEREAS, the Santee Fire Department needs to place into service a LUCAS mechanical CPR device, a Motorola 800 MHz portable radio, a Draeger self-contained breathing apparatus, an Apple iPad and related accessories; and WHEREAS, any liability arising out of the performance of the SHSP agreement shall be the responsibility of the City of Santee and the City Council; and WHEREAS, SHSP grant funds shall not be used to supplant expenditures controlled by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, FY 2021 SHSP grant funds will reimburse the City $34,060.15 toward the $36,938.63 total cost of the new LUCAS mechanical CPR device, Motorola 800MHz portable radio, Draeger SCBA, Apple iPad, and all related accessories; and WHEREAS, the City has accounted for the remaining cost of $2,878.48 in the current fiscal year adopted budget.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santee, California as follows:

1. The appropriation and expenditure of FY 2021 State Homeland Security Program grant funds is hereby authorized in accordance with all program requirements for the purchase of a LUCAS mechanical CPR device, a Motorola 800MHz portable radio, a Draeger self-contained breathing apparatus, an Apple iPad and all related accessories.

2. The Director of Fire and Life Safety (Fire Chief) is authorized to execute all necessary grant documents.

ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Santee, California, at a Regular Meeting thereof held this 14th day of September 2022, by the following roll call vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:

JOHN W. MINTO, MAYOR
ATTEST:

ANNETTE ORTIZ, CMC, CITY CLERK
County of San Diego Office of Emergency
Services
5580 Overland Ave., Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92123 -1251
Phone: (858) 565-3490 Fax: (858) 565-3499
Email: [email protected]
Unified San Diego County Emergency Services Organization CARLSBADCHULA VISTACORONADOCOUNTY OF SAN DIEGODEL MAREL CAJONENCINITASESCONDIDOIMPERIAL BEACHLA MESA LEMON GROVE  NATIONAL CITYOCEANSIDEPOWAYSAN DIEGOSAN MARCOSSANTEESOLANA BEACHVISTA July 19, 2022
City of Santee
10601 Magnolia Avenue
Santee, CA 92071
SUBJECT: NOTIFICATION OF FEDERAL FUNDING AWARD
FY 2021 Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP)
Subaward #2021-0081, Cal OES ID #073-00000
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the County of San Diego Office of Emergency Services has approved your FY2021 SHSP award in the amount of $35,356 as listed below:

Subrecipient Name: City of Santee
Subrecipient DUNS: 103163374
Federal Award ID (FAIN) EMW-2021-SS-00081
Federal Award Date: 09/01/19 to 08/31/24
Subaward Period of Performance: 09/01/21 to 05/31/23
Subrecipient Award Amount: $ 35,356
Federal Award Project Description: Implementation of homeland security management grant to support state, local, tribal and territorial efforts to prevent terrorism and other catastrophic events
Federal Awarding Agency: US Department of Homeland Security CFDA Number: 97.067/Homeland Security Grant Program
Research & Development Award (Y/N): No
Indirect Cost Rate: N/A
Match Requirement: N/A
This grant award is subject to all provisions of Uniform Guidance (2 CFR Part 200), which can be accessed at www.ecfr.gov. Non-federal entities that expend $750,000 or more annually in Federal Awards must have a single audit performed each year. Please forward a copy of your most current single audit report to the contact below.

Subrecipients are to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local Environmental Planning and Historic Preservation (EHP) requirements. Additionally, Aviation/Watercraft requests, Establish/Enhance Emergency Operations Center projects, projects requiring EHP review, and noncompetitive procurement requests require additional approvals. Subrecipients must obtain written approval for these activities prior to incurring any costs, in order to be reimbursed for any related costs under this Grant Subaward.

Subrecipients are also required to obtain a performance bond prior to the purchase of any equipment item over $250,000, including any aviation or watercraft financed with homeland security dollars. Performance bonds must be submitted to the contract below no later than the time of reimbursement.

Please complete and return the attached OES Grant Management Assessment Questionnaire, 2021 Grant Assurances and Signature Authorization Form, current procurement policies and salvage guidelines. A hard copy of the Grant Assurances and Signature Authorization Forms must be mailed.

Your performance period ends May 31, 2023. Please submit your reimbursement requests in a timely manner, no later than June 30, 2023.

For further assistance, please contact Kriztina.Tresch at (858) 715-2321 or [email protected].

Sincerely,
Martin Kurian, Departmental Budget Manager
County of San Diego, Office of Emergency Services
cc:

Attachments: OES Grant Management Assessment Questionnaire 2021 Grant Assurances
SHSP 2021 Approved FMFW

RESOLUTION NO.

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

ACCEPTING THE CITYWIDE CONCRETE REPAIR AND REPLACEMENT
PROGRAM 2021 (CIP 2021-05) PROJECT AS COMPLETE
WHEREAS, the City Council awarded the construction contract for the Citywide Concrete Repair and Replacement Program 2021 (CIP 2021-05) Project to Portillo Concrete, Inc. on February 23, 2022 in the amount of $163,920.00; and WHEREAS, City Council authorized the City Manager, Director of Development Services or City Engineer to approve construction change orders in a total amount not to exceed $40,980.00; and
WHEREAS, four change orders in the total amount of $20,591.39 were approved for additional concrete repairs; and
WHEREAS, the project was completed for a total contract amount of $184,511.39; and
WHEREAS, Portillo Concrete, Inc. has completed the project in accordance with the contract plans and specifications.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santee, California, that the work for the construction of the Citywide Concrete Repair and Replacement Program 2021 (CIP 2021-05) Project is accepted as complete on this date and the City Clerk is directed to record a Notice of Completion.

ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Santee, California, at a Regular meeting thereof held this 14th day of September, 2022, by the following roll call vote to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:

JOHN W. MINTO, MAYOR
ATTEST:

ANNETTE ORTIZ, CMC, CITY CLERK

RESOLUTION NO. -2022
1 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTEE, CALIFORNIA

AUTHORIZING A CHANGE IN THE CONTRACTING OFFICER FOR BANKING SERVICES WITH UNION BANK, N.A.

WHEREAS, the City of Santee (“City”) has utilized Union Bank, N.A. to provide general banking, cash management and related services (“banking services”) since approximately November 1989; and
WHEREAS, the City’s Director of Finance/City Treasurer serves as the City official responsible for the contracting and ongoing administration and oversight of the City’s banking services; and
WHEREAS, the current Director of Finance/City Treasurer Tim K. McDermott will be retiring from the City of Santee on September 22, 2022; and WHEREAS, Heather Jennings has been appointed by the City Manager as the next Director of Finance/City Treasurer for the City effective September 23, 2022; and WHEREAS, Union Bank requires the adoption by the City Council of a Public Entity Resolution identifying the individual authorized by the City Council under California Government Code 53649 to enter into any contract with Union Bank, N.A. relating to any deposit, which in his or her judgement is to the public advantage.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santee, as follows.

SECTION 1: Effective September 23, 2022, Director of Finance/City Treasurer Heather Jennings is hereby authorized to serve as the contracting officer with Union Bank, N.A. to perform such contracting requirements such as:

1. Establishing bank accounts and services.

2. Signing, or changing in writing, agreements with Union Bank, N.A. regarding the City’s bank deposit relationship.

3. Specifying in writing to Union Bank, N.A. the individuals who are authorized in the name of and on behalf of the City to:
a. Withdraw funds from any of the City’s bank accounts on the City’s checks or orders.
b. Endorse and deliver to Union Bank, N.A., for any purpose, and in any amount, negotiable or non-negotiable items of any kind, and owned by, or held by, or payable to the City.
c. Send, review, and/or authorize wire and electronic transfers of funds from the City’s accounts. Such authority may be exercised by such authorized individual acting alone, regardless of any multiple signature requirements otherwise applicable to the accounts.
d. Otherwise access the City’s deposit accounts.

RESOLUTION NO. -2022
2 SECTION 2: This authority has been granted by the City Council and shall remain in effect until Union Bank, N.A. receives written notice of revocation.

ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of the Santee, California, at a Regular Meeting thereof held this 14th day of September 2022, by the following roll call vote to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:
_______
JOHN W. MINTO, MAYOR
ATTEST:

ANNETTE ORTIZ, CMC, CITY CLERK

STAFF REPORT

PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF FANITA RANCH, TO CONSIDER

CERTIFYING FINAL REVISED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT INCLUDING

RECIRCULATED SECTIONS OF THE FINAL REVISED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (AEIS2017-11, AEIS 2022-4), AND APPROVING THE FANITA RANCH DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT (DR2022-4), VESTING TENTATIVE MAP (TM2022-1), AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR PUBLIC PARKS (P2022-1 AND P2022-2), AND A FIRE STATION (P2022-3)) APPLICANT: HOMEFED FANITA RANCHO LLC
CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 14, 2022
A. SITUATION AND FACTS

1. Requested by ................................. HomeFed Fanita Rancho LLC

2. Land Owner(s)................................. HomeFed Fanita Rancho LLC

3. Type and Purpose of Request Final Revised Environmental Impact Report (EIR) including Recirculated Sections of the Final Revised
EIR; Vesting Tentative Map; Development Plan and
Development Review Permit; Conditional Use Permits
for two public parks and a fire station.

4. Location........................................... North of Carlton Hills Blvd and Fanita Parkway

5. Site Area ......................................... 2,368 acres

6. Number of lots................................. 1,467 (proposed)

7. Number of units 2,949 with school; 3,008 without school

8. Density ............................................ Various (4-50 dwelling units per acre)

9. Hillside Overlay ............................... No

10. Existing Zoning................................ PD-Planned Development

11. Surrounding Zoning......................... North: Unincorporated Lakeside Rural Residential South: R-2, R-1, R1A, HL
East: Unincorporated Lakeside Rural Residential
West: MCAS Miramar; East Elliot (San Diego)

12. General Plan Designation ............... Planned Development

13. Existing Land Use............................ Undeveloped site

14.Surrounding Land Use...................... North: Open space South: Single-family residential
Staff Report, September 14, 2022
Fanita Ranch

Page 2 of 17 ends

East: Undeveloped land; rural residential
West: Open space; PDMWD water treatment facility

15. Terrain…………………………………Hillside and valley terrain

16.Environmental Status ...................... Final Revised EIR, including Recirculated Sections of the Final Revised EIR (SCH# 2005061118)

17.Within Airport Influence Area (AIA)…Gillespie Field and MCAS AIA B. BACKGROUND
Prior Project Approvals
On September 23, 2020, the City Council of the City of Santee (“City”) approved a prior version of the Fanita Ranch project (hereinafter referred to “prior project approvals”) including resolutions to: certify the Final Revised Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Staff Report, September 14, 2022
Fanita Ranch

Page 3 of 17 ends

(State Clearinghouse No. 2005061118); to adopt a General Plan Amendment (GPA2017- 2); and to approve the applications for a Fanita Ranch Vesting Tentative Map for the subdivision of approximately 2,638 acres into 1,467 lots (TM2017-3), a Development Review Permit (DR2017-4), a Conditional Use Permit for a new 31.2-acre public community park (P2017-5), and a Conditional Use Permit for a new 4.2-acre public neighborhood park (P2020-2).

Also included in the prior project approvals was the adoption of two ordinances, introduced on September 23, 2020 and adopted on October 14, 2020. Specifically, Ordinance No. 580, added Chapter 13.20 “Specific Plan District” to Title 13 and amended Chapter 13.04 “Administration” of the Santee Municipal Code and approved the Fanita Ranch Specific Plan (Case Files R2017-1 and SP2017-1). Ordinance No. 581 approved and authorized the execution of a development agreement by and among the City of Santee and HomeFed Fanita Rancho LLC.

The Staff Report for these prior project approvals is provided in Exhibit A attached hereto.

Since the prior project approvals, the City adopted an Essential Housing Program by Ordinance (Ordinance 592), and the prior project approvals were subject to litigation, as addressed below.

Essential Housing Program
On August 25, 2021, the City adopted, by Urgency Ordinance No. 592, the City’s Essential Housing Program to boost housing production and improve housing affordability in the City. The program addresses the current housing emergency by streamlining and incentivizing the construction of new housing projects that meet specific criteria. Under the program, projects that meet the specified criteria set forth by the City Council are deemed to be in compliance with the Santee General Plan and do not require an amendment to the Santee General Plan, a rezone, or other legislative act. Further, the City’s development standards, conditions, and policies are applied to facilitate development at the density proposed by projects that qualify under the Essential Housing Program.

On November 29, 2021, an application was submitted by HomeFed Fanita Rancho, LLC for Fanita Ranch under the Essential Housing Program. On December 27, 2021, the City’s Director of Development Services certified Fanita Ranch as an Essential Housing Project. Accordingly, Fanita Ranch is considered to be in compliance with the Santee General Plan and does not require an amendment to the Santee General Plan, a Specific Plan, a rezone, a Development Agreement, or other legislative act. The Fanita Ranch Essential Housing certification and Urgency Ordinance No. 592 are provided in Exhibit B attached hereto.

Challenge to Prior Project Approvals
Staff Report, September 14, 2022
Fanita Ranch

Page 4 of 17 ends

On October 21, 2020, the Final Revised EIR for the prior project approvals was challenged by Preserve Wild Santee, Center for Biological Diversity, Endangered Habitats League, and California Chaparral Institute (collectively, “Petitioners”) by a lawsuit filed in San Diego Superior Court. On March 3, 2022, the Court issued its ruling identifying deficiencies in the Final Revised EIR related to wildfire evacuation. The Court entered judgment based on its ruling on March 25, 2022, and issued a peremptory writ of mandate ordering the City to set aside and vacate all resolutions and approvals pertaining to the previous Fanita Ranch project. The City was served with the peremptory writ on May 16, 2022. On May 25, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 070-2022, setting aside and vacating in their entirety the prior project approvals, including certification of the Final Revised EIR.

C. PROPOSED PROJECT
On May 4, 2022 HomeFed Fanita Rancho LLC submitted applications pursuant to Urgency Ordinance No. 592 consisting of a Fanita Ranch Development Review Permit (DR2022-4), a Vesting Tentative Map (TM2022-1), Conditional Use Permits for a Community Park (P2022-1), a Neighborhood Park (P2022-2) and a new Fire Station (P2022-3), and a preliminary application for processing under the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (Senate Bill 330) for the development of Fanita Ranch, including the subdivision of approximately 2,638 acres of (hereinafter referred to as the “Proposed Project”).

Fanita Ranch Development Plan
The Proposed Project would establish a new community
within the City of Santee consisting of approximately
2,949 housing units under the preferred land use plan
with school, or 3,008 units under the land use plan
without school, and up to 80,000 square feet of
commercial uses in addition to parks, open space, and
agriculture uses. Project development would be
clustered into three villages to preserve natural open
space areas, drainages, and key wildlife corridors. The three villages would be named according to their design theme: Fanita Commons, Vineyard Village, and Orchard
Village. The three villages would be situated around a
centralized farm that would provide food and function as a focal point for the community. Each village would be
defined by its location, physical characteristics, and mix of housing types and uses.

Fanita Commons would serve as the main village and include the primary Village Center, the Village Green, the Community Park, a potential K–8 school site, and an Active Adult Staff Report, September 14, 2022
Fanita Ranch

Page 5 of 17 ends

neighborhood. The Vineyard and Orchard Villages would include smaller, mixed-use Village Centers that would allow for neighborhood-serving uses, office space, and other community services and amenities, as well as Medium Density Residential and Low Density Residential neighborhoods. The proposed project would provide mini-parks, neighborhood parks and a community park all within walking distance of residences. A comprehensive system of walking and biking trails would connect the residences to key destinations throughout the project site and to existing off-site trails in surrounding park and recreation areas.

The proposed land uses and maximum residential unit yield for the project are provided in Table 1, which is excerpted from the Development Plan.

Residential Use: The Proposed Project would develop 1,203 single-family residential units and 1,746 multi-family units. The Development Plan describes numerous residential types that will accommodate various housing needs. Higher density residential types (up to 50 dwelling units/acre) would typically be located in Village Centers (VC), and medium- (8-25 dwelling units/acre) to low-density (4-10 dwelling units/acre) residential communities would surround the Village Centers. Fanita Ranch would also include an “Active Adult” neighborhood for age-restricted residential uses in a variety of building typologies, with densities ranging from 5 to 25 dwelling units/acre. The Active Adult land use designation occurs in Fanita Commons near the Village Center, Farm and Community Park to promote walkability.

Further, the Proposed Project includes a $2.6 million contribution to an affordable housing fund, as well as the production of 150 workforce housing units, onsite or offsite; thus providing for a mix of very low, low, moderate and above-moderate income households.

This provision of housing will assist the City of Santee in addressing the existing housing crisis in the City consistent with the findings of Urgency Ordinance No. 592.

Parks: Fanita Ranch would add approximately 78 acres of parkland, of which 35 acres are comprised of two publicly-owned parks (a 31.2-acre Community Park and 4.2-acre Neighborhood Park) and 43 acres are comprised of private parks with full public access.

The publicly-owned Community Park and Neighborhood Park would include park amenities required in the Community Park CUP (P2022-1) and the Neighborhood Park CUP (P2022-2). One of the amenities of the Community Park would be a 7,000-10,000 square foot public building. The Proposed Project would exceed its Parkland Dedication requirements.

Trails: Fanita Ranch would provide City residents with new, public, recreational opportunities, including use of the over 35 miles of trail network (currently the site is privately owned and gated). The trail system accommodates a variety of users, connects Villages and community amenities, maximizes views, protects sensitive habitat areas and provides linkages to local and regional parks and trails. The trail system would be Staff Report, September 14, 2022
Fanita Ranch

Page 6 of 17 ends

comprised of trails of varying width and surface material, ranging from 2.5-foot wide, native earth “Primitive” trails to 10-foot wide concrete “Multi-Purpose” and “Village Access” trails. An 8-foot wide, “Perimeter” trail intended for recreational use and fire access would be comprised of native earth or decomposed granite (DG) and would loop around the Vineyard Village.

TABLE 1
Land Use Plan Statistical Summary
Land Use
Designation
Area (Acres) Dwelling Units Density Range
(Du/Ac)
Commercial Square
Feet
Residential & Village Center
Low Density Residential (LDR) 240.8 1,203 4 - 10
Medium Density Residential N/A
(MDR)

67.0 866 8 - 25
Active Adult (AA) 31.0 445 5 - 25
Village Center (VC) 36.5 435 Up to 50 60,000
Residential & Village Center Subtotal 375.3 2,949 60,000 Other Uses
Community Park (CP) 31.2

N/A N/A
N/A
Neighborhood Park (NP) 30.4
Mini-Park (MP) 16.4
School (S) Overlay 15.0
Special Use (SU) 31.9
Open Space (OS) 256.0
Agriculture (A) Overlay 38.2 20,000
Habitat Preserve (HP) 1,650.4
N/A
Roadways 193.3
Other Uses Subtotal 2,262.8 20,000
DEVELOPMENT PLAN TOTAL 2,638.1 2,949 80,000
Notes:

1. Acreage reflects the rounding of numbers and may vary slightly from the calculated total.

2. The transfer of residential dwelling units and commercial square feet within the Development Plan Area is permitted up to 15 percent of the total residential units for the respective land use designation, as provided in Section 10.7.1:

Administrative Amendments (Minor Modifications) of the Development Plan.

3. VC reserves a 1.5-acre fire station site acceptable to the Fire Department.

4. There are 31 mini-parks on approximately 16.4 acres distributed throughout the Development Plan Area, including the Village Green located in Fanita Commons.

5. Does not include approximately 28.6 acres of off-site roadway improvements.

6. The underlying land use for the S overlay site is MDR. If the reserved school site is not acquired for school use within 2 years of approval of the final map containing the S overlay site, the MDR land use may be implemented on the school site and the maximum total number of units in the Development Plan Area shall be 3,008 units, as provided in Section 3.2.5: School (S) Overlay and Section 10.7.1: Administrative Amendments (Minor Modifications) of the Staff Report, September 14, 2022
Fanita Ranch

Page 7 of 17 ends

Development Plan

7. The underlying land use for the A overlay sites is OS. If an A overlay site is not developed with agricultural related uses described in Section 3.2.8: Agriculture (A) Overlay of the Development Plan, the OS land use shall be implemented on the A overlay sites.

Fire Station and Fire Protection: Fanita Ranch would provide a 10,000 square-foot, turnkey fire station in a location acceptable to the Fire Department providing service to both project residents and existing Santee neighborhoods. The project would provide one Type I fire engine and one Type III wildland fire engine to be added to the City’s fire apparatus resources. The project would also include full staffing of the fire station, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, with three captains, three engineers and three firefighter/paramedics.

The project provides a state-of-the art Fire Protection Plan that incorporates the City’s fire code, amended to be more restrictive than the state code, and includes highly specialized brush management zones adjacent to structures and roadways.

School Overlay: The Development Plan establishes a 15.0-acre school lot with a “School Overlay”. The school site is intended for a K-8 school. The underlying land use for the School Overlay site is Medium Density Residential (MDR). If the reserved school site is not acquired for school use within 2 years of approval of the final map containing the School Overlay site, the MDR land use may be implemented on the school site, and the maximum total number of units in the Development Plan Area shall be 3,008 units.

Special Use area: A Special Use area would be located in the southwestern corner of the project site. The Special Use area, which was previously graded for a park and is not suitable for habitat preservation, cannot be irrigated and is limited to minimal grading because of geological conditions on the site. As such, the Special Use area would include a limited range of uses, such as a solar farm, recreational vehicle storage, and other similar uses. A mini-park in the Special Use Area would serve as a trail staging area.

Habitat Preserve and Open Space: Approximately 1,650.4 acres representing about 63 percent of the total project site would remain as a Habitat Preserve, and an additional 256 acres would remain in open space. The Habitat Preserve would include areas undisturbed from development and specific revegetated slopes at the edge of the planned development area. Revegetated slopes would consist of native plants that blend into the existing natural landscape in conformance with a habitat restoration plan. The intent of this land use is to designate areas that would ultimately be included in the City’s Multiple Species Conservation Plan (MSCP) Subarea Plan, fulfilling the City’s commitment to participate in the regional MSCP. The project applicant has prepared a Preserve Management Plan that directs and provides funding mechanisms for the long-term management and monitoring of the biological resources in the Habitat Preserve, with or without the approval of the City’s Subarea Plan by the Wildlife Agencies. The Habitat Preserve would be selectively accessible through a managed and maintained trails system. A conservation easement would be dedicated on the Final Map that reflects the Staff Report, September 14, 2022
Fanita Ranch

Page 8 of 17 ends

Habitat Preserve area.

In addition to the Habitat Preserve, approximately 256 acres of the site would remain in open space throughout the community. This area includes brush management areas at the edge of development, slopes adjacent to roads and within Villages, detention basins, trailheads and two riparian areas in Fanita Commons.

Agricultural Overlay: Fanita Ranch would be an agrarian-focused community centered on a working farm along with orchards and vineyards, The Development Plan dedicates over 38 acres of the site to an Agricultural Overlay, which would allow agricultural uses, such as a publicly-accessible working farm, orchards, vineyards and residential gardens.

A component of the trail network, the “AgMeander” would be a series of trails and paths with educational components that would connect the central community Farm to the Villages, school site, parks and residences.

Mobility Element Streets: The Proposed Project would improve and construct new segments of three Santee General Plan Mobility Element streets: Fanita Parkway, Magnolia Avenue and Cuyamaca Street. Improvements would also occur at the terminus of Carlton Hills Boulevard and at existing dead-end streets that terminate at the project site boundary where drainage facilities, erosion control measures and sidewalks are deemed necessary to access the Perimeter trail.

Population: Upon buildout, implementation of the land use plan with school would add approximately 7,974 residents and 450 employees and the land use plan without school would add approximately 8,145 residents and 200 employees.

Phasing: The conceptual phasing plan for the Proposed Project indicates four phases.

The public facilities would be provided commensurate with development, and public services would be provided prior to the time of need. The conceptual phases for the project include the following:
• Phase 1: Fanita Commons and the easterly portion of Orchard Village, off-site and onsite improvements to Fanita Parkway and Cuyamaca Street, sewer infrastructure through the Phase 2 area, and water infrastructure in the Special Use area.

Residential units in this phase total 1,050.
• Phase 2: Westerly portion of Orchard Village and improvements to existing dead-end streets. Residential units in this Phase total 573.
• Phase 3: Connections to and construction of the southerly half of Vineyard Village and water infrastructure through the Phase 4 area. Residential units in this Phase total 512.
• Phase 4: Northerly half of Vineyard Village. Residential units in this Phase total 814.

Staff Report, September 14, 2022
Fanita Ranch

Page 9 of 17 ends

These proposed phases are conceptual and non-sequential. Phases may occur simultaneously. Phases may overlap or vary depending on market conditions. Each phase is estimated to take approximately two to four years to complete. The first phase is anticipated to begin in 2023 with a buildout over a 10- to 15-year period. The Special Use area is not tied to development phasing and may be developed at any time during project buildout.

Fees and Economic Benefit: Fanita Ranch would contribute approximately $33.7 million in development impact fees, including Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program (RTCIP) Mitigation fees pursuant to project conditions.

Comparison of the Proposed Project to Prior Project Approvals The description of the Proposed Project components have not changed from the September 2020 prior project approvals except that the Magnolia Avenue extension— originally proposed as part of the prior proposed project but omitted prior to the 2020 City Council hearing—has been added back into the Project as originally proposed. In addition, the Proposed Project was certified as an Essential Housing Project, and has been found to be consistent with the Santee General Plan. The Proposed Project does not seek a General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan, rezone or other legislative actions.

The applicant is no longer seeking a Development Agreement. All public benefits associated with the previously approved Development Agreement have been incorporated as conditions of approval in the resolutions for the Vesting Tentative Map, Development Review Permit, and/or Conditional Use Permits for the Community Park, Neighborhood Park and Fire Station.

D. ANALYSIS
In response to the March 2022 San Diego County Superior Court ruling, the City prepared “Recirculated Sections of the Final Revised EIR” that respond to each of the deficiencies pertaining to evacuation in the event of a wildfire. Pursuant to CEQA, if revisions to the EIR are limited to chapters or portions of the EIR, the lead agency need only recirculate the chapters or portions that have been modified (State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5(c)). It was determined that portions of the Final Revised EIR would be recirculated to ensure that the public has a meaningful opportunity to comment upon the changes to the Final Revised EIR in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. The City determined that the portions of the Final Revised EIR that were not found deficient would not be recirculated as they have been through the CEQA process and have withstood legal challenge. The Recirculated Sections of the Final Revised EIR include:
• Section 0, Preface (new section, recirculated in its entirety) • Section 3.0, Project Description (portions recirculated as shown in strikeout/underline where changes were made)
Staff Report, September 14, 2022
Fanita Ranch

Page 10 of 17 ends

• Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning (portions recirculated as shown in strikeout/underline where changes were made)
• Section 4.18, Wildfire (replaced, recirculated in its entirety) • Appendix P1 to the Revised EIR, Fire Protection Plan (replaced, recirculated in its entirety)
• Appendix P2 to the Revised EIR, Wildland Fire Evacuation Plan (replaced, recirculated in its entirety)
The Court ruling is attached as Exhibit C, and the evacuation deficiencies and corrective actions are summarized in Table 2. The Court’s ruling focused on six topics of deficiency in the EIR analysis.

TABLE 2
Evacuation Analysis Deficiencies Identified by Court Ruling and Corrective Actions
Court’s Evacuation Analysis
Deficiency
Corrective Action

1. Mast Boulevard: The EIR
identified three primary
evacuation routes; however, one
such route, using Mast
Boulevard to evacuate east to
Highway 67, was “not possible
because Mast Boulevard does
not connect to Highway 67 and
instead dead-ends in a park,
rendering the [Wildland Fire
Evacuation] Plan’s evacuation
routes unclear.”

1. Mast Boulevard: A revised Wildland Fire
Evacuation Plan (Appendix P2) and revisions
to Section 4.18, Wildfire, of the Final Revised
EIR (Wildfire Section) have been prepared.

The Wildland Fire Evacuation Plan and
revised Wildfire Section depict all evacuation
routes and explain that Mast Boulevard to the
east provides a connecting route to State
Route (SR) 67 indirectly through other streets.

Specifically, drivers traveling east on Mast
Boulevard would turn left on Los Ranchitos
Road north, right to El Nopal east, and then
right on Riverford Road south to connect to
SR-67. This route is clearly identified on
revised Figure 4.18-1, Evacuation Routes, in
the Wildfire Section.

2. Evacuation Modeling: The EIR
did not analyze evacuation times
to determine whether project
residents and the surrounding
community could safely
evacuate under either a

2. Evacuation Modeling: An evacuation travel
time analysis and associated modeling has
been prepared, which is incorporated into the
revised Wildland Fire Evacuation Plan
(Appendix P2) and referenced in the revised
Fire Protection Plan (Appendix P1), and the
Staff Report, September 14, 2022
Fanita Ranch

Page 11 of 17 ends

staggered or mass evacuation
scenario.

Wildfire Section. This new evacuation travel
time analysis and modeling was prepared by
consultants with input from the Santee Fire
Department (SFD). The evacuation
assessment and modeling calculates estimated
evacuation travel times for the surrounding
community and project under targeted
evacuation and mass evacuation conditions.

The evacuation modeling and timing analysis
includes the following, among other
components:
• Analysis of potential feasible evacuation
scenarios using reasonable assumptions
that take into account the wildfire history
specific to the area, relevant wildfire
research, and discussions with the SFD
and fire professionals.
• Identification of evacuating populations
under mass evacuation and targeted
evacuation scenarios. Targeted
evacuation conditions were identified in
consultation with the SFD based upon
current evacuation practice consistent with
City and County Emergency Operations
Plans.
• Identification of the proposed project’s
road improvements that would enhance
roadway carrying capacity under the
selected evacuation scenarios.
• Calculation of evacuation travel times for
mass evacuation and targeted evacuation
scenarios.
• Evaluation of project evacuation safety
and whether the proposed project will
affect the existing community’s ability to
safely evacuate during a wildfire event.
• Discussion of the limitations of evacuation
travel time modeling given the numerous
variables and factors that drive evacuation
decisions during real-time fire situations.

The proposed project’s evacuation time
analysis and modeling are provided for
informational purposes only and may not
Staff Report, September 14, 2022
Fanita Ranch

Page 12 of 17 ends

be used during an actual emergency
evacuation because those decisions are
generally made as part of unified
command operations established to
respond to real-time wildfires based on fire
conditions, winds, weather, and other
factors and variables that affect
evacuation decision-making. Nonetheless,
the analysis conducted in support of the
proposed project’s evacuation plan was
developed in coordination with SFD and
represents numerous wildfire scenarios.

The results from the evacuation travel time
modeling are anticipated by SFD to inform
engine companies for emergency action
decision support and provide valuable
evacuation time estimates, which will be
useful for guiding the phased evacuation
approach. Additionally, the modeling
analysis results, as part of the proposed
project’s Wildland Fire Evacuation Plan
(Appendix P2), will be used to increase
resident and fire personnel evacuation
preparedness and awareness of available
evacuation routes.

3. Wildfire Significance Criteria:

The EIR did not evaluate a fifth
wildfire significance threshold,
namely, would the proposed
project “expose people or
structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of
loss, injury, or death involving
wildland fires.” The omission of
this threshold meant the public
was not informed about impacts
related to evacuation timing or
risks if residents are instructed to
remain on site in a wildfire
scenario.

3. Wildfire Significance Criteria: The Wildfire
Section and Fire Protection Plan (Appendix
P1) have been revised to include an analysis
of all applicable wildfire significance
thresholds, including the question of whether
the proposed project would “[e]xpose people or
structures, either directly or indirectly, to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires.” Evacuation and shelter-in-place
scenarios are evaluated.

Staff Report, September 14, 2022
Fanita Ranch

Page 13 of 17 ends

4. Response to Public Comments
Regarding Ability to Evacuate:

Public comments received
during public review questioned
the “project occupants’ ability to
evacuate in the event of a wildfire
and traffic flow impact”, and the
Final Revised EIR’s response to
the comment did not sufficiently
“answer the question of whether
those seeking to be evacuated
are anticipated to be able to do
so,” and whether the City “fully
considered the implications of
project occupants’ ability to
safely evacuate.” (Appendix Q,
[Ruling p. 4])

4. Response to Public Comments Regarding
Ability to Evacuate: A revised Wildland Fire
Evacuation Plan (Appendix P2) including
evacuation travel time modeling (Exhibit to
Appendix P2) and a revised Wildfire Section of
the Final Revised EIR were prepared in
response to the trial court’s ruling.

5. Removal of the Magnolia
Avenue Extension and Effect
on Evacuation: The Final
Revised EIR’s “Second Errata”
removed the Magnolia Avenue
extension shortly before EIR
certification. Given that Magnolia
Avenue was previously
described as a “primary”
evacuation route, the “post-EIR
analysis” in an errata was not
adequate to provide the public
with the opportunity to test and
evaluate this new information,
and in particular: (a) to comment
on the extent to which residents
living on the other connector
roads may be impacted by
evacuating traffic from project
occupants, and (b) to comment
on the proposed project’s
evacuation impacts without the
Magnolia Avenue extension.
(Appendix Q, [Ruling p. 4-5])

5. Removal of the Magnolia Avenue Extension
and the Effect on Evacuation: The extension
of Magnolia Avenue from the existing terminus
of Princess Joann Road to Cuyamaca Street
was included in the Revised Draft EIR
circulated for public review in May 2020, but
was removed in the Second Errata to the Final
Revised EIR in August 2020. The Magnolia
Avenue extension has been added back into
the proposed project as originally proposed,
rendering the Second Errata unnecessary. The
Second Errata has been struck from the Final
Revised Environmental Impact Report
including Recirculated Sections of the Final
Revised Environmental Impact Report.

Staff Report, September 14, 2022
Fanita Ranch

Page 14 of 17 ends

6. Removal of the Magnolia
Avenue Extension Removal
and Recirculation: Removing
the Magnolia Avenue extension
constituted significant new
information as defined in CEQA;
and therefore, the City’s decision
not to recirculate the EIR after
removing the Magnolia Avenue
extension violated CEQA.
(Appendix Q, [Ruling p. 5])

6. Elimination of Magnolia Avenue Extension
and Recirculation: The Magnolia Avenue
extension has been added back into the
Proposed Project as originally proposed from
the existing terminus of Princess Joann Road
to Cuyamaca Street, making recirculation of
the Final Revised EIR due to removal of the
Magnolia Avenue extension unnecessary

E. PUBLIC REVIEW
The Recirculated Sections of the Revised EIR were released for public review from June 10, 2022 to July 25, 2022 in accordance with the provisions of CEQA. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 (f)(2), the City requested that reviewers limit their comments to the recirculated portions of the Final Revised EIR.

A Notice of Availability of the Recirculated Sections of the Revised EIR was published in the East County Californian on June 10, 2022. A total of 265 copies of the Notice of Availability were mailed and 78 copies of the Notice of Availability were emailed to agencies, tribes, organizations and individuals who had requested notice or otherwise indicated an interest in the project. An electronic version of the Notice of Availability as well as the Recirculated Sections of the Revised EIR, updated technical appendices and a link to the administrative record prepared under Public Resources Code Section 21167.6.2 were also posted on the City of Santee’s website, posted outside the Santee City Clerk’s office and filed and posted with the San Diego County Clerk on June 10, 2022. A Notice of Completion and the Recirculated Sections of the Revised EIR were submitted to the California Office of Planning and Research. Three sets of the Draft Revised EIR and the technical appendices were made available at the City of Santee in the Development Services Department, City Clerk’s office and City Manager’s office as well as at the San Diego County Library in Santee.

The City received timely comments from the following entities: three comments from federal and state agencies, one comment from local or regional agencies, five comments from non-government organizations, and 112 comments from individuals. Written comments received by the City during the public review period have been fully addressed in written responses. After the close of the public comment period, the City continued to Staff Report, September 14, 2022
Fanita Ranch

Page 15 of 17 ends

receive late comments. The late comment letter that addressed the proposed project is included in Exhibit D. None of the late comments raised any significant environmental issues under State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.

The City has prepared a Final Revised EIR, consisting of the Recirculated Sections of the Revised EIR; written comments received during the public review and comment period on the Recirculated Sections; written responses to those comments; an errata; and Volumes I, II, and III, of the Revised EIR. The Final Revised EIR may be found on the City’s website at https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov, along with the Recirculated Sections of the Final Revised EIR and corresponding technical appendices. The Final Revised EIR is also available in the administrative record for the project posted on SharePoint for the Fanita Ranch Project accessible at:
https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov or
http://sntbberry.cityofsanteeca.gov/sites/FanitaRanch/Public/default.aspx A Notice of Public Hearing for September 14, 2022 was published in the East County Californian on September 2, 2022, and mailed by U.S. Postal Service or e-mailed to interested parties and agencies on September 2, 2022. An electronic version of the Public Hearing Notice was also posted on the City’s website at http://www.cityofsanteeca.gov on September 2, 2022.

G. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Neither the Recirculated Sections of the Final Revised EIR nor the comments received during public review of the Recirculated Sections of the Final Revised EIR identified any new significant environmental issues nor any issues that increased the severity of the impact analysis in the Final Revised EIR. As discussed in detail in the Final Revised EIR, the following impact areas would remain significant and unavoidable even after implementation of all feasible mitigation measures:
• Air Quality:
o Conflict with applicable air quality plans.
o Significant net increase in criteria pollutant emissions during construction and operation.
• Noise: Permanent increase in traffic noise levels.
• Transportation:
o Significant increase in traffic at intersections located outside Santee’s jurisdiction, or no funding mechanism is currently available, or no feasible mitigation is available.

Staff Report, September 14, 2022
Fanita Ranch

Page 16 of 17 ends

o Increase in Vehicle Miles Traveled above the calculated threshold. • Recreation: Air quality, noise and transportation impacts related to construction of new recreational facilities.
• Utilities: Air quality, noise and transportation impacts related to construction of new and expanded utilities.

Under State CEQA Guidelines section 15043, a public agency may approve a project even though the project would cause a significant effect on the environment if the agency makes a fully informed and publicly disclosed decision that (1) there is no feasible way to lessen or avoid the significant effect (see Section 15091), and (2) specifically identified expected benefits from the project outweigh the policy of reducing or avoiding significant environmental impacts of the project (see Section 15093). The proposed Resolution certifying the Final Revised EIR includes Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations finding that economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits, including region-wide benefits, of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, rendering adverse environmental effects “acceptable.” State CEQA Guidelines section 15097 requires that a lead or responsible agency adopt and implement program for monitoring or reporting on the revisions which it has required in the project and the measures it has imposed to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared for the Fanita Ranch project. The purpose of the MMRP is to ensure that the mitigation measures required by the EIR for the Fanita Ranch project are properly implemented. The City will be responsible for monitoring the timely completion of the project’s mitigation measures. The MMRP Checklist provides a mechanism for monitoring the mitigation measures in compliance with the EIR. For each impact area, the impacts identified in the EIR are summarized, and the required mitigation measures are listed. The following items are identified for each mitigation measure to ensure the implementation of each measure: (1) responsibility for implementation and monitoring; (2) date of completion; and (3) initials of monitor.

H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Conduct and close the public hearing; and

3. Approve Vesting Tentative Map (TM2022-1) per the attached Resolution No.113- 2022; and
Staff Report, September 14, 2022
Fanita Ranch

Page 17 of 17 ends

4. Approve Development Plan and Development Review Permit (DR2022-4) per the attached Resolution No. 114-2022; and

5. Approve Conditional Use Permits P2022-1, P2022-2 and P2022-3 per the attached Resolution Nos. 115-2022, 116-2022 and 117-2022, respectively.

ATTACHMENTS
EXHIBIT A: Staff Report for 2020 Prior Approvals
https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/22576/63798330429017 4406
EXHIBIT B: Fanita Ranch Essential Housing Certification and Urgency Ordinance No. 592
EXHIBIT C: Court Ruling (Case No. 37-2020-00038168-CU-WM-CTL) EXHIBIT D: Late Comments
Due to file size, Exhibit A to the Staff Report is available separately via the below link:
https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/home/showpublisheddocu
ment/22576/637983304290174406
Essential Housing Project Application Checklist
Project Name: Fanita Ranch
Date:

Credits
0 Credits
20 5
10 35
Credits
2 0
2 10
2 16
Credits
10 2
12 nd Use - 11 Max Creaits
Lqcation in Town Center - 2 Credits
Maximize Potential Density - 4 Credits
ouslng - 50 Max Credits (10 Required)
Affordable Housing (10% Low Income)- 20 Credits
-or- Contribution per market-rate unit
Affordable Housing (10% Moderate Income)- 10 Credits
-or- Contribution per market-rate unit
Mix of Unit Sizes- 5 Credits
Redevelopment of an Underutilized Site - 5 Credits
Number of Units Provided- 10 Max Credits
Subtotal
Mobility - 28 Max Credits
Location within Y. mile of bus stop - 2 Credits
Location within % mile of the trolley station - 5 Credits Location along a multimodal corridor - 5 Credits
Traffic calming - 2 Credits
SR-52 Contribution - 1 O Max Credits
P ssenger Loading Area or Rideshare - 2 Credits
Bike Repair Station and Bike Storage - 2 Credits
Subtotal
, Open Space and Conservation - 12 Max Credits
Contribution to City-owned Open Space - 1 O Max Credits Trees in Streetscapes and Parks - 2 Credits
Subtotal
Credits
2 2
4 2
5 5
5 25
Credits
5 5
10 Credits
4 5
10 19
Credits
2 5
7 124
SustalnabHlty - 44 Max Credits
Installation of Graywater System - 2 Credits
Connection to Recycled or Purified Treated Water- 2 Credits Exceeds Title 24 requirements - 2 Credits
All Energy Star Rated Appliances - 4 Credits
EV Chargers in Public Use areas (Level 2) - 5 Credits
EV Chargers in Public Use areas (Level 3) - 2 Credits
Solar Panels on Carports - 5 Credits
Solar Panels on Accessory Buildings - 5 Credits
Solar Water Heating - 2 Credits
Full Electrification of Residential Units - 5 Credits
Battery Systems - 10 Credits
Subtotal
100-ft Irrigated Fuel Modification Zones - 5 Credits
Implementation of Fire Protection Plan - 5 Credits
Subtotal
Trails and Sidewalks - 21 Max Credits
Enhanced Landscaped Parkways - 4 Credits
Safe Routes to Schools, Parks, and Transit - 2 Credits
Multiple Use Trails - 5 Credits
Trail Facilities Contribution - 10 Max Credits
Subtotal
Parks and Recreation - 7 Max Credits
Exceed parkland dedication requirement - 2 credits
Multi-purpose playing fiefds/public recreational facilities - 5 credits Subtotal
TOT AL Credits Across All Categories
A. Does the Project meet or exceed 10 Credits for housing and 50 Credits across all categories?./ Yes D No

8. Director's Determination - If Question in Section A, above, is checked "No", the Project is NOT an Essential Housing Project. If Question in Section A, above, is checked "Yes" the Project is determined an Essential Housing Project and can be certified as an Essential Housing Project by the Director of Development Services in Section C, below.

C. DIRECTOR'S CERTIFICATION: I, the undersigned, in my capacity as Director of Development Services for the City of Santee certify the �= �
s an
.
ssential Housing Project:
.
, ' tu�, .;;. i: . :il(µ {
Directo of Development Services Date '

STAFF REPORT - EXHIBIT B
ORDINANCE NO. 592

AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SANTEE, CALIFORNIA, ENACTING

AN ESSENTIAL HOUSING PROGRAM TO BOOST HOUSING PRODUCTION AND

IMPROVE HOUSING AFFORDABILITY IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THE GOALS SET FORTH IN THE CITY'S HOUSING ELEMENT (SIXTH CYCLE: 2021-2029) AND

DETERMINING THE ORDINANCE EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
WHEREAS, the City of Santee ("City") is a California charter city; and WHEREAS, the City desires to amend its local regulatory process to boost housing production and improve housing affordability within the City to meet the full spectrum of housing needs for its residents and households by enacting an "Essential Housing Program;" and
WHEREAS, there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare because the City is experiencing a housing crisis due to, among other considerations, delayed housing production, lack of housing affordability, cost-burdened households, "missing middle" housing, lack of "move up/move down" housing, and aging and deteriorating housing stock, as set forth in Section 2, below; and WHEREAS, these threats to public safety, health, and welfare justify adoption of this Ordinance as an urgency ordinance to be effective immediately upon adoption by a four-fifths vote of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, to protect the public safety, health, and welfare, the City Council may adopt this Ordinance as an urgency measure in accordance with Government Code section 36937, subdivision (b).

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Santee does ordain as follows:

SECTION 1. RECITALS
The recitals above are each incorporated by reference and adopted as findings by the City Council.

SECTION 2. FINDINGS CONSTITUTING THE URGENCY
The Council finds and declares as follows:

A. This Ordinance is adopted pursuant to California Government Code section 36937, subdivision (b), and shall take effect immediately upon its approval at either a regular or special meeting by at least a tour-fifths vote of the City Council.

B. This Ordinance is necessary to expeditiously respond to the statewide and local housing crisis, which the City experiences through delayed housing production, lack of housing affordability, cost-burdened households, "missing middle" housing, missing move up/ move down housing, aging and deteriorating housing stock, and overcrowding (particularly among renters).
1 ORDINANCE NO. 592
C. In enacting this Ordinance, the Council's intent is to declare a City-wide housing emergency, to be in effect until August 25, 2026, and to enact the "Essential Housing Program" to: (a) maximize housing production to combat this current housing crisis/emergency; and (b) expeditiously allow and encourage a range of locally-desirable housing types and lot sizes for all income levels, including housing affordability options, that will enhance homeownership and for-rent living opportunities within the City.

D. The Council's findings, declarations, and intent are for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety and based on the following facts:

1. Housing Crisis
Statewide and locally, California is experiencing an extraordinary housing supply crisis, with housing demand far outstripping supply, and this crisis results in severe adverse consequences.
a) City of Santee

1. According to the City's Housing Element 2021-2029, 48 percent of renter households and 31 percent of owner households face a housing cost burden.

Households paying more than 30 percent of their income on housing have limited remaining income for other necessities. Most drastically, a majority of lower- and moderate- income households in the City experience housing cost burden, with an incidence among very low income homeowners of 81 percent. (Housing Element 2021- 2029, p. 14.)

2. The City's 2020 Annual Progress Report on Housing Element Implementation ("Progress Report") shows the City falling far short of its Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) goals for the 11- year cycle of 2010-2020, having issued building permits for 1,374 units (37.5 percent) of its RHNA allocation of 3,660 units - a 2,286-unit shortfall. (See March 24, 2021, City Council Staff Report, Item 6, and the City's Progress Report, along with supplemental information available for public review on City's website, cityofsanteeca.gov.

3. The City's housing stock is aging, and new housing stock is needed to prevent widespread housing deterioration. Approximately 80 percent of the City's housing stock is more than 30 years old and 26 percent is more than 50 years old.

Approximately 88 percent of the City's housing stock will exceed 30 years of age by 2029. (See City's Housing Element 2021-2029, pp. 23-24.) New housing is drastically needed to diversify the City's housing portfolio and provide an influx of homes less than 30 years old.

4. The City continues to experience a significant housing shortfall, apparent in lower than optimal vacancy rates. Vacancies for home ownership was one percent, below the optimal vacancy rate of 1.5 and 2.0 percent to balance housing demand and supply. Vacancies for home rentals was 2.9 percent, similarly below the optimal rate of 5.0 to 6.0 percent. (See City's Housing Element 2021-2029, p. 25.) Low vacancy rates force prices up, make it more difficult for low- and moderate- income 2 ORDINANCE NO. 592
households to find housing, and increase the incidence of overcrowding. (See also Public Policy Institute of California information showing that the shortfall of available rental homes in the San Diego region exceeds 140,000 units and growing.

5. The housing shortfall has contributed to increases in median rental and home prices in the City. Since 2015, median home sale prices in Santee have increased by almost 50 percent. Moderate- income households are unable to purchase adequately sized homes at current prices. As for rentals, between 2011 and 2019, the average price increased between 63 and 105.1 percent. (See City's Housing Element 2021-2029, pp. 25-30.) The lack of housing supply and product variety limits affordability and housing options in the City, and for households in various life stages such as young couples, families, students, seniors, and veterans.

6. According to the City's Housing Element 2021-2029, the City's median household income is $84,226 (in 2018), well below the annual income needed to purchase a home in the City. (See City's Housing Element 2021-2029, pp. 25-30.) The housing shortage affects not only those in the lowest income brackets, but also moderateincome earners.

7. Increasing housing supply to keep pace with demand, while protecting the existing supply from use conversion, will reduce the City's housing prices, diversify the City's aging home stock, make it easier for low- and moderate- income households to find housing, and reduce overcrowding.

8. This Ordinance contains provisions that implement solutions to the City's housing crisis by: (a) soliciting qualifying applications; (b) accepting applications that meet the specified criteria herein designed to boost housing production and improve housing affordability in the City; (c) processing accepted applications in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Ordinance; (d) approving or denying such applications in accordance with objective criteria set forth herein; and (e) using this overall framework to implement the City's program on an urgency basis consistent with the Council's findings and intent herein.
b) County of San Diego

1. On April 18, 2018, the County of San Diego Board of Supervisors ("Board") recognized that the County was "experiencing a housing crisis" and directed County's Chief Administrative Officer to "investigate options that would further promote the expedient building of homes in the unincorporated area and the closing of the housing gap through incentive programs and/or reductions in regulations in San Diego County." The Board also noted that "promoting housing affordability through production incentives and regulatory policy review is one way [the County] can encourage the production of much-needed housing at all income levels, and shore up the regional housing supply be removing unnecessary impediments and/or bolstering the production process." (County of San Diego Bd. of Sups., Minute Order issued April 18, 2018.) On September 11, 2018, the Board of Supervisors declared a shelter crisis in the unincorporated areas of the County. (County of San Diego Bd. of Sups., Minute Order issued Sept. 11, 2018.) On 3 ORDINANCE NO. 592
October 10, 2018, the Board received a report on Options to Improve Housing Affordability in the Unincorporated Area, and the proposed actions include reducing time and costs associated with the permit process, exploring incentives to stimulate production of diverse housing types, and to consolidate and modernize zoning and use regulations. (County of San Diego Bd. of Sups., Minute Order issued Oct. 10, 2018.)

2. This Ordinance is consistent with the County's efforts to address the housing crisis and shelter crisis that still exist in the County. c) State of California

1. The Legislature has declared that the lack of housing "is a critical problem that threatens the economic, environmental, and social quality of life in California" and that the "excessive cost of the state's housing supply is partially caused by activities and policies of many local governments that limit the approval of housing, increase the cost of land for housing, and require that high fees and exactions be paid by producers of housing." (Gov. Code§ 65589.5, subd. (a).)

2. The Legislature attempted to combat this trend in 1982, by enacting the Housing Accountability Act ("HAA'') (Gov. Code§ 65589.5). However, almost 40 years later, the Legislature recognized that its intent in enacting the HAA and in expanding its provisions since then, which was "to significantly increase the approval and construction of new housing for all economic segments of California's communities by meaningfully and effectively curbing the capability of local governments to deny, reduce the density for, or render infeasible housing development projects and emergency shelters" "has not been fulfilled." (Gov. Code§ 65589.5, subd. (a)(2)(K)[italics added].)

3. Accordingly, the Legislature enacted the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330) declaring a statewide housing emergency to be in effect from January 1, 2020, until January 1, 2025. In declaring this statewide housing emergency, the California Legislature found that:
a. California is experiencing a housing supply crisis, with housing demand far outstripping supply; and in 2018,
California ranked 49th out of the 50 states in housing units per capita.
b. Existing housing in this state, especially in its largest cities, has become expensive; and seven of the ten most expensive real estate markets in the United States are in California. c. California is experiencing rapid year-over-year rent growth with three cities in the state having had overall rent growth of 10 percent or more year-over-year, and of the 50 United States cities with the highest United States rents, 33 are cities in California.
4 ORDINANCE NO. 592
d. California needs an estimated 180,000 additional homes annually to keep up with population growth, and Governor Newsom has called for 3.5 million new homes to be built over the next seven years.
e. The housing crisis has particularly exacerbated the need for affordable homes at prices below market rates.
f. The housing crisis results in harm to families across California, including:
• Increasing poverty and homelessness, especially first-time homelessness,
• Forcing lower income residents into crowded and unsafe housing in urban areas, and
• Forcing public employees, health care providers, teachers, and others, including critical safety personnel, into more affordable housing farther from the communities they serve, which will exacerbate future disaster response challenges in high-cost, high-congestion areas and increase risk to life. • Driving families out of the state or into communities away from good schools and services, disrupting family life, and
increasing health problems due to long commutes that may exceed three hours per day.
g. Lengthy permitting processes and approval times, fees, and costs for parking and other requirements further exacerbate cost of residential construction.
h. The housing crisis is severely impacting the state's economy in the following ways:
• Employers face increasing difficulty in securing and retaining a workforce.
• Schools, universities, nonprofits, and governments have difficulty attracting and retaining teachers, students, and employees, and our schools and critical services are
suffering.
• According to analysts at McKinsey and Company, the housing crisis is costing California $140 billion a year in lost economic output.
5 ORDINANCE NO. 592
i. The housing crisis harms the environment by increasing greenhouse gas emissions from longer commutes to
affordable homes far from growing job centers.
j. The state's cumulative housing shortage significantly increases greenhouse gas emissions caused by the
displacement and redirection of populations to states with greater housing opportunities, particularly working- and middle-class households.
k. When Californians have access to safe and affordable housing, they have more money for food and health care; they are less likely to become homeless and in need of
government-subsidized services; their children do better in school; and businesses have an easier time recruiting and retaining employees.

2. Lack of Housing Affordability
The lack of housing affordability constitutes an emergency in the City of Santee, County of San Diego, and State of California, requiring expedited City action. Over the past several years, significant attention has been placed on the increasing costs of housing and the overall lack of housing affordability in California and the San Diego region, including in the City. Concerns raised by elected officials, local business advocacy groups, and the public have brought attention to the shortage of for-sale and rental housing.
a) City of Santee
1 . The City housing development trends show that there is not enough housing being built in the City, and the housing that is constructed does not meet the full spectrum of needs of City residents and for households at all income levels.

2. State regulations, uncertain land use policies, need for rezoning, and delays in project processing all delay and add to the cost of housing. The environmental review process alone can pose a challenge to housing production due to required public agency review of possible environmental impacts, potential mitigation measures to address them, and delays in processing. (See California Legislative Analyst Office (LAO) report titled, "California's High Housing Cost: Causes and Consequences," LAO 2015, pp. 13-18, 35 [the LAO is a nonpartisan fiscal and policy advisor to the State of California].)

3. Further, project opponents sometimes use the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review process, litigation, and ballot measures to limit or scuttle housing projects that have gone through an exhaustive, open, and public review and participation process. According to the above LAO report in 2015, the local permitting processes, public hearings, and other processing requirements can be lengthy and 6 ORDINANCE NO. 592
extend the overall timeframe to complete a housing project. CEQA, project opposition, and various regulatory and growth restrictions have caused California's for-sale and rental housing prices to be far higher - more than double the cost - of any other state in the nation. (See "California's High Housing Cost: Causes and Consequences," LAO 2015, pp. 5-7, 15-20.)

4. The lack of housing supply has resulted in housing unaffordability and economic insecurity in the City. (Housing Element 2021-2029, pp. 14-15, 25-30.) High housing costs leave households with little left over for other important expenses, leading to difficult budget trade-offs. Local economies are then impacted because money that might otherwise be spent in the local economy (generating sales tax revenues for each community) is being spent on the high cost of housing.

5. Due to the high cost of housing, one out of five of San Diego region's one-million-person workforce (200,000 workers) live outside of the County. These commuters purchase lower cost homes outside the San Diego region, in areas such as Riverside County, due to the lack of appropriate in-County housing. Forcing the City's workforce and first responders into long commutes harms workers and the environment by disrupting family life, increasing health problems, and increasing air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions.

6. The City finds it beneficial to have law enforcement officers, first responders, public safety officers, military personnel, veterans, and schoolteachers residing in the City where they work. This ensures that they are closer to the areas and residents they serve, and promotes their community involvement while off-duty. The continued presence of such persons provides models of public service to City neighborhoods, builds community rapport among such persons and other residents, and increases general civic engagement. Further, having such persons living in the City benefits that community's safety in the event of an emergency or natural disaster because they are already in close proximity to the community, decreasing emergency response time. Because of the current housing crisis, however, such persons are experiencing difficulty locating affordable housing within the City. b) State of California

1. The housing crisis has particularly exacerbated the immediate need for affordable homes at prices below market rates. (SB 330, Section 2 (a)(5).)

2. Costs for construction of new housing continue to increase; and according to the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at the University of California, Berkeley, the cost of building a 100-unit affordable housing project in the state was almost $425,000 per unit in 2016, up from $265,000 per unit in 2000. (SB 330, Section 2 (a)(9).)

3. California's overall homeownership rate is at its lowest since the 1940s. The state ranks 49th out of the 50 states in homeownership rates and in the supply of housing per capita. Only one-half of California's households can afford the cost of housing in their local regions. (Gov. Code§ 65589.5 (a)(2)(E).) 7 ORDINANCE NO. 592

4. The lack of supply and rising costs are compounding inequality and limiting advancement opportunities for many Californians. (Gov. Code § 65589.5 ( a)(2)(F).)

5. Most California renters, more than 3,000,000 households, pay more than 30% of their income toward rent; and nearly one-third, more than 1,500,000 households, pay more than 50% of their income toward rent. (Gov. Code § 65589.5 (a)(2)(G).)

6. California's overcrowding rate is well above the national average -

8.3% compared to 3.4% across the nation - increasing the COVID-19 risk in the state.

According to a May 2020 analysis by Public Policy Institute of California, essential workers are more likely than non-essential workers to live in overcrowded housing.

Essential workers and those in larger households accordingly face a higher risk of contracting COVID-19 due to overcrowding and the inability to practice the physical distancing needed to slow the spread of COVID-19. (See Public Policy Institute of California, "Overcrowded Housing and COVID-19 Risk Among Essential Workers," May 12, 2020.)
SECTION 3. CEQA
The Council finds that this Ordinance is not subject to the requirements of CEQA because pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080(a) and CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(2), the City's adoption of a general policy and procedure is not a "project" subject to CEQA. By this Ordinance, the City is hereby enacting the "Essential Housing Program" to provide policies and procedures to implement General Plan and zoning consistency for qualifying housing and mixed-use housing projects.

In addition, this Ordinance is exempt under CEQA Guidelines section 15061 (b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty there is no possibility that enacting this "Essential Housing Program" may have a significant effect on the environment. Specifically, by enacting these policies and procedures, the City is not causing any alteration to the physical environment; and any certified project that satisfies these policies and procedures must still comply fully the CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and all other applicable laws and regulations before any development of any kind can proceed. Thus, CEQA compliance is assured. Further, the City's enactment of these policies and procedures will enhance, rather than degrade, existing environmental conditions by ensuring that any certified project demonstrate compliance with stringent environmental standards.

The City also finds that choosing the precise time for CEQA compliance involves a balancing of competing factors. For example, CEQA recognizes that CEQA compliance should occur as project scope, design, features, and other factors and yet late enough to provide meaningful non-speculative information for environmental assessment.

Accordingly, the City finds that by adopting this Ordinance, the City is not restricting itself from considering any feasible or reasonable choice of alternatives or mitigation measures for a certified project before completion of its CEQA compliance, nor committing itself to 8 ORDINANCE NO. 592
any definite course of action concerning a certified project prior to its CEQA compliance.

Further, nothing herein restricts the City from denying a certified project on CEQA or other objective grounds.

SECTION 4. ESSENTIAL HOUSING PROGRAM
The City Council hereby adopts this Ordinance, titled the "Essential Housing Program," to provide policies and procedures to implement General Plan and zoning consistency for qualifying housing and mixed-use housing projects. Unless otherwise stated, the City Council and their elected officials, Director of Development Services, and staff shall comply with the procedures set forth in this Ordinance.

A. Title.

This Ordinance shall be known as the Essential Housing Program Ordinance of the City of Santee.

B. Purposes and General Plan Consistency

1. This Ordinance is enacted to establish review procedures for residential and residential mixed use development proposals to: (a) boost housing production and housing affordability during the period of the Citywide, Countywide, and Statewide housing crisis described in Sections 1 and 2, above, which findings are incorporated herein by reference; and (b) to declare as urgent the need for the permitting and development of qualifying housing projects in the City consistent with the provisions of this title.

2. Compliance with the City of Santee Essential Housing Project Credits Assessment Guide, described below, shall ensure consistency with the City's General Plan by:
a. Promoting economical and efficient use of the land while providing a variety of housing choices and mixed-use
development that will create and maintain a high-quality environment;
b. Preserving natural and scenic qualities of open spaces and areas;
c. Promoting design and construction techniques that are responsive to relevant environmental resources and minimize hazards;
d. Requiring energy conservation through solar and other renewable energy sources; Ensuring adequate provision of community public services, trails, and parks and recreation facilities to serve new and existing communities;
9 ORDINANCE NO. 592
e. Supporting a balanced transportation network that meets future circulation needs and promotes alternative modes of travel and site design to reduce vehicular trips, save energy, and improve air quality; and
f. Enhancing quality of life and revitalizing City neighborhoods through new residential development.

C. Conflicts and Interpretation.

1. Conflicts with Other Regulations. In the event of a conflict between this Ordinance and any other City code, plan, or policy, the provisions of this Ordinance shall control with regard to Essential Housing Projects. An Essential Housing Project remains subject to all other applicable regulations and laws, as described in subdivision C(3) below.

2. Interpretation. This Ordinance shall be interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing.

3. Compliance with Other Regulations and Laws.
a. Except as provided herein, an Essential Housing Project must otherwise comply with all applicable City requirements, including obligations related to processing or review of any required development application. However, the City's
development standards, conditions, and policies shall be applied to facilitate and endeavor to accommodate
development at the density proposed by the Essential
Housing Project.
b. Nothing in this Ordinance shall be construed to prohibit the City from imposing fees and other exactions otherwise
authorized by law that are required to provide necessary public services and facilities.
c. Nothing in this Ordinance shall be construed to relieve the City or Applicant from complying with state law, including without limitation the Subdivision Map Act (Gov. Code § 66410 et seq.) and the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub.

Resources Code§ 21000 et seq.)
D. Essential Housing Project Determination

1. Notwithstanding any goal, policy, term, prov1s1on, requirement, or mandate contained in the General Plan and its various Elements, a Housing Development 10 ORDINANCE NO. 592
Project certified as an Essential Housing Project, as described in Section G below, shall be deemed both in compliance and consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element and Housing Element and shall not require an amendment to the General Plan, an amendment to a Specific Plan, a rezone, or other legislative act.

2. Nothing herein shall be construed to limit the number of residential units provided by an Essential Housing Project to the minimum required by law in any Income Category identified in the City's Housing Element 2021-2029. An Essential Housing Project may provide residential units in excess of the City's RHNA obligations per Income Category.

3. Certification as an Essential Housing Project under this Ordinance shall apply to (1) any new application for a Housing Development Project; (2) any Housing Development Project currently under City review; or (3) any approved, entitled, and/or permitted Housing Development Project not yet built by the date application for certification is made.

E. Application Procedures.

1. An application for an Essential Housing Project shall be submitted to the Department on the City's application form titled, "City of Santee Essential Housing Project Application" a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. The City Council hereby adopts the Application as set forth in Exhibit A. The Application may be modified by the Director.

2. The completed Application shall contain all the information described therein. Specifically, the Application shall be accompanied by a completed a "City of Santee Essential Housing Project Credits Assessment Checklist" ("Checklist") demonstrating that the project achieves the required number of credits, including the required number of housing credits, as set forth in the "City of Santee Essential Housing Project Credits Assessment Guide" ("Credits Assessment Guide") and shall provide the information required by Government Code section 65941.1, subdivisions (a)(1) through (a)(17). The City hereby adopts the Credits Assessment Guide as attached to the Application as Attachment 1, and hereby adopts the Checklist as attached to the Application as Attachment 2. The Credits Assessment Guide and Checklist may be modified by resolution of the City Council.

3. The Applicant shall place a deposit with the Department in the amount of $5,000 to cover the cost of the review, pursuant to the City's full cost recovery program. The amount of this deposit may be adjusted by the City Council by resolution.

Upon receipt by the Applicant of the determination by the Director to certify or deny certification of the Essential Housing Project Application, any unused deposit funds will be refunded to the Applicant. If the deposit is not sufficient to pay all costs of processing the application, the Director may request an additional deposit and the City may cease processing the application until such time as the deposit is replenished.

F. Review Criteria.
11 ORDINANCE NO. 592

1. An application for an Essential Housing Project shall be reviewed by the Director, with assistance from City staff, for compliance with the Objective criteria set forth in the Credits Assessment Guide (Application Attachment 1 ).

G. Determination Regarding Essential Housing Project and Notice.

1. Not later than 30 days following submittal of a City of Santee Essential Housing Project Application, the Director shall take one of the following actions:
a. Certify the Housing Development Project as an Essential Housing Project;
b. Notify the Applicant of the specific changes or additional information required before review of the application can be completed; or
c. Deny certification of the Project as an Essential Housing Project.

2. In the event that a change or modification to the application is required pursuant to subdivision G(1 )(b) above, the Applicant shall have 30 days from the date the notification is issued by the Director to make the required changes or provide the identified additional information. The Director shall then have 30 days to either: (1) certify the Housing Development Project as an Essential Housing Project; or (2) deny certification of the Housing Development Project as an Essential Housing Project.

3. The Director's determination to certify the Essential Housing Project or deny certification as an Essential Housing Project shall be based only upon compliance or noncompliance with the Objective criteria set forth in the Credits Assessment Guide (Application Attachment 1 ).

4. The Director's determination shall be a ministerial determination transmitted from the Director to the Applicant, in writing.

5. The Director's determination is final, as described in Section 4(J) of this Ordinance.

H. CEQA

1. The Council finds that a determination under this Ordinance is not subject to the requirements of CEQA because pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080(a) and (b)(1 ), the Director's determination is a ministerial action and such action is not subject to CEQA.

2. Further, the Director's determination is exempt under CEQA Guidelines section 15061 (b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the determination may have a significant effect on the environment. A proposed Housing Development Project that is certified as an Essential Housing Project 12 ORDINANCE NO. 592
shall be required to comply with CEQA and other state laws prior to project approval or denial. Further, the Director's determination will enhance, rather than degrade, existing environmental conditions by ensuring that a certified Essential Housing Project meets stringent environmental standards.

I. Expedited Processing.

1. Within 120 days following the Director's certification of an Essential Housing Project, the Applicant shall submit any additional information required by the City to process any development application consistent with Government Code sections 65940, 65941, and 65941.5. If the Applicant fails to submit the required documentation within 120 days following the Director's certification, the certification will expire unless extended pursuant to subdivision (1)(3) below.

2. The City's policy is to expedite scheduling and processing of any certified Essential Housing Project such that any requisite development application approval or denial occurs not later than 12 months following the date of submittal of the Essential Housing Project application, barring exceptional circumstances. Exceptional circumstances are intended to occur rarely, as the City urgently needs to boost the production of housing within the City. Public hearings, notice, and approval or denial of any development application shall be in the manner set forth in the Santee Municipal Code.

3. The deadlines set forth in this section may be extended upon the mutual written consent of the Applicant and the City.

J. No Appeal.

1. The Director's determination to certify a Housing Development Project as an Essential Housing Project, or to deny certification as an Essential Housing Project, is final and may not be appealed.

2. Where the Director has denied certification as an Essential Housing Project, the Applicant may notify the City of its election to continue to process a development application consistent with other laws and regulations, separate from the provisions of this Ordinance.

K. Defense/Indemnification.

1. The Applicant for an Essential Housing Project shall indemnify, defend (with independent counsel approved by the City) and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents, employees, elected and appointed officials, volunteers, and independent contractors (collectively, the City) from and against any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, void, annul, or otherwise challenge the City's processing, certification, or approval of the Essential Housing Project, or to attack, set aside, void, annul, or otherwise challenge the validity of this Ordinance (including without limitation all claims, losses, damages, penalties, fines, and judgments, associated 13 ORDINANCE NO. 592
investigation and administrative expenses, and defense costs, including but not limited to reasonable attorneys' fees, court costs and costs of alternative dispute resolution).

2. The Applicant shall agree in writing, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, to indemnify and hold harmless the City as set forth above.

L. Definitions.

The following definitions apply for purposes of this Ordinance. If any definition in this Ordinance conflicts with definitions in any other provision of the City codes or policies, these definitions shall control for purposes of this Ordinance:

1. "Applicant" means a person who requests in writing the approval of a permit, certificate, or other entitlement for use from the City.

2. "Council" means the City Council of Santee.

3. "City" means the City of Santee.

4. "Department" means the Department of Development Services.

5. "Director" means the City's Director of Development Services and includes his or her deputies.

6. "Feasible" means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable time, considering economic, environmental, social, planning, legal, and technological factors.

7. "Housing development project"
a. "Housing development project" means a use consisting of either of the following:

1. Residential units only.
ii. Mixed-use developments consisting of residential and nonresidential uses with at least two-thirds of the
square footage designated for residential use.
b. The Housing Development Project includes, without limitation, any approval or permit necessary for implementation of said project.

8. "Objective" means involving no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and being uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the Applicant and public official. 14 ORDINANCE NO. 592

9. "Essential Housing Project" means a proposal for a Housing Development Project that is certified by the Director as having satisfied the Objective criteria set forth in the Credits Assessment Guide (Application Attachment A).

10. "Infill site" means a lot located within an urban area that has been previously developed, or on a vacant site where at least 75 percent of the perimeter of the site adjoins, or is separated only by an improved public right-of-way from, parcels that are developed with qualified urban uses.

SECTION 5. FINDINGS RELATED TO STATE HOUSING LAW.

The City Council finds that the adoption of this Ordinance is necessary to comply with state law governing the provision of housing, including but not limited to, Government Code sections 65583 and 65584 and additional affordable housing requirements, and is necessary to achieve the goals set forth in the City's Housing Element. The City Council finds that this Ordinance permits no greater density than is necessary to accommodate the required housing. The City Council finds that the criteria identified in the Essential Housing Program as establishing eligible Essential Housing Project sites have been narrowly tailored to the housing needs of the City, and alternative sites for Essential Housing Projects are not available to satisfy the requirements of state housing law.

SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE AND EXPIRATION
A. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective immediately upon adoption.

8. Expiration Date. This Ordinance shall remain in effect until August 25, 2026, and may be extended by the City Council. Applications timely submitted prior to the expiration date shall continue to be processed under the provisions of this Ordinance.

SECTION 7. PUBLICATION.

The City Clerk shall have a summary of this Ordinance published twice in a newspaper of general circulation, once five days before its adoption and again within 15 days after its adoption. A summary of this Ordinance was published on August 20, 2021, and will be published within 15 days after adoption.

SECTION 8. NOTICE OF EXEMPTION.

This Ordinance is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080(a), CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(2), and CEQA Guidelines section 15061 (b)(3). Staff is directed to file a Notice of Exemption as provided by law.

SECTION 9. SEVERABILITY.

If any provision of this Ordinance or its application to any person or circumstance is held to be invalid, such invalidity has no effect on the other provisions or applications of the 15 ORDINANCE NO. 592
Ordinance that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this extent, the provisions of this Ordinance are severable. The City Council declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance irrespective of the invalidity of any portion thereof.

SECTION 10. ORDINANCE SCOPE.

This Ordinance shall supersede all other previous Council resolutions and ordinances that may conflict with, or be contrary to, this Ordinance.

ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Santee, California, at a Regular Meeting thereof held this 25th day of August, 2021 , by the following roll call vote to wit:

A YES: HALL, KOVAL, MCNELIS, MINTO, TROTTER
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ATTEST:

APPROVED:

Exhibit A: City of Santee Essential Housing Project Application Form (with Attachments 1 and 2)
16 ORDINANCE EXHIBIT A
Essential Housing Application
S�e Essential Housing Project Appl ication
DO MORE � DUE EAST
For Projects Seeking Certification as an Essential Housing Project

DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
10601 Magnolia Avenue
Santee, CA 92071
(619) 258-4100, Ext 167

THIS PACKAGE PROVIDES AN OVERVIEW OF THE

ESSENTIAL HOUSING PROJECT APPLICATION PROCESS FOLLOWED BY THE

SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS AND APPLICATION FORM
PURPOSE:

To boost housing production and improve housing affordability within the City to meet the full spectrum of housing needs for people of all incomes, and to fulfill the goals set forth in the City's Housing Element.

APPLICABILITY:
"Essential Housing Project" means a Housing Development Project that is certified by the Director as having achieved at least 50 credits across all listed categories in the City of Santee Essential Housing Project Credits Assessment Guide attached as Attachment 1 ("Credits Assessment Guide"), with at least 10 credits from the Housing category. Capitalized terms used in this Application that are not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Essential Housing Program Ordinance.

An Essential Housing Project Application is applicable to a Housing Development Project consisting of:
• Residential units only; or
• Mixed-use development consisting of residential and nonresidential uses, including live/work spaces, with at least two-thirds of the square footage designated for residential use APPLICATION DEPOSIT:

Review and processing of an Essential Housing Project Application requires an initial deposit of $5,000 under the full-cost recovery program. Additional deposits may be required if staff charges exceed the initial deposit. Upon receipt of a determination by the Director to either certify the project as an Essential Housing Project or to deny certification, any unused deposit funds will be refunded to the Applicant.

APPLICATION PROCEDURES:

This application for an Essential Housing Project shall be submitted to the Department of Development Services. This application must contain all the information described herein to be determined complete.

This application shall be accompanied by a completed Essential Housing Project Credits Assessment Checklist ("Checklist") demonstrating how the Housing Development Project achieves 50 credits across all listed categories in the Credits Assessment Guide, with at least 10 credits from the Housing category, and shall provide the information required by Government Code section 65941.1, subdivisions (a)(1) through (a)(17). The Checklist form is attached to this Application as Attachment 2. 8/2021 1
Essential Housing Application
A. Not later than 30 days following submittal of the Essential Housing Project Application, the Director shall take one of the following actions:

1. Certify the Housing Development Project as an Essential Housing Project;

2. Notify the Applicant of the specific changes or additional information required before review of the Application can be completed; or

3. Deny certification of the Housing Development Project as an Essential Housing Project.

B. In the event that a change or modification to the Application is required pursuant to Section A(2) above, the Applicant shall have 30 days from the date that the notification is issued by the Director, to make the changes required or provide the identified additional information. When resubmitted, the Director shall than have 30 days to either: (1) certify the Housing Development Project as an Essential Housing Project; or (2) deny certification of the Housing Development Project as an Essential Housing Project.

C. The Director's determination to certify the Essential Housing Project or deny certification as an Essential Housing Project shall be based only upon compliance or noncompliance with the Objective criteria set forth in the Credits Assessment Guide (Attachment 1).

The Director's determination shall be a ministerial determination transmitted from the Director to the Applicant, in writing.

CEQA COMPLIANCE:

The ministerial determination of the Director is exempt from CEQA in accordance with Public Resources Code §15268 and CEOA Guidelines section 15061 (b)(3). An exemption will be filed with the San Diego County Clerk subject to payment of the filing fee by the Applicant. A certified Essential Housing Project shall be required to comply with CEQA and other state laws prior to project approval or denial.

SUBSEQUENT STEPS:

Within 120 days following the Director's certification of an Essential Housing Project, the Applicant shall submit any additional information required to process any development application consistent with Government Code sections 65940, 65941, and 65941 .5.
8/2021 2
Essential Housing Application
�ee
DO MORE � DUE EAST

ESSENTIAL HOUSING

APPLICATION
Department of Development Services
10601 Magnolia Avenue, Santee, CA 92071
(619) 258-4100, Extension 167

FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY
Site Location: ------------------------------
Assessor Parcel Number(s): _______________ __________ _ Exclusions. A project is not an Essential Housing Project if any of the following statements apply.

Check all that apply:

D The development footprint is within a floodway as defined in Santee Municipal Code Chapter

11.36. D The development footprint is proposed in an area which is permanently protected by one or more conservation easements.

D The General Plan land use designation or zoning classification of the project site does not currently allow for residential uses and the project site is not identified in the Residential Sites Inventory of the Housing Element.

D The project site is not on existing or planned (identified in the General Plan) prime arterial, major arterial, parkway or collector.

D The project site is within Safety Zone 1 ,2, or 5 of the Gillespie Field Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.

IF ANY OF THE ABOVE BOXES ARE CHECKED, THE PROJECT IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO BE CERTIFIED AS AN ESSENTIAL HOUSING PROJECT.

Completed Checklist: Attach a completed Checklist (Attachment 2) that demonstrates how the project meets or exceeds 50 credits (with at least 10 from the Housing category) described in the Credits Assessment Guide (Attachment 1 ), and, on a separate sheet, include an explanation on how the project achieves these credits.
8/2021 3
Essential Housing Application

1. Applicant 2. Property Owner
Name: Name:

Address: Address:

Phone: Phone:

Email: Email:

Signature: Signature:
(Authorizing Applicant to Submit Application)
Print Name: Print Name:

3. Applicant's Representative 4. Designer / Engineer
Name: Name:

Address: Address:

Phone: Phone:

Email: Email:

Signature: Signature:

Print Name: Print name:
8/2021 4

1. Plans: A conceptual site plan, floor plan, and elevations (Five 11"x17" hardcopies & digital copy).

2. Parcel Size (Acres): _____

3. Building Size (sq. ft.): ___ _

4. Number of units proposed: ___

5. Unit sizes and number of bedrooms ___ _

6. For Mixed-Use Projects* provide ratio of commercial to residential square footage: ____ _ *Mixed-use developments consisting of residential and nonresidential uses with at least two-thirds of the square footage designated for residential use pursuant to CA Government Code Section 65589.5

7. Proposed Density: _____

8. Parking spaces: ___ _

9. Indicate any approvals to be sought under the Subdivision Map Act, including, but not limited to, a parcel map, a vesting or tentative map, or a condominium map.

10. Number of lots proposed: __ _

11. Existing Land Use: ______________________ ___ _

12. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings, including plants, animals, any cultural, historic, or scenic aspects, type of land use, intensity of land use, and scale of development.
a. North: ---------------------------
b. South: --------------------------
c. East:
d. West: ---- -----------------------

13. Proposed uses - The proposed land uses by number of units and square feet of residential and nonresidential development using the categories in the applicable zoning ordinance. 8/2021 3

14. ls the project site identified in the Sites Inventory (Housing Element Appendix C)? D Yes D No

15. ls the site located on a prime arterial, major arterial, parkway, and/or multimodal corridor as provided in Figure 7-1 of the General Plan Mobility Element? D Yes D No

16. ls the overall Project site (as opposed to the development footprint) affected by any of these conditions:
a. Wetlands, as defined in the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, Part 660 FW 2 (June 21, 1993)? DYes DNo
b. Within a very high fire hazard severity zone, as determined by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Section 51178, or within a high or very high fire hazard severity zone as indicated on maps adopted by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Section 4202 of the Public Resources Code? D Yes D No
c. A hazardous waste site that is listed pursuant to Section 65962.5 or a hazardous waste site designated by the Department of Toxic Substances Control pursuant to Section 25356 of the Health and Safety Code? D Yes D No
d. Within a delineated earthquake fault zone as determined by the State Geologist in any official maps published by the State Geologist? D Yes D No
e. Within a flood hazard zone as defined in Santee Municipal Code Chapter 11.36? Yes Lands identified for conservation in a draft or adopted natural community conservation plan pursuant to the Natural Community Conservation Planning Act (Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 2800) of Division 3 of the Fish and Game Code), habitat conservation plan pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1531 et seq.), or other adopted natural resource protection plan? D Yes D No
f. Habitat for protected species identified as candidate, sensitive, or species of special status by state or federal agencies, fully protected species, or species protected by the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1531 et seq.), the California Endangered Species Act (Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 2050) of Division 3 of the Fish and Game Code), or the Native Plant Protection Act (Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 1900) of Division 2 of the Fish and Game Code)? D Yes D No
g. Lands under conservation easement? D Yes D No
h. Includes a historic structure that has been placed on a national, state, or local historic register? D Yes D No
8/2021 4

17. RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNIT COUNT:

Indicate the number of dwelling units proposed, including a breakdown of levels by affordability*, set by each income category.

Number of Units
Market Rate (greater than 120% of AMI)
Manaqer's Unit(s) - Market Rate
Verv Low Income (0% to 50% of AMI)
Lower Income (50% to 80%)
Moderate Income (80% to 120% of AMI)
Total No. of Units
Total No. of Affordable Units
Total No. of Density Bonus Units
*For San Diego County Area Median Income (AMI) and Income Limits please refer to the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) website: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/grants-funding/income-limits/

18. Affordable Housing Incentives, Waivers, Concessions, and Parking Reductions -Will the project proponent seek any incentives, waivers, concessions, or parking reductions pursuant to California Government Code Section 65915? If so, provide details on separate page.

19. Does the proposed project provide any supportive services to its residents in support of Program 8 of the Housing Element? If so, provide details on separate page.

20. Will the proposed development require the demolition of any existing housing? If so, how will it address the relocation of any displaced tenants? Please provide details on separate page. See discussion of "Anti-Displacement" in Table 42 of the City's Housing Element (pp.96-97) for suggested actions.

21. Gillespie Field Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP): Is the site within one or more Safety Zones of the ALUCP? Use the SD Airport Authority online tool. https://www.san.org/Airport-Projects/Land-Use-Compatibility D Yes D No INDEMNIFICATION - The applicant shall indemnify, defend (with independent counsel approved by the City), the City of Santee and its officers, agents, employees, elected and appointed officials, volunteers, and independent contractors (collectively, the City) from and against any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, void, annul, or otherwise challenge the City's processing, approval, or certification of the housing development project as an Essential Housing Project pursuant to this application, or to attack, set aside, void, annul, or otherwise challenge the validity of the City's Essential Housing Program Ordinance (including without limitation all claims, losses, damages, penalties, fines, and judgments, associated investigation and administrative expenses, and defense costs, including but not limited to reasonable attorneys' fees, court costs and costs of alternative dispute resolution).

PROPERTY OWNER AFFIDAVIT
Before the Application can be accepted, the owner of each property involved must provide a signature to verify the Essential Housing Project Application is being filed with their knowledge. Staff will confirm ownership based on the records of the City Engineer or County Assessor. In the case of partnerships, corporations, LLCs or trusts, the agent for service of process or an officer of the ownership entity so authorized may sign as stipulated below. • Ownership Disclosure. If the property is owned by a partnership, corporation, LLC or trust, a disclosure identifying the agent for service or process or an officer of the ownership entity must be submitted. The disclosure must list the names and addresses 8/2021 5
of the principal owners (25% interest or greater). The signatory must appear in this list of names. A letter of authorization, as described below, may be submitted provided the signatory of the letter is included in the Ownership Disclosure. Include a copy of the current partnership agreement, corporate articles, or trust document as applicable. • Letter of Authorization (LOA). A LOA from a property owner granting someone else permission to sign the Essential Housing Project Application form may be provided if the property is owned by a partnership, corporation, LLC or trust, or in rare circumstances when an individual property owner is unable to sign the Essential Housing Project Application form. To be considered for acceptance, the LOA must indicate the name of the person being authorized to file, their relationship to the owner or project, the site address, a general description of the type of application being filed and must also include the language in items 1-3 below. In the case of partnerships, corporations, LLCs or trusts, the LOA must be signed by the authorized signatory as shown on the Ownership Disclosure or in the case of private ownership by the property owner. Proof of Ownership for the signatory of the LOA must be submitted with said letter. • Grant Deed. Provide Copy of the Grant Deed if the ownership of the property does not match local records. The Deed must correspond exactly with the ownership listed on the application.
• Multiple Owners. If the property is owned by more than one individual (e.g., John and Jane Doe, or Mary Smith and Mark Jones) signatures are required of all owners.

APPLICANT ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

1. I hereby certify that I am the owner of record of the herein previously described property located in the City of Santee which is involved in this Essential Housing Project Application, or have been empowered to sign as the owner on behalf of a partnership, corporation, LLC, or trust as evidenced by the documents attached hereto.

2. I hereby consent to the filing of this Essential Housing Project Application for processing by the City of Santee Planning Department for the purpose of obtaining Essential Housing Project certification pursuant to the City of Santee Essential Housing Program.

3. Further, I understand that after submitting this Essential Housing Project Application to the City, the Director will issue a determination on the Essential Housing Project Application, or notify me that the Essential Housing Project Application is incomplete, within 30 days. If the Housing Development Project is certified as an Essential Housing Project, I understand that I have 120 days after receipt of that determination to submit any additional information to process any development application to obtain the requisite entitlements for development.

4. I further understand that if any of the credits identified in the attached Checklist as being achieved by this Housing Development Project relate to a project design feature, the project design feature shall be provided with the project design or as a project condition of approval during the subsequent entitlement phase of the project.

5. By my signature below, I certify that the foregoing statements are true and correct.

Applicant Signature
Printed Name
Date
8/2021 6
Attachment 1
S�ee Essential Housing Project Application
DO MORE • DUE EAST
Credits Assessment Guide
INSTRUCTIONS FOR CREDIT ASSESSMENT USE:

An Essential Housing Project, as defined in the Essential Housing Program Ordinance, must achieve at least 50 credits, as described below, and at least 10 of the credits must come from the Housing Category. The Applicant must submit with the Essential Housing Project Application a completed Essential Housing Project Credits Assessment Checklist ("Checklist") (Attachment 2 to the Application) demonstrating how the project achieves at least 50 credits (with at least 10 Housing credits).

Use of this credit system will ensure Essential Housing Projects are sustainable and consistent with the General Plan, while allowing appropriate planning, design, and mitigation flexibility, in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Subdivision Map Act, and other City policies, laws, and regulations.

Except as provided in the Essential Housing Program Ordinance, an Essential Housing Project must otherwise comply with all applicable City requirements, including obligations related to processing or review of any required development application. However, the City's development standards, conditions, and policies shall be applied to facilitate and endeavor to accommodate development at the density proposed by the Essential Housing Project.

I. EXCLUSIONS
A project is not an Essential Housing Project if any of the following statements apply. If the Applicant has indicated in the Application that any of the following apply, the project is not eligible to be an Essential Housing Project.

D The development footprint is within a floodway as defined in Santee Municipal Code Chapter 11 .36.

D The development footprint is proposed in an area which is permanently protected by one or more conservation easements.

D The project site is not on an existing or planned (identified in the General Plan) prime arterial, major arterial, parkway or collector.

D The project site is within Safety Zone 1,2, or 5 of the Gillespie Field Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
1 11. CREDIT ASSESSMENT
A project must obtain at least 50 credits from the criteria below, including at least 10 credits from the Housing category, to be deemed an Essential Housing Project. If any of the credits below relate to a project design feature, the project design feature shall be provided with the project design or as a project condition of approval during the subsequent entitlement phase of the project. 111. CREDITS: LAND USE
Credit: Mixed-uses - 5 credits
Project will include a mix of uses consisting of residential and nonresidential uses with at least 67%, but not more than 80%, of the square footage designated for residential use.

Credit: Location in Town Center - 2 Credits
Project site or portion thereof is located within an area of the City designated "TC-Town Center'' pursuant to the City of Santee General Plan Land Use Element.

Credit: Maximize Potential Density - 4 Credits
Proposed project is within the mid to upper end of, or exceeds, the density range as set forth in the Land Use Element, Housing Element or Town Center Specific Plan.

IV. CREDITS: HOUSING (AT LEAST 10 CREDITS REQUIRED)
Credit: Affordable Housing - 20 Credits
Project provides a minimum of 10% of units affordable to low income households (80% or less of the Area Median Income);
-ORProvides a contribution of $10,000 per market-rate unit included in the project, up to 200 units, to the City's Affordable Housing Trust Fund to facilitate affordable housing in support of Program 7 of the Housing Element.

Credit: Affordable Housing - 10 Credits
Project provides a minimum of 10% of units affordable to moderate income households (80-120% of the Area Median Income);
-ORProvides a contribution of $5,000 per market-rate unit included in the project, up to 200 units, to the City's Affordable Housing Trust Fund to facilitate affordable housing in support of Program 7 of the Housing Element.
2 Credit: Mix of Unit Sizes - 5 Credits
The project provides a mix of units where the number of units with three or more bedrooms divided by the number of units with two or less bedrooms exceeds a ratio of 1.

Credit: Redevelopment - 5 Credits
The project redevelops a currently underutilized site currently developed with a residential density below the minimum required residential density of the site.

Credit: Residential Units Provided - Maximum 10 Credits For every 50 units a project provides, 2 credits are allocated up to a maximum of 10 credits.

V. CREDITS: MOBILITY
Credit: Location within 1/,i mile of a bus stop - 2 credits Project site or portion thereof is located within � mile of a bus stop.

Credit: Location within % mile of a trolley station - 5 credits Project site or portion thereof is located within % mile of the boundaries of a trolley station.

Credit: Location along a multimodal corridor - 5 credits Project site is located along a multimodal corridor as identified in the Mobility Element.

Credit: Traffic Calming - 2 credits
Project will provide traffic calming devices in the design of interior roadways including but not limited to traffic circles, chicanes, or speed humps.

Credit: SR-52 Contribution - 10 Max Credits
Project applicant must agree to contribute to the City $1,500 per market-rate unit included in the project, up to 200 units, which funds shall be dedicated exclusively to relieve congestion on State Route 52.

The number of credits achieved will depend on the size of the project, as follows:
1-10 units in the project
11-20 units in the project
21-200 units in the project
2 credits
5 credits
10 credits
Credit: Passenger Loading Area or Rideshare/Carshare Parking - 2 Credits Project design includes passenger loading/unloading areas and/or dedicated preferred parking spaces for rideshare/carshare use.
3 Credit: Bicycle Repair Station and Storage - 2 Credits Project must include a bicycle repair station and meet the below requirements for enclosed bicycle storage. Bicycle storage enclosures must be securable, surveillable, and accessible from the ground floor and may consist of lockers, a kiosk, or a designated room within a building. Bicycle storage enclosures must be located in an area easily accessible to building users. Bicycle storage enclosures should be located within walking distance of any functional entries, but may be clustered for use by several buildings, where appropriate.

Non-Residential Buildings (as part of mixed-use housing project) Provide at least two enclosed bicycle storage spaces for every 5,000 gross square feet, but no fewer than two enclosed storage spaces per building.

Multi-Unit Residential Buildings (as part of mixed-use housing project or as a standalone project) Provide a number of enclosed bicycle storage spaces totaling at least 10% of all residential units, but no fewer than five enclosed storage spaces per building (i.e., a building of 100 units would require 1 O enclosed bicycle storage spaces).

VI. CREDITS: OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION
Credit: Contribution to City-owned Natural Open Space - 10 Max Credits Project applicant must agree to contribute to the City $1,500 per market-rate unit included in the project, up to 200 units, for the management of City-owned properties within the draft Multiple Species Conservation Plan preserve boundaries. The number of credits achieved will depend on the size of the project, as follows:
1-10 units in the project
11-20 units in the project
21-200 units in the project
Credit: Trees - 2 Credits
2 credits
5 credits
10 credits
Project must plant at least 10 trees per acre of land to be developed. Trees must be planted in streetscapes and parks.

VII. CREDITS: WATER QUALITY AND EFFICIENT USE
Credit: Installation of Graywater System - 2 Credits
Design and install a rainwater harvesting and storage system (including surface runoff and/or roof runoff) or graywater reuse system for landscape irrigation use or indoor water use for some portion of single-family residential, small lot, or multi-family townhome or similar product. For graywater reuse system, graywater must be collected from at least one of the following: clothes washer; showers; or some combination of faucets and other sources estimated to exceed 5,000 gallons per year. 4 Credit: Connect to Recycled or Purified/ Advanced Treated Water - 2 Credits Project must connect to either recycled water or purified or advanced treated water provided by Padre Dam Municipal Water District (PDMWD) through its East County Advanced Water Purification Program.

VIII. CREDITS: ENERGY, AIR QUALITY, AND GHGs
Credit: Exceeds Title 24 requirements - 2 Credits
Project equipment and fixtures must achieve efficiencies that exceed current Title 24 energy conservation standards (at the time of application submittal) by 5% or greater.

Credit: All Energy Star Rated Appliances or Equivalent - 4 Credits All appliances (washer/dryers, refrigerators, and dishwashers) that will be installed by builders in residences and commercial businesses must be Energy Star rated or equivalent.

Credit: EV Chargers in Public Use areas - 5 Credits
EV charging stations will be installed in 20% of parking spaces within all public use (e.g. public park) parking areas. All charging stations shall consist of Level 2 units or better.

Credit: EV Chargers in Public Use areas - 2 Credits
Provide a Level 3 charging station in a public parking areas.

Credit: Solar Panels on Carports - 5 Credits
Solar photovoltaic (PV) must be installed covering no less than 25% of the total roof area of any carports.

Credit: Solar Panels on Accessory Buildings - 5 Credits Solar PV must be installed covering no less than 15% of the total roof area (excluding skylight area) of any accessory building (excluding carports) that is part of the housing/mixed-use housing project.

Credit: Solar Water Heating - 2 Credits
Within a minimum 25% of residential dwelling units, Project must install a solar water heater that meets at least 40% of annual domestic hot water load.

Credit: Full Electrification of Residential Units - 5 Credits Project residential units will be fully electric. No natural gas shall be provided to the residential units but may be provided to outdoor common areas.
5 Credit: Battery Systems - 10 Credits
Project provides battery backup system within each proposed residential unit.

IX. SAFETY
Credit: 100-Foot Irrigated Fuel Modification Zone - 5 Credits Project design includes fully irrigated fuel modification zone of 100 feet or more within project boundaries between the project and its exterior perimeter within which ongoing maintenance activities would occur. Fuel modification zone must be established for ongoing maintenance by HOA, homeowner, or other entity.

Credit: Implementation of Fire Protection Plan - 5 Credits Project applicant must agree to require third party defensible space inspectors to provide compliance reports biannually to the Santee Fire Department.

X. TRAILS AND SIDEWALKS
Credit: Enhanced Landscaped Parkways - 4 Credits
Project provides enhanced landscaped parkways that are privately maintained along roadways that are otherwise not required by City roadway setback and improvement standards.

Credit: Safe Routes to Schools, Parks, and Transit Stops - 2 Credits Project improves safe walking routes to schools, parks, and transit stops by providing sidewalk infrastructure improvements outside of project boundaries.

Credit: Multiple Use Trails - 5 Credits
Project provides multiple use trails for use by pedestrians and bicyclists.

Credit: Trail Facilities Contribution - 10 Max Credits
Project applicant must agree to contribute to the City $1,500 per market-rate unit included in the project, up to 200 units, to enhance Citywide trail facilities such as lighting, benches, drinking fountains, bike stations, or other such amenities along project trails. The number of credits achieved will depend on the size of the project, as follows:
1-10 units in the project
11-20 units in the project
21-200 units in the project
2 credits
5 credits
10 credits
6 XI. CREDITS: PARKS AND RECREATION
Credit: Exceed Parkland Dedication Requirement -2 Credits Project applicant must commit to exceed the parkland dedication requirement set forth in the Santee Municipal Code, Chapter 12.40, by at least 5% through the excess dedication of land for park uses or payment of additional funds, which funds shall be dedicated exclusively for parkland dedication uses within the City, or a combination of both.

Credit: Multi-Purpose Playing Fields or Recreation Facilities - 5 Credits Project applicant must commit to develop multi-purpose playing fields or public recreational facilities on some portion of dedicated parkland for communitywide use. Such facilities may include, and not limited to, sports fields, large playgrounds, aquatics uses, and ball courts. 7 Attachment 2
Essential Housing Project Application Checkl ist
Pro·ect Name:

Date:

Credits
Credits
Credits
Credits
Land Use - 11 Max Credits
Mixed-uses - 5 Credits
Location in Town Center - 2 Credits
Maximize Potential Densit - 4 Credits
Subtotal
Housin - 50 Max Credits 10 Re uired
Affordable Housing (10% Low Income) - 20 Credits
-or- Contribution per market-rate unit
Affordable Housing (10% Moderate Income) - 10 Credits
-or- Contribution per market-rate unit
Mix of Unit Sizes - 5 Credits
Redevelo ment of an Underutil ized Site - 5 Credits
Number of Units Provided - 10 Max Credits
Subtotal
Mobilit - 28 Max Credits
Location within % mile of the trolle station - 5 Credits Location along a multimodal corridor - 5 Credits
Traffic calmin - 2 Credits
SR-52 Contribution - 10 Max Credits
Bike Re air Station and Bike Stora e - 2 Credits
Credits
Credits
Credits
Credits
Sustainabilit - 44 Max Credits
Installation of Gra water S stem - 2 Credits
Connection to Rec cled or Purified Treated Water - 2 Credits Full Electrification of Residential Units - 5 Credits
Safet - 10 Max Credits
Trails and Sidewalks - 21 Max Credits
Enhanced Landsca ed Parkwa s - 4 Credits
Safe Routes to Schools, Parks, and Transit - 2 Credits
Multi le Use Trails - 5 Credits
Trail Facilities Contribution - 10 Max Credits
Subtotal
TOT AL Credits Across All Categories
A. Does the Project meet or exceed 10 Credits for housing and 50 Credits across all categories? D Yes D No B. Director's Determination - If Question in Section A, above, is checked "No", the Project is NOT an Essential Housing Project. If Question in Section A, above, is checked "Yes" the Project is determined an Essential Housing Project and can be certified as an Essential Housing Project by the Director of Development Services in Section C, below.

C. DIRECTOR'S CERTIFICATION: I, the undersigned, in my capacity as Director of Development Services for the City of Santee certify the subject Project as an Essential Housing Project:

Director of Develo ment Services Date
1 John Buse (SBN 163156)
Aruna Prabhala (SBN 278865)
2 Peter Broderick (SBN 293060)
Ross Middlemiss (SBN 323737)
3 CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
1212 Broadway, Suite 800
4 Oakland, California 94612
Telephone: (510) 844-7100
5 Facsimile: (510) 844-7150
j buse@biologicald iversity .org
6 [email protected]
[email protected]
7 [email protected]
8 Attorneys for Center for Biological Diversity,
9 Preserve Wild Santee, Endangered Habitats
League, and California Chaparral Institute
10 11

ELECTROHICALL V FILED
Superior Court of California,
County of San Diego
03128/2022 at 03 ::53 :OD PM
Clerk of the Superior Court
By �ma Rhodes, Deputy Clerk
12 13

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
14 PRESERVE WJLb SANTEE, CENTER FOR Case No. 37-2020-00038168-CU-WM-CTL

BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY,
15 ENDANGERED HABITATS LEAGUE, and [AMENDED PROPOSED] PEREMPTORY

CALIFORNIA CHAPARRAL INSTITUTE WRIT OF MANDATE
16 17
18 V.

Petitioners,

CJTY OF SANTEE, CITY OF SANTEE
19 CITY COUNCIL; and DOES 1 through 20,
inclusive,
20 21
Respondents,
l-:IOMEFED FANITA RANCHO, LLC; and
22 DOES 2 I through 40, inclusive,
23 24
25 26
27 28
Real Parties in Interest.

Action Filed: October 21, 2020
Hearing Date: February 4, 2022, 1 :30 pm
Department: Dept C-69
Judge: Hon. Katherine Bacal

STAFF REPORT - EXHIBIT C
TO RESPONDENTS CJTY OF SANTEE, CITY OF SANTEE CJTY COUNCIL:
2 Petitioners Preserve Wild Santee, Center for Biological Diversity, Endangered Habitats League, 3 and California Chaparral Institute ("Petitioners") by the above-captioned action challenged the 4 September 24, 2020 decision of the City of Santee and the City of Santee City Council ("Respondents") 5 to approve the Fanita Ranch Project ("Project"), adopt findings, and certify an Environmental Impact 6 Report ("EIR") for the Project. The matter came on for hearing on February 4, 2022, in Department C7 69 of the above-captioned court, the Honorable Katherine Baca I, presiding. Judgment having been 8 entered in this proceeding commanding that a peremptory writ of mandate issue under seal of this Court 9 and based on that .Judgment:
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 IT IS NOW ORDERED that, promptly after service of this Peremptory Writ of Mandate upon Respondents,

1. Respondents shal I:
a. Set aside and vacate in its entirety Resolution No. 093-2020 of the City Council for the City of Santee Certifying the Revised Environmental Impact Report (SCH # 20050611 I 8) for the Fanita Ranch Project; Adopting Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations Under the California Environmental Quality Act; Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and Approving the Project;
b. Set aside and vacate in its entirety Resolution No. 094-2020 of the City Counci I of the City of Santee, California Adopting A General Plan Amendment, Case File GPA2017-2, Relating to the Fanita Ranch Specific Plan;
c. Set aside and vacate in its entirety Resolution No. 095-2020 of the City Council of the City of Santee, California Approving the Application of Home Fed Fanita Rancho LLC for Fanita Ranch Vesting Tentative Map TM2017-3 for the Subdivision of Approximately 2,638 Acres into 1,467 Lots to Develop the Fanita Ranch Master Planned Community Located North of the Terminus of Fanita Parkway in the Fanita Ranch Specific Plan Development Area; [AMENDED PROPOSED] PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE
I
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26 2.
d. Set aside and vacate in its entirety Resolution No. 096-2020 of the City Council of the City of Santee, California Approving the Application of HomeFed Fanita Rancho LLC for Fanita Ranch Development Review Permit DR2017-4 for the Subdivision of Approximately 2,638 Acres into 1,467 Lots to Develop the Fanita Ranch Master Planned Community Located North of the Terminus of Fanita Parkway in the Fanita Ranch Specific Plan Development Area;; e. Set aside and vacate in its entirety Resolution No. 097-2020 of the City Council of the City of Santee, California Approving the Application ofHomeFed Fanita Rancho LLC for a Conditional Use Permit (P2017-5) for a New 31.2-Acre Public Community Park Located in the Fanita Commons Village Shown on Lot CP-1 of Fanita Ranch Vesting Tentative Map TM20l 7-3;
f. Set aside and vacate in its entirety Resolution No. 098-2020 of the City Council of the City of Santee, California Approving the Application of HomeFed Fanita Rancho LLC for a Conational Use Permit (P2020-2) for a New 4.2-Acre Public Neighborhood Park Located in the Fanita Commons Village Shown on Lot NP-8 of Fanita Ranch Vesting Tentative Map TM2017-3;
g. Set aside and vacate in its entirety Ordinance No. 580 -An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Santee, California Adding Chapter 13.20 "Specific Plan District" to Title J 3 and Amending Chapter 13.04 "Administration" of the Santee Municipal Code, and Approving the Fanita Ranch Specific Plan (Case files R2017-J and SP20 I 7-1 ); and
h. Set aside and vacate in its entirety Ordinance No. 581 - An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Santee. California, Approving and Authorizing Execution of a Development Agreement by and Among the City of Santee and HomeFed Fanita Rancho, LLC.

Respondents are further ordered to file and serve a return to the writ no later than 60 days 27 after service of this writ. The return shall specify the actions taken to comply with the terms of this 28 Peremptory Writ of Mandate.
[AMENDED PROPOSED] PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE
2 3. Respondents are futther ordered to suspend all project activity that could result in any 2 change or alteration to the physical environment unless and until Respondents have corrected the 3 deficiencies identified the Court's judgment and attached March 3, 2022, Minute Order; reconsidered an 4 EIR certification determination and findings relative to the project; and brought their detennination and 5 findings into compliance with the requirements of CEQA. 6 4. The Court shall retain jurisdiction over these proceedings by way of a return to this 7 Peremptory Writ of Mandate pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21168.9(b) until such time as 8 this Court determines that the City has complied with the tenns of this writ. 9 5. This order is made pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21 l68.9(b), which 10 provides that any order finding that a decision of a public agency has been made without compliance 1 I with CEQA shall include only those mandates which are necessary to achieve compliance with CEQA, 12 and only those specific project activities in noncompliance with CEQA. 13 6. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21168.9(c), this order does not direct 14 Respondents to exercise their discretion in any particular way. 15 16
THE FOREGOING PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE ISSUES IMMEDIATELY. 17 DATED: APR 2 6 2022 � C.BEUTI.ER
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 Clerk of the Superior Court
[AMENDED PROP09£B] PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE
3 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

PRESERVE WILD SANTEE, CENTER FOR

BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY,
ENDANGERED HABITATS LEAGUE, and

CALIFORNIA CHAPARRAL INSTITUTE
Petitioners,
v.

CITY OF SANTEE, CITY OF SANTEE
CITY COUNCIL; and DOES 1 through 20,
inclusive,
Respondents,
HOMEFED FANITA RANCHO, LLC; and
DOES 21 through 40, inclusive,
Real Parties in Interest.

Case No. 37-2020-00038168-CU-WM-CTL
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT
Action Filed: October 21, 2020
Hearing Date: February 4, 2022, 1:30 pm
Department: Dept C-69
Judge: Hon. Katherine Bacal
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT
1 Petitioners Preserve Wild Santee, Center for Biological Diversity, Endangered Habitats League, and California Chaparral Institute (“Petitioners”) by the above-captioned action challenged the September 24, 2020 decision of the City of Santee and the City of Santee City Council (“Respondents”) to approve the Fanita Ranch Project (“Project”), adopt findings, and certify an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for the Project. The matter came on for hearing on February 4, 2022, in Department C69 of the above-captioned court, the Honorable Katherine Bacal, presiding. Appearances were as noted in the record. The Court having reviewed the record of proceedings in this matter and having heard oral argument and fully considered the arguments of all parties, both written and oral, and after taking the matter under submission, issued a ruling by Minute Order on March 3, 2022 (“Order”), a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, and incorporated herein by reference.

IT IS NOW ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that:

1. Judgment is hereby entered in favor of Petitioners, Preserve Wild Santee, Center For Biological Diversity, Endangered Habitats League, and California Chaparral Institute, and against Respondents City Of Santee and City Of Santee City Council and Real Party in Interest HomeFed Fanita Rancho, LLC.

2. The San Diego Superior Court issues the Peremptory Writ of Mandate attached hereto as Exhibit B, which, inter alia, orders Respondents to:
a. Set aside and vacate in its entirety Resolution No. 093-2020 of the City Council for the City of Santee Certifying the Revised Environmental Impact Report (SCH # 2005061118) for the Fanita Ranch Project; Adopting Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations Under the California Environmental Quality Act; Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and Approving the Project;
b. Set aside and vacate in its entirety Resolution No. 094-2020 of the City Council of the City of Santee, California Adopting A General Plan Amendment, Case File GPA2017-2, Relating to the Fanita Ranch Specific Plan;
c. Set aside and vacate in its entirety Resolution No. 095-2020 of the City Council of the City of Santee, California Approving the Application of HomeFed Fanita 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT
2 Rancho LLC for Fanita Ranch Vesting Tentative Map TM2017-3 for the Subdivision of Approximately 2,638 Acres into 1,467 Lots to Develop the Fanita Ranch Master Planned Community Located North of the Terminus of Fanita Parkway in the Fanita Ranch Specific Plan Development Area; d. Set aside and vacate in its entirety Resolution No. 096-2020 of the City Council of the City of Santee, California Approving the Application of HomeFed Fanita Rancho LLC for Fanita Ranch Development Review Permit DR2017-4 for the Subdivision of Approximately 2,638 Acres into 1,467 Lots to Develop the Fanita Ranch Master Planned Community Located North of the Terminus of Fanita Parkway in the Fanita Ranch Specific Plan Development Area;; e. Set aside and vacate in its entirety Resolution No. 097-2020 of the City Council of the City of Santee, California Approving the Application of HomeFed Fanita Rancho LLC for a Conditional Use Permit (P2017-5) for a New 31.2-Acre Public Community Park Located in the Fanita Commons Village Shown on Lot CP-1 of Fanita Ranch Vesting Tentative Map TM2017-3;
f. Set aside and vacate in its entirety Resolution No. 098-2020 of the City Council of the City of Santee, California Approving the Application of HomeFed Fanita Rancho LLC for a Conational Use Permit (P2020-2) for a New 4.2-Acre Public Neighborhood Park Located in the Fanita Commons Village Shown on Lot NP-8 of Fanita Ranch Vesting Tentative Map TM2017-3;
g. Set aside and vacate in its entirety Ordinance No. 580 – An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Santee, California Adding Chapter 13.20 “Specific Plan District” to Title 13 and Amending Chapter 13.04 “Administration” of the Santee Municipal Code, and Approving the Fanita Ranch Specific Plan (Case Files R2017-1 and SP2017-1); and
h. Set aside and vacate in its entirety Ordinance No. 581 - An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Santee, California, Approving and Authorizing Execution 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT
3 of a Development Agreement by and Among the City of Santee and HomeFed Fanita Rancho, LLC.

3. Petitioners are entitled to recover costs in an amount to be determined. This Court reserves jurisdiction to hear post-trial issues matters, including the award costs and attorney’s fees.

4. The Court shall retain jurisdiction over these proceedings by way of a return to the Peremptory Writ of Mandate until such time as this Court determines that the City has complied with the terms of the writ.

DATED: ________________ _________________________________ Hon. Katherine Bacal
Judge of the Superior Court

EXHIBIT A
DA TE: 03/03/2022

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

CENTRAL

MINUTE ORDER
TIME: 01 :57:00 PM DEPT: C-69
JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: Katherine Bacal
CLERK: Cecilia Boyle
REPORTER/ERM:

BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT:

CASE NO: 37-2020-00038168-CU-WM-CTLCASE !NIT.DATE: 10/21/2020 CASE TITLE: Preserve Wild Santee vs City of Santee [E-FILE] CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited CASE TYPE: Writ of Mandate

APPEARANCES
The Court, having taken the above-entitled matter under submission on 02/04/2022 and having fully considered the arguments of all parties, both written and oral, as well as the evidence presented, now rules as follows:

Petitioners' petition for writ of mandate is GRANTED.

Preliminary Matters
The request for judicial notice by Preserve Wild Santee, Center for Biological Diversity, California Chaparral Institute, and Endangered Habitats League's ("petitioners") of exhibit 1, the maps of Mast Boulevard in Santee, and of exhibit B are granted. The relevancy objection by City of Santee and City of Santee City Council's ("respondents") to petitioners' request for judicial notice of exhibit A, the judgment in Elfin Forest Harmony Grove Town Council v. County of San Diego, 37-2018-42927-CU-TT-CTL ("Harmony Grove'), is sustained as irrelevant extra-record evidence.

Respondents' request for judicial notice of exhibits A through E is granted. Respondents' request for judicial notice of exhibit 1, the appellate court's decision in Harmony Grove, is denied as irrelevant.

Background
Petitioners' petition for writ of mandate and complaint alleges three causes of action: (1) violation of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") - inadequate environmental impact report ("EIR"); (2) violation of CEQA - failure to recirculate the EIR; and (3) violation of CEQA - inadequate findings and statement of overriding considerations. ROA # 1. Respondents and Real Party in Interest Homefed Fanita Rancho, LLC answered and request the petition and complaint be dismissed and denied. ROA ##10-11.

Discussion
In reviewing an agency's compliance with CEQA, the Court's inquiry extends "only to whether there was DATE: 03/03/2022
DEPT: C-69
MINUTE ORDER Page 1
Calendar No.

CASE TITLE: Preserve Wild Santee vs City of Santee CASE NO: 37-2020-00038168-CU-WM-CTL , [E-FILE]
a prejudicial abuse of discretion." Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 512. An agency may abuse its discretion under the CEQA by either: "failing to proceed in the manner CEQA provides" or "by reaching factual conclusions unsupported by substantial evidence." Id. Whether the agency employed correct procedures is reviewed de novo, whereas the agency's substantive factual conclusions are accorded "greater deference." Id.
- Adequacy of EIR (1st COA)
Petitioners challenge the adequacy of the EIR's wildfire safety and evacuation impacts, arguing that the EIR (1) failed to analyze or disclose project-specific evacuation impacts (e.g., the number of vehicles that would need to be evacuated from the project site, the number of hours it might take to empty the project site, and the extent to which the additional traffic from the site might affect existing residents' evacuation times) (Opening Brief ("OB") at 9-11 ); (2) failed to analyze a key threshold of significance, in the Appendix G CEQA Guidelines, and thus did not consider mitigation or a determination on the significance for that threshold (OB at 13-15); (3) provided inadequate responses to public comments (OB at 15-16); and (4) failed to disclose significant impacts to the wildfire-related evacuation and safety that resulted from the last-minute change of removing from the project the plan to extend Magnolia Avenue roadway for evacuation (OB at 17-19).

Analysis and Disclosure of Evacuation Impact
A claim that challenges the adequacy of discussion regarding environmental impacts is generally subject to independent review; but where factual questions predominate, a more deferential review under the substantial evidence standard may apply. Sierra Club v. Cty. of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 519-521 ("adequacy of discussion claims are not typically amenable to substantial evidence review").

Here, respondents' Wildland Fire Evacuation Plan environmental impact analysis is nearly forty pages long. AR 12903-40. The Wildland Fire Evacuation Plan ("Plan") identifies three primary roadways for its evacuation routes. AR 12909, 12924. The record shows one of the identified routes -- of using Mast Boulevard to evacuate to Highway 67 -- is not possible because Mast Boulevard does not connect to Highway 67 and instead dead-ends in a park, rendering the Plan's evacuation routes unclear. Pet. RJN, Ex. 1; AR 2177. At the hearing, counsel for respondents/real party in interest argued that while Mast Boulevard does not directly connect to Highway 67, it can be seen as an indirect connection because although drivers would need to take other streets, sheriff deputies would be there to direct traffic accordingly. On the other hand, the record is clear that there are currently "no plans to connect Mast Boulevard" between the City, where it terminates, with the side where it "picks up" in the County. AR 2176.

The CEQA Guidelines provide that impacts in wildfire risk areas and a project's potential to cause substantial adverse effects on humans must be evaluated. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14 ("Guidelines") §§ 15126.2(a); 15065. Although the Final REIR and Plan contain thematic responses regarding evacuation (AR 13190-13194), the methodology the City chose to assess the evacuation impacts does not contain a sufficient analysis of the Project-related impacts. For example, any assessment of evacuation timing under traffic scenarios is missing.

Respondents argue a myriad of potential modeling scenarios exist; modeling them all would provide little to no value due to variable factors that would make such modeling results unreliable. Response Brief ("R.B.") at 13, citing final REIR (16:13457-13458, 13194-13195). The Court is directed to reject challenges to the methodology used "unless the agency's reason for proceeding as it did are clearly DATE: 03/03/2022
DEPT: C-69
MINUTE ORDER Page 2
Calendar No.

CASE TITLE: Preserve Wild Santee vs City of Santee
[E-FILE]
CASE NO: 37-2020-00038168-CU-WM-CTL
inadequate or unsupported." Chico Advocates for a Responsible Economy v. City of Chico (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 839, 847, citation omitted; South of Market Community Action Network v. City and County of San Francisco (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 321, 337 (agency has discretion to select methodology in evaluating environmental impact, subject to review for substantial evidence).

Here, even according deference to the factual determinations on whether certain analyses and modeling was required, the EIR does not contain "sufficient detail to enable those who did not participate in its preparation to understand and to consider meaningfully" the evacuation impact. Sierra Club v. Cty. of Fresno, supra, 6 Cal.5th at 516. Because there was no analysis of estimated evacuation times, it is not at all clear, for example, whether a "staggered" evacuation would be adequate to safely evacuate project residents and the surrounding community even when compared to the scenario of a simultaneous mass evacuation. Cf. e.g., AR 15(99):12669-12670 (addresses evacuation, but not adequacy as to timing under traffic conditions.) Similarly, it is unclear as to how the ability of project residents and others in the surrounding community to evacuate in the event of a wildfire would be affected. Indeed, it is the lack of adequate information and support as to the agency's methodology that is problematic.

As respondents/real-party-in-interest's counsel noted at the hearing, the record shows the EIR considered and explained why it did not model evacuation scenarios and estimate evacuation times. AR 13194-13195. But the EIR's thematic response methodology does not adequately fill the gaps. Again, it is not clear based on the information presented whether residents and those in the surrounding community would be able to timely evacuate. Counsel noted that an option under plan would be for residents to remain on site while the fires burned around them. What the methodology was employed for residents' safety under this option is not clear. See also AR 13192, 13194 ( option of contingency on-site temporary refuge). In sum, the lack of relevant information in the EIR concerning project-specific evacuation impacts constitutes a prejudicial abuse of discretion.

Key Threshold of Significance
1 'The lead agency has substantial discretion in determining the appropriate threshold of significance to evaluate the severity of a particular impact." King & Gardiner Farms, LLC v. County of Kern (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 814, 884 (also citing Save Cuyama Valley v. County of Santa Barbara (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1059, 1068 for the proposition that under CEQA agencies have discretion to "develop their own thresholds of significance".) Both parties recognize that a lead agency has discretion to choose significant thresholds. OB at 20; Resp.Br. at 18.

Here, the lead agency used four of the five Appendix G wildfire-related questions. AR 2327. The EIR did not include an evaluation of the fifth question: whether the project would "[e]xpose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires." Appendix G, sec. IX(g).

The City asserts the project's risks involving wildland fires is addressed elsewhere in Sections 4.18,

4.18.2.1, and 2.18.2.2, based on the newer Section XX questions. Resp. Br. at 18-19, and citing AR 16:13452-13453 [explaining it provided wildfire risk assessment in Section 4.18]; AR 14:2331; AR 13:1031, AR 15(gg):12671, 16:13463. Yet, again, these sections do not evaluate the exposure to risk of injury or death involving wildfires as to evacuation timing with traffic condition scenarios. This is an identifiable quantitative and/or performance level of a particular environmental effect (Guidelines § 15064.?(a)), capable of assessment. See e.g. AR 95808 (vehicle numbers estimation and time estimations performed and disclosed as part of environmental review development projects), AR 116191.

DATE: 03/03/2022
DEPT: C-69
MINUTE ORDER Page 3
Calendar No.

CASE TITLE: Preserve Wild Santee vs City of Santee
, [E-FILE]
CASE NO: 37-2020-00038168-CU-WM-CTL
The lack of measureable assessment as to this threshold of significance means the public was not informed as to the extent to which the project would expose them to significant risk of loss, injury or death regarding evacuation timing. Nor does the plan inform as to the risk of injury or death if residents are instructed to remain on site while the fires burn around them. AR 13192, 13194. The lack of this information shows the EIR does not provide sufficient information to foster informed public participation and to enable reasonable decision-making.

Response to Public Comments
Petitioners challenge whether the EIR's responses constituted a good faith reasoned analysis of the public's comments regarding project occupants' ability to evacuate in the event of a wildfire and traffic flow impact. "[T]he major environmental issues raised when the lead agency's position is at variance with recommendations and objections raised in the comments must be addressed in detail giving reasons why specific comments and suggestions were not accepted. There must be good faith, reasoned analysis in response. Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information will not suffice." Guidelines§ 15088.

Here, even if emergency responders do not rely on such modeling, the City's response presumes, without support, that evacuation times will be adequate; the City did not undertake measurable assessments to ascertain a range of evacuation time estimates. AR: 13194-13195. The fact that emergency personnel can reach any home within the project in a four-minute travel time (AR 16:13457-13459), does not answer the question of whether those seeking to evacuate are anticipated to be able to do so and does not show whether the agency fully considered the implications of project occupants' ability to safely evacuate. The City's responses to these comments were inadequate.

Removal of the Magnolia Ave. Extension for Evacuation
Where an agency "omits an adequate discussion of a project's potential impacts in its EIR, it cannot afterward 'make up for the lack of analysis in the EIR' through post-EIR analysis." Sierra Watch v.

County of Placer (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 86, 103 (citing Save our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County Board of Supervisors (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 130 (project information revealed in an errata shortly before project approval "does not make up for the lack of analysis in the EIR").) To allow otherwise would "deny the public 'an opportunity to test, assess, and evaluate the [newly revealed information] and make an informed Judgment as to the validity of the conclusions to be drawn"' from it.

Sierra Watch, supra, 69 Cal.App.5th at 103, internal citation omitted.

Here, the proposed removal of the Magnolia Avenue extension from the project was not analyzed or disclosed in the draft EIR. AR 116184-92. Instead, the project information about removing the Magnolia Avenue extension was revealed in a "Second Errata" to the final EIR six days before the vote to certify the final EIR. AR 766:68419; AR 15206-500.

The attachment to the Second Errata explains that without the Magnolia Avenue extension there are three other nearby connector roads 1,300 feet south of the previously planned extension that can be used to connect to Magnolia Ave. AR 17:15258-15259, 15266-15267. The City Fire Chief and Principal Fire Planner also stated at the City Council hearing that eliminating the extension would still allow an appropriate evacuation. AR 17670-17681. However, given the previously stated importance of Magnolia Avenue as being a "primary" route for evacuation (AR 12924 ), this belated analysis in the errata was not adequate to provide the public an opportunity to test and evaluate this new information. It DATE: 03/03/2022
DEPT: C-69
MINUTE ORDER Page 4
Calendar No.

CASE TITLE: Preserve Wild Santee vs City of Santee
[E-FILE]
CASE NO: 37-2020-00038168-CU-WM-CTL
is not clear, for example, the extent to which residents living on those other three nearby connector roads may be impacted by traffic from the project occupants in the event of a wildfire evacuation. See AR 116801-03, 15258-59. This denied the public an opportunity to test and evaluate the information.

Decision Not to Recirculate the EIR (2nd COA)
Petitioners also argue the respondents' failure to recirculate an amended EIR for review and comment deprived the public and public agencies of any meaningful opportunity to review and comment on the project, its adverse environmental consequences, and how the new information may impact other environmental effects of the project. OB at 19-20.

A lead agency must recirculate an EIR when it adds "significant new information" after the draft EIR has been circulated for public review. Pub. Resources Code § 21092.1. New information is not "significant" unless the change to the EIR "deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment on a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid" the effect that "the project's proponents have declined to implement." Guidelines § 15088.5(a). "Examples of significant new information include disclosures of 'a new significant environmental impact would result from the project' or 'a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted.' ... In addition, recirculation is required when the new information shows '[t]he draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.'" King & Gardiner Farms, LLC v. County of Kem (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 814, 850, citing Guidelines§ 15088.5(a)(1), (2) & (4).

The test to determine whether removing the Magnolia Ave. extension constitutes significant new information is whether the public was deprived of a meaningful opportunity to comment on the project's wildfire evacuation impacts without the extension. See Guidelines § 15088.5(a). This is reviewed under the substantial evidence test. Id.§ 15088.5(e).

Respondents point to evidence in the record showing they considered and analyzed the road removal and concluded it would not create significant environmental effects or substantially increase the severity of an impact. Opp. at 24, citing ARS:25-26; 15590-15592; 17:15210-15262; 17:15266-15555. However, the record indicates the public did not have a meaningful opportunity to comment on the removal of the Magnolia Ave. extension's potential impact on the wildland fire evacuation plan. AR 116772, 17583, 17584, 17622 (petitioners and others objecting about not enough time given to review the second errata, which was posted only three business days ahead of the public hearing). While the increase in daily traffic volume without the Magnolia extension was considered (AR 17:15210-15262), there is a lack of substantial evidence regarding the impact on cut-through traffic during a fire evacuation and the impact on those existing residential streets and residents' ability to evacuate on those streets during an evacuation. AR 116801-03. Thus, there is not substantial evidence to support concluding the Magnolia Ave. road removal was insignificant. Respondents do not show substantial evidence to support a finding that the public had an opportunity for meaningful public review and comment upon this change. Indeed, at least some of the citations show that people objected to the short time period they had to review and expressed their need for more time to evaluate and comment. See e.g., ROB at 25, citing, e.g. AR Tabs 1577, 1717. For these reasons, the City's decision not to recirculate the EIR violated CEQA.

Inadequate Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations (3rd COA) Petitioners assert the respondents' findings and statement failed to identify the changes or alterations needed to avoid or substantially lessen the project's significant environmental effects and the findings DATE: 03/03/2022
DEPT: C-69
MINUTE ORDER Page 5
Calendar No.

CASE TITLE: Preserve Wild Santee vs City of Santee
[E-FILE]
CASE NO: 37-2020-00038168-CU-WM-CTL
regarding the impacts, mitigation measures, and alternatives are not supported by substantial evidence.

See Pet. ,r,r 94-97. Petitioners argue that the EIR fails to adequately mitigate gnatcatcher (songbird) impacts and to analyze or mitigate spadefoot toad impacts. OB at 20-23, 23-25.

Gnatcatcher
At the hearing, respondents/real party in interest requested the Court reexamine the record on the exhaustion issue. To advance the exhaustion doctrine's purpose, the "exact issue" must have been presented to the administrative agency. Sierra Club v. City of Orange (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 523, 536.

The alleged grounds for noncompliance must be presented during the public comment period or before the close of the public hearing on the project. Pub. Res. Code § 21177. "Isolated and unelaborated" comments do not suffice; the objections must be sufficiently specific to put the agency on notice to evaluate and respond. Sierra Club, supra, 163 Cal.App.4th at 536.

The record reflects petitioners and others gave notice regarding the gnatcatcher mitigation measures issue at the administrative level. AR 13408 (Sierra Club addressed the inadequacy of preservation as mitigation for coastal sage scrub and chaparral and its effects on the biologically important plants and animals for that habitat), AR 95794 (the San Diego River Conservancy referenced the gnatcatcher as one of the included bird species for which more adequate study and investigation needed to be included), AR13507 (the petitioner's DEIR comments discussed its concerns the 810-1 and 810-2 measures would be inadequate to mitigate the impacts to gnatcatchers and gnatcatcher habitat, and that the DEIR does not adequately mitigate impacts to the coastal gnatcatchers and their critical habitat).

Thus, petitioners exhausted their administrative remedies and the merits of the matter are addressed. "An EIR is required to describe feasible mitigation measures that will minimize significant environmental effects identified in an EIR." Mira Mar Mobile Community v. City of Oceanside (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 477, 495, internal citations omitted. Mitigation under the CEQA includes "reducing ... the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action." Guidelines§ 15370(d).

It also includes "[c]ompensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments, including through permanent protection of such resources in the form of conservation easements." Id.§ 15370(e). As both parties recognize, the adequacy of mitigation measures is subject to the substantial evidence standard of review. Oakland Heritage Alliance v. City of Oakland (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 884, 900-905.

Petitioners assert the EIR's gnatcatcher mitigation plan is inadequate because it will not address the direct net loss of gnatcatchers and instead takes a "preserve what remains" approach after the project destroys more than 400 acres of gnatcatcher habitat and 14 gnatcatcher pairs. OB at 21-23.

At the hearing, the parties brought into focus the crux of the issue: whether substantial evidence exists to show the proposed mitigation measures adequately address the direct permanent loss of gnatcatcher habitat to mitigate the impact on gnatcatchers to less than significant.

Here, the EIR states the project would affect nearly 428 acres of onsite gnatcatcher habitat. AR 1653.

To address this, mitigation measure 810-1 would conserve more than 1,000 acres of suitable habitat.

Id. The mitigation measure also requires that restoration and enhancement activities be undertaken to increase the habitat for the gnatcatcher within the preserved land. Opp. at 28, citing AR 15(e):5041-5044 (restoration and enhancement activities include restoring appropriate native vegetation, mapping disturbed habitat and applying enhancement treatments to increase native habitat resources in the preserve, as identified by the preserve manager), AR 15(e):5055 (recurring field surveys of the DATE: 03/03/2022
DEPT: C-69
MINUTE ORDER Page 6
Calendar No.

CASE TITLE: Preserve Wild Santee vs City of Santee
[E-FILE]
CASE NO: 37-2020-00038168-CU-WM-CTL
gnatcatcher habitat, and recurring habitat evaluation and threats assessment). Consequently, substantial evidence shows the proposed mitigation measures adequately address the direct loss of gnatcatcher habitat to less than significant.

Petitioners argue that such measures are inadequate because they are voluntary and not required under the plan and only address subsequent events. OB at 22-23, citing AR 5067-68. It is true that the measure states adaptive management strategies will be initiated upon a "significant disturbance" of more than 20% or "if field observations and expert judgment" indicate a change is needed. AR 5067.

However, neither of these are "voluntary." Rather, one contains a triggering percentage event and the other defers to the expertise of those on site. Nor do these strategies necessarily indicate they would respond only to subsequent events.

Petitioners also argue the measure's management activities regarding expansion and enhancement are inadequate because they are voluntary. A plain reading of the pertinent portion of the measure shows certain potential additional management actions are "not required" by the plan, and it is "not a requirement" for the Preserve Manager to expand and improve the habitat beyond its original state. AR 5067. However, when read in the greater context, this aspect of the measure indicates that seeking out opportunities to expand the habitat goes beyond those required activities that are already aimed at increasing the habitat of the gnatcatcher through the required restoration and enhancement activities.

See AR 5041 (restoration and enhancement treatments "are directed to increase biological resources for ... the coastal California gnatcatcher"), 5042-5043 ("enhancement treatments directed at coastal sage scrub ... will directly benefit" the gnatcatcher), 5044, 5055, 5066-5068. While it apparently would have been ideal if respondenUreal party in interest had included in the measure a requirement to expand to create new habitat, petitioners have not shown this to be expressly required by CEQA, nor is it the only way for respondents/real party in interest to meet their mitigation obligations.

In sum, substantial evidence shows the measures are in accordance with Guidelines section 15370, i.e., they will reduce impacts over time by preserving and maintaining operations, and will replace or provide substitute resources or environments through permanent protection of such resources in the form of conservation easements. Thus, substantial evidence supports the gnatcatcher mitigation measures.

Spadefoot Toad
The project would impact more than 230 acres of spadefoot toad habitat. AR 1645. Petitioners assert the mitigation conservation and restoration measures (BIO measures 1, 12 and 13) are inadequate, as it will restore only 0.50 acres of vernal pool sources.

Respondents explains that it is "[p]reserving, re-establishing and creating 2.92 acres of suitable vernal pool habitat within the Habitat Preserve, of which 2.52 acres is re-established or created habitat, which far exceeds the 0.50 acres of vernal pool rehabilitation/enhancement required per the above-referenced ratios." ROB at 32, citing AR 16: 13182-13484. Thus, the ratio rates are of 2:1 to 4:1, and not 1.25:1, as petitioners assert. AR 15(e):4196 (BTR Table 6-4). Respondents have shown substantial evidence to support the City's determination that its mitigation strategy would effectively reduce impacts to less than significant levels. ROB at 33, citing inter alia AR 16:13482-13485. The EIR thus contains substantial evidence regarding the efficacy of its mitigation ratio for the spadefoot toad habitat.

Conclusion
For the reasons stated the petition for writ of mandate is GRANTED. Parties to meet and confer DATE: 03/03/2022
DEPT: C-69
MINUTE ORDER Page 7
Calendar No.

CASE TITLE: Preserve Wild Santee vs City of Santee CASE NO: 37-2020-00038168-CU-WM-CTL , [E-FILE]
regarding the contents of the proposed writ.

The Court declines to take any action in this case on the writs that were issued in the Fanita I and II cases. Respondents did not provide any authority that would show such action may be taken in this case.

The status conference scheduled for 3/25/2022 at 1 :30 p.m. remains as set.

The minute order is the order of the Court. The Clerk is to give notice.

DATE: 03/03/2022
DEPT: C-69
Judge Katherine Bacal
MINUTE ORDER Page 8
Calendar No.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
Central
330 West Broadway
San Diego, CA 92101
SHORT TITLE: Preserve Wild Santee vs City of Santee [E-FILE] CASE NUMBER:

CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL 37-2020-00038168-CU-WM-CTL I certify that I am not a party to this cause. I certify that a true copy of the attached minute order was mailed following standard court practices in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid, addressed as indicated below.

The mailing and this certification occurred at San Diego, California, on 03/04/2022.

Clerk of the Court, by:---�--� --._Biiyi_· - _·· ___________ , Deputy

LINDSAY D PUCKETT
655 WEST BROADWAY STREET# 15TH FLOOR
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
V
/PETER J BRODERICK

CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
1212 BROADWAY # 800
OAKLAND, CA 94612 .. · _.. f'd: i \) f. fl. .f � t.. ,,,, L ' .. �. . ...

JOHN BUSE
1212 S BROADWAY STREET # 800
OAKLAND, CA 94612

JEFFREY A CHINE

ALLEN MATKINS LECK GAMBLE MALLORY & NATSIS
LL
600 W BROADWAY # 27TH FLOOR
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101-0903
D Additional names and address attached.

ARUNA PRABHALA
1212 BROADWAY STREET # 800
OAKLAND, CA 94612

SHAWN HAGERTY

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
655 WEST BROADWAY, 15TH FLOOR
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL Page: 1

EXHIBIT B
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

PRESERVE WILD SANTEE, CENTER FOR

BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY,
ENDANGERED HABITATS LEAGUE, and

CALIFORNIA CHAPARRAL INSTITUTE
Petitioners,
v.

CITY OF SANTEE, CITY OF SANTEE
CITY COUNCIL; and DOES 1 through 20,
inclusive,
Respondents,
HOMEFED FANITA RANCHO, LLC; and
DOES 21 through 40, inclusive,
Real Parties in Interest.

Case No. 37-2020-00038168-CU-WM-CTL
[PROPOSED] PEREMPTORY WRIT OF

MANDATE
Action Filed: October 21, 2020
Hearing Date: February 4, 2022, 1:30 pm
Department: Dept C-69
Judge: Hon. Katherine Bacal
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
[PROPOSED] PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE
1 TO RESPONDENTS CITY OF SANTEE, CITY OF SANTEE CITY COUNCIL:

Petitioners Preserve Wild Santee, Center for Biological Diversity, Endangered Habitats League, and California Chaparral Institute (“Petitioners”) by the above-captioned action challenged the September 24, 2020 decision of the City of Santee and the City of Santee City Council (“Respondents”) to approve the Fanita Ranch Project (“Project”), adopt findings, and certify an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for the Project. The matter came on for hearing on February 4, 2022, in Department C69 of the above-captioned court, the Honorable Katherine Bacal, presiding. Judgment having been entered in this proceeding commanding that a peremptory writ of mandate issue under seal of this Court and based on that Judgment:

IT IS NOW ORDERED that, promptly after service of this Peremptory Writ of Mandate upon Respondents,

1. Respondents shall:
a. Set aside and vacate in its entirety Resolution No. 093-2020 of the City Council for the City of Santee Certifying the Revised Environmental Impact Report (SCH # 2005061118) for the Fanita Ranch Project; Adopting Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations Under the California Environmental Quality Act; Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and Approving the Project;
b. Set aside and vacate in its entirety Resolution No. 094-2020 of the City Council of the City of Santee, California Adopting A General Plan Amendment, Case File GPA2017-2, Relating to the Fanita Ranch Specific Plan;
c. Set aside and vacate in its entirety Resolution No. 095-2020 of the City Council of the City of Santee, California Approving the Application of HomeFed Fanita Rancho LLC for Fanita Ranch Vesting Tentative Map TM2017-3 for the Subdivision of Approximately 2,638 Acres into 1,467 Lots to Develop the Fanita Ranch Master Planned Community Located North of the Terminus of Fanita Parkway in the Fanita Ranch Specific Plan Development Area; 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
[PROPOSED] PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE
2 d. Set aside and vacate in its entirety Resolution No. 096-2020 of the City Council of the City of Santee, California Approving the Application of HomeFed Fanita Rancho LLC for Fanita Ranch Development Review Permit DR2017-4 for the Subdivision of Approximately 2,638 Acres into 1,467 Lots to Develop the Fanita Ranch Master Planned Community Located North of the Terminus of Fanita Parkway in the Fanita Ranch Specific Plan Development Area;; e. Set aside and vacate in its entirety Resolution No. 097-2020 of the City Council of the City of Santee, California Approving the Application of HomeFed Fanita Rancho LLC for a Conditional Use Permit (P2017-5) for a New 31.2-Acre Public Community Park Located in the Fanita Commons Village Shown on Lot CP-1 of Fanita Ranch Vesting Tentative Map TM2017-3;
f. Set aside and vacate in its entirety Resolution No. 098-2020 of the City Council of the City of Santee, California Approving the Application of HomeFed Fanita Rancho LLC for a Conational Use Permit (P2020-2) for a New 4.2-Acre Public Neighborhood Park Located in the Fanita Commons Village Shown on Lot NP-8 of Fanita Ranch Vesting Tentative Map TM2017-3;
g. Set aside and vacate in its entirety Ordinance No. 580 – An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Santee, California Adding Chapter 13.20 “Specific Plan District” to Title 13 and Amending Chapter 13.04 “Administration” of the Santee Municipal Code, and Approving the Fanita Ranch Specific Plan (Case Files R2017-1 and SP2017-1); and
h. Set aside and vacate in its entirety Ordinance No. 581 - An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Santee, California, Approving and Authorizing Execution of a Development Agreement by and Among the City of Santee and HomeFed Fanita Rancho, LLC.

2. Respondents are further ordered to file and serve a return to the writ no later than 60 days after service of this writ. The return shall specify the actions taken to comply with the terms of this Peremptory Writ of Mandate.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
[PROPOSED] PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE
3 3. Respondents are further ordered to suspend all project activity that could result in any change or alteration to the physical environment unless and until Respondents have corrected the deficiencies identified the Court’s judgment and attached March 3, 2022, Minute Order; reconsidered an EIR certification determination and findings relative to the project; and brought their determination and findings into compliance with the requirements of CEQA.

4. The Court shall retain jurisdiction over these proceedings by way of a return to this Peremptory Writ of Mandate pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21168.9(b) until such time as this Court determines that the City has complied with the terms of this writ.

5. This order is made pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21168.9(b), which provides that any order finding that a decision of a public agency has been made without compliance with CEQA shall include only those mandates which are necessary to achieve compliance with CEQA, and only those specific project activities in noncompliance with CEQA.

6. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21168.9(c), this order does not direct Respondents to exercise their discretion in any particular way.

THE FOREGOING PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE ISSUES IMMEDIATELY.

DATED: ________________ _________________________________ Clerk of the Superior Court
IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: ________________ _________________________________ Hon. Katherine Bacal
Judge of the Superior Court
REAX

ENGINEERING
1921 University Ave.• Berkeley, CA 94704 • Phone 510-387-2155 30 August 2022
Peter Broderick, Urban Wildlands Program
Center for Biological Diversity
PO Box 11374
Portland, OR 97211
Subject: Fire risk impacts on evacuation of Fanita Ranch Dear Mr. Broderick,
Chris Lautenberger
[email protected]
At your request, Reax Engineering Inc. (Reax) has reviewed the following documents associated with the Draft Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed development of Fanita Ranch in the County of San Diego, California:
• Appendix P-1, Fanita Ranch Fire Protection Plan, June 2022 (FPP) • Appendix P-2, Wild/and Fire Evacuation Plan, June 2022 (WFEP) • Draft Environmental Impact Report, June 2022 (EIR), specifically Section 4.18 (Wildfire) • Exhibit 6, Fanita Ranch Project- Santee, California, Recirculated Sections of Final Revised Environmental Impact Report, Griffin Cove Transportation Consulting, PLLC, July 2022 We have analyzed potential fire/life safety impacts of this planned development based on the claims and responses provided in the listed documents. A summary of our findings is provided herein, organized by section of the Fire Protection Plan or Wildland Fire Evacuation Plan.

STAFF REPORT - EXHIBIT D
--�Pll.n&ournh,y
--- vm •• � bncbry c::=J Low Onolky "..U..-n:iol c::J�DIIITTity"nidffl:ill �AcMAdult c:::::J111r.,.ca1JUr C-lllkyl"l.ikJNitl&hborhoodPulr.
* l'M•hrk{llTCUw1tt.ln5p«HltPbnhu}' E::ZJ �o�l <>-by =Op�,,_, Ope11S;i,au-lbsl\
Ope11 Spc. · l"uir:p Sa:lotl
Opett,5!*11•.....,._rT ...
fZ£'!I �11111 0-,W,
DUDEK
PIGIJIIS:U
F1nila Ranc:h Community Sit. llap..-Horth H::ilf
=,-� .•�-= ... = .... ===��-· --------------------
Figure 1. Development footprint of Fanita Ranch from FPP Figure 3a

1. Appendix P-1 Fanita Ranch Fire Protection Plan

1.1 On page 17 of the Fire Protection Plan the concept of analyzing past fire history to gain insight into potential future fires is introduced:

Fire history information evaluated in relation to Fanita Ranch, as described in section 2.2.6 of the Fanita Ranch FPP, indicates that much of the site's vegetation last burned in 2003.

As such, the property's vegetation is still considered in recovery, with younger plants and reduced fuel loading, but over time, without disturbance, would be expected to increase in biomass.

The topic is revisited in greater depth in Section 2.2.7 on page 22:

Fire history represented in this FPP utilizes the Fire and Resource Assessment Program (FRAP) database. FRAP summarizes fire perimeter data dating to the late 1800's, but which is incomplete due to the fact that it includes only fires over 10 acres in size and has incomplete perimeter data, especially for the first half of the 20th century (Syphard and Keeley 2016). However, the data does provide a summary of recorded fires and can be used to show whether large fires have occurred in the project area, which indicates whether they may be possible in the future.

The FPP identifies 15 historical fires that have burned within the project site boundaries since 1910.

These fires are summarized in FPP Table 2 which is replicated below as Figure 2. 2 FfreYear1 ·- - -._ F]�e Name -···
1910 Un-named
1941 Un-named
1942 Un-named
1943 Un-named
1950 Quarry
1966 carttonHills
1974 Un-namecl
1974 Un-named
1974 Un-named
1975 U!Hlamed
1980 Assist#69
1981 .Assist#72
1987 Assist#38
1989 M�olia
2003 Cedar
--
- "
- _,, _Total Ar'ea Burned (acres)

1.315
406

1.221
292
281
330
155
68 25
25 745
696
380

46.291
280,278
Based on polygon GIS data trorn CAfFIRE's Fmi amil Resonroe Assessment Program (mAP), which incltides dlata from CAL flRE., l!S!lA Forest Service Hegiolil 5. BlM, NPS. Con1Jsadt 1
Connliies and olher ag:elilcies. The data set is a oornpreliensille ·fire perimeter GIS layer for public amil private lands furou�l!lt the s!tate amhiovens fires 10 aores and greater between 1878-2018- Figure 2. FPP Table 2 showing 3-mile fire history from 1910 to present It is important to understand that the foes listed above are only those fires that were large enough to be recorded in CAL FIRE's perimeter database. Since 2002, the CAL FIRE perimeter database has included brush fires only 50 acres in size or larger. However, fires less than 50 acres in size are certainly large enough to trigger an evacuation and destroy structures. Additionally, the fires in FPP Table 2 appear to be only those fires that encroached on the project site. However, we found that since 1970, 32 fires in the CAL FIRE perimeter database have burned within 3 miles of the project site (Figure 3) and 17 fires have burned within 1 mile of the project site (Figure 4). Additionally, we analyzed the United States Forest Service Fire Occurrence Database1 and found that between 1992 and 2018, there were 19 ignitions within 3 miles of the project site and 6 ignitions within 1 mile of the project site (Figure 5). This highlights the frequency of ignitions near the project site and the potential for those ignitions to spread into the Project Site and surrounding communities. 1 https://www.fs.usda.gov/rds/archive/Catalog/RDS-2013-0009.5 3 ' .
_ t . Pro1ect Site Parcels .
:
" ' ii D 3 mile radius l
-;- .
'
·,:,;, _ ; :-\;{ • D Fire History (1970-present) ! f " w-: ---., _ -. .-1r ·, ; .. ,...... .11 Figure 3. Fire history within 3 miles of the project site since 1970 7 I'":"'�··.; f ., ...

Figure 4. Fire history within 1 mile of the project site since 1970 4 I ' > I
1 - l - : a. !91 1
, A • Fire Occurrence Database Ignitions di
Figure 5. Fire Occurrence Database ignitions within 1 and 3 miles of the project site

1.2 The effects of Santa Ana winds ( or Santa Anas for short) on fire behavior in Southern California cannot be overstated. Santa Anas are winds that occur when high pressure forms in the Great Basin (Western Utah, much of Nevada, and the Eastern border of California) with lower pressure off the Southern California coast. As air travels westward from the Great Basin, the air rises in elevation over the mountain ranges and dries as a result of orographic lift. As air then descends from these high elevations, the air's temperature rises dramatically (approximately 5 degrees Fahrenheit for every 1000 feet decrease in elevation). This rise in temperature is accompanied by a drop in humidity, further drying the air.

The seasonality of the Santa Ana winds exacerbates the fire risks in Southern California. Southern California typically sees little precipitation between May and November, which is when herbaceous surface fuels are completely cured and live woody fuel moisture (i.e. water in shrub-like vegetation) approaches annual lows. Santa Ana winds typically occur in October, November, and December after months of dry conditions. Santa Ana winds may gust to 60 miles per hour or higher. Santa Anas pose major safety concerns for the Fanita Ranch development. As the FPP notes, much of the existing vegetation on the Project site is mixed chaparral, which exhibits rapid rates of fire spread and is conducive to spotting.

These conditions are, in part, why CAL FIRE has classified the area planned for development as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ), the highest wildland fire risk designation in California. Given past fire and ignition history, the annual nature of Santa Ana winds, and the location within Very High FHSZs, it is possible that the evacuation strategy of the proposed development at Fanita Ranch could be overwhelmed under severe fire weather conditions.

1.3 Section 4 and Appendix B of the FPP describe fire modelling that was conducted as part of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. The FPP uses this fire modelling under various weather conditions to provide estimated spread rates and flame lengths that are in turn used to assess the efficacy of planned fuel management zones and other fire protection features. The primary inputs that affect fire modelling 5 are wind speed, topography, and fuels (including representative fuel models and moisture content). The analysis of each of these components in the FPP is addressed below.

1.3 .1 Wind In the project area, the primary driver of fire risk is Santa Ana wind events which are often with low relative humidity (less than 10 percent). The FPP used 41 mph as an upper limit on sustained wind speed based on the County of San Diego Wildland Fire and Fire Protection Report Format and Requirements2
• County requirements list summer, Santa Ana, and peak conditions as distinct weather scenarios that must be included in the report. Peak conditions in the County requirements were set at the highest wind speed recorded by a RAWS during the 2003 Cedar Fire.

Footnote 1 on page B-10 mentions peak wind gusts recorded by Fire Behavior Analysts (FBAN) on the Cedar Fire. The footnote goes on to describe how peak wind gusts for the Project Site were used in BehavePlus modeling. The note also contains a reference to the incorrect table as Table 9 does not exist and Peak Weather fine dead fuel moistures are located in Table 3 of the FPP.

Fire Behavior Analysts recorded peak wind gusts up to 50 mph during the Cedar Fire. Using Table 9 Peak Weather fine dead fuel moisture values and observed wildfire peak gusts for the Project Vicinity, the BehavePlus modeling efforts would result in flame lengths of 66.1 feet, spread rates of 10.1 mph, and fire line intensities reaching up to 51,337 Btu/ft/s. Viable airborne embers could be carried downwind for 2.8 miles and ignite receptive fuels.

Since midflame wind speed, not 20-ft wind gust, is typically used in fire behavior calculations developed with BehavePlus it is not clear how wind gust was taken into account in the PPP. The confusion regarding wind inputs is compounded by the fact that Table 4 of the FPP, which lists weather variables from County of San Diego Standards, includes 20-ft wind speeds. This lack of clarity in data inputs and methodology impedes substantiation of the results presented in the FPP.

Nevertheless, we attempted to recreate the FPP's BehavePlus modelling runs based on the data provided in Appendix B - Fire Behavior Analysis of the FPP. As noted earlier, conversion from 20-ft flame speeds to midflame wind speeds had to be performed manually as it was not provided in the Fire Behavior Analysis. Adjustment factors from the National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG) were used and are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. NWCG 20-ft Wind Speed Adjustment Factors3
Fuel Model Adjustment Factor
4 (Chapairnl) 0.6
1, 3, 5 (Short grass, Long grass, Brush) 0.4
Using the Summer and Peak weather variables from Table 4 of the FPP, the Summer 20-ft wind speed of 19 mph was converted to midflame wind speeds of 11.4 mph in chaparral and 7 .6 mph in sagebrush. Likewise, the Peak 41 mph 20-ft wind speed was converted to a midflame wind speeds of 17 .6 mph in chaparral and 16.4 mph in sagebrush. The scenario conditions described in Table 8 were replicated to the extent possible, and our results are reported alongside the results provided in the FPP to facilitate comparison (Table 2-Table 5).
2 https ://www.sandiegocounty.gov/pds/ docs/Fire-Report-Format. pdf 3 https ://www.nwcg.gov/ course/ffm/fire-behavior/82-midflame-windspeed 6 Table 2. Scenario 1 results com
Slo e%
Flame Length (ft)
S read Rate m h
FPP
25-35

66.1 10.1
Table 3. Scenario 2 results com
FPP
Flame Length (ft)
S read Rate m h
Cha arral

63.9-66.1

9.4-10.1
eak weather, 25 -35% slo e
Current
25 30

84.9 85.1

17.5 17.6
Cha arral

85.3 17.7
Table 4. Scenario 3 results com arison - summer weather, 25% slope . Flame Length (ft)
S read Rate m h
Table 5. Scenario 2 results com
FPP
FPP Current

19.4 19.4

1.4 1.4
arison - summer weather, 37% slo e
Current
35 85.3

17.7 Cha arral Sa e-cha arral Cha arral Sa e-cha arral
Flame Length (ft)
S read Rate m h

28.2 1.8

18.0 1.2

39.8 3.9

19.9 1.5
As the above tables show, without thorough documentation of inputs we were unable to reproduce the fire behavior outputs presented in the FPP and it's not possible to determine where the discrepancies arise. However, the comparison does show that the flame lengths and spread rates in the FPP may be underestimating fire behavior typical of the Project Site in certain scenarios, particularly Santa Ana winds.

1.3 .2. Topography Fires spread faster upslope than on flat ground, and firefighting efforts are hindered by steep slopes. Areas adjacent to the project footprint include complex terrain, with onsite elevations ranging from approximately 140 feet to 300 feet above mean sea level. Most of the terrain is moderate with steep hillsides and ridges that separate the site's sub-drainages. Slopes on the site range from 0% to 32%. The fire modelling in the FPP assigned slope values between 35 to 37% slope.

Slope must be considered in the context of the surrounding terrain, which contains slopes ofup to 40% (Figure 6). By analyzing slope only within and immediately adjacent to the project parcels instead of the greater landscape context, the FPP understates the potential role that the surrounding terrain has on fire spread and control from ignitions both inside and outside the project boundaries. 7 Figure 6. Slopes within the project site

1.3 .3 Fuels The fire behavior modeling in the FPP relies on species composition information to estimate climax fuel conditions. This was done to assess how current fuel conditions compare to potential future, post-development conditions. Fuels within areas proposed for conversion to development (e.g., roads, driveways, structures) were classified as non-burnable post-development. Based on the results of the fire modelling, the FPP concluded that converting flammable fuels into development would decrease fire risk and result in a fire that bums around the Project site, not through it.

Naturally, with structures defined as non-burnable in the fuel model, the model does not allow the structures to bum, thereby guaranteeing the FPP's conclusion that converting "ignitable fuels" into "lower flammability landscape" reduces fire spread.

The FPP only maps fuels within the project parcels. However, when assessing potential fire/life safety impacts of a planned development, it is also impmtant to assess fuels adjacent to the project footprint because fires ignited within the project footprint may spread into adjacent wildland or wildland urban interface areas. By analyzing vegetation only within the project parcels, the FPP does not address the potential role of the surrounding fuels on fire spread.

1.4 Contrary to the claims made within the FPP, new development in the wildland urban interface (WUI) does increase ignition probability because it increases the presence of humans, a primary cause of fires in Southern California, relative to the pre-development condition. The FPP makes several references to a paper authored by Syphard and Keeley4 to suppmt a stance that high-density housing poses lower risk of ignitions than low-density housing. That article states "We investigated the most common ignition causes in two southern California sub-regions, where humans are responsible for more than 95% of all fires ... ". The FPP indicated on page 25 that" ... lower density housing poses a higher ignition risk than higher density communities." However, it fails to mention that housing of any density increases probability of ignition as compared to undeveloped areas because of the introduction of humans and 4 Syphard, A.D. and Keeley, J.E., "Location, timing and extent of wildfire vary by cause of ignition," International Journal of Wildland Fire 24: 37-47(2015).
8 their vehicles into areas where they were previously absent. As the probability of ignition increases so too does the risk that an ignition will overcome the community's defensive measures and evacuation plans.

1.5 The FPP states on page 36 that "During extreme fire weather conditions, there are no guarantees that a given structure will not burn or that evacuations will be successful all of the time ... ". From this statement, it is unclear how the FPP proposes to guarantee that shelter-in-place buildings will not be one of the structures that burn during extreme fire weather conditions. If it cannot be demonstrated that shelter-in-place structures will resist extreme fire weather conditions, then this is not a viable alternative to evacuation.

1.6 Adherence to Building Code Chapter 7A is a requirement for all new construction within Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ). This is a minimum code requirement for structures that are subject to elevated probability of exposure to wildfire. The FPP acknowledges on page 87 that the potential for structure loss cannot be completely negated even by meeting minimum Chapter 7A requirements:

While these standards would provide a high level of protection to structures in this development, and would be expected to reduce the potential for ordering evacuations in a wildfire, there is no guarantee that compliance with these standards would prevent damage or destruction of structures by fire in all cases. Nevertheless, the analysis indicates that the potential risk is considered acceptable according to CEQA thresholds and industry standards.

1. 7 The damage inspection report from the 2017 Thomas Fire5 broke down the construction of all buildings damaged or destroyed during the fire in Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties (Figure 7). By referencing the damages table for the City of Ventura, it is seen that the majority of destroyed structures were of fire-resistant construction, had multi-pane windows, and had eave vent screens. Although not a majority, a significant number of the structures damaged or destroyed had enclosed eaves. Data from the Thomas Fire losses indicate that ignition resistant construction may not always be a sufficient defense against wildfires spreading under extreme conditions. Should a fire breach the structural fire resistance of the Project, and the Thomas Fire losses indicate this is possible, the shelter-in-place strategy becomes untenable and interior roadways may become impassable.

CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS -VENTURA CITY
Fire Resistant 628 600
Sin le Pane 155
Multi Pane 331
Enclosed 142
Un-Enclosed 183
Com oslte 14
Mason 180
Wood 67
Yes 325
No 19
unknown 6 8 163 308 305 117
NotA licable 16 271
Total 649 649 649 649 649 649
Figure 7. Table of damaged/destroyed home construction details from Thomas Incident Damage Inspection Report'
5 Mitchell, C., Pivaroff, N., Mepani, V., Meyer, T., "Thomas Incident Damage Inspection Report CA VNC 103156," 9 2. Fanita Ranch Wildland Fire Evacuation Plan

2.1. The WFEP states on page 25:
... the primary (first) type of evacuation envisioned is an orderly, pre-planned evacuation process where people are evacuated from the Fanita Ranch community to urban areas further from an encroaching wildfire (likely to urban areas south, west, or north) well before fire threatens.

An orderly, pre-planned evacuation well before fire threatens is an ideal scenario, but reality is often not ideal. For example, during the Camp Fire evacuation, several evacuees had no choice but to abandon their vehicles and flee on foot while surrounded by flames6 , and multiple fatalities occurred when
people were trapped in their cars. The WFEP makes little accommodation for the inherent ambiguity of emergency situations when detailing possible evacuation scenarios (page 25). Nor does it address how changes in evacuation strategy, say from full evacuation to shelter-in-place, would be communicated to residents. Timely, efficient communication from authorities is imperative to protect occupants and the likelihood that an evacuation strategy would need to change under extreme fire conditions is high. The WFEP does not discuss how changes in evacuation strategy would be communicated to residents.

2.2. The WFEP does not evaluate contingency shelter-in-place/temporary refuge locations. Since rapid fire spread could prevent full evacuation due to time and road volume constraints, it is important that the community and first responders be provided with acceptable contingent means of safety. The WFEP mentions certain events when shelter-in-place strategies were successfully utilized (page 21).

However, these were not planned shelter-in-place events, but rather options of last resort as wildfire overran occupants. There is no discussion as far as how shelter-in-place operations would be conducted, no evaluation of the safety and adequacy of the shelter-in-place refuge areas, and no assessment provided for feasibility of accessing the proposed shelter-in-place locations under various fire scenarios. The WFEP states on page 28 that the shelter structures would include the same level of ignition resistance and landscape maintenance as the rest of the development, before going on to state that "during the fire, the identified safety zones may not be feasible due to distance, location, fire behavior, etc."
Given the dynamic nature of fire, acknowledgement that contingency shelter-in-place locations may not be feasible calls into question the viability of such strategies. If the shelters cannot be reached by occupants or firefighters in the event of an emergency, their existence is irrelevant and not to be relied upon as a means of protecting people. Finally, it is important to point out that the WFEP acknowledges on page 21 that no community in California has been directed to shelter in place during a wildland fire, even communities which were designed as shelter-in-place communities such as Rancho Santa Fe.

2.3. The Wildlartd Fire Evacuation Plan concludes on page 36 stating: "This Wildland Fire Evacuation Program does not provide a guarantee that all persons will be safe at all times because of the recommendations proposed" and that "There are many variables that may influence overall safety".

The conclusion goes on to recommend that,
... the evacuation process is carried out with a conservative approach to fire safety. This approach must include maintaining the Fanita Ranch fuel modification landscape, infrastructural, and ignition resistant construction components[ ... ]. Fire is a dynamic and somewhat unpredictable occurrence, and it is important for anyone living at the wildlandurban interface to educate themselves on practices that will improve safety. 6 https://abc?news.com/camp-fire-video-bodycam-of-evacuations/4850913/ 10 These statements imply that the responsibility of a "conservative approach to fire safety" relies on human factors and actions including maintenance and education, post-construction of the proposed development. The Proposed Project lies adjacent to Very High FHSZ and therefore will subject its occupants to a high probability of exposure to wildfire; it is not sufficient to assume that human factors, which are even more dynamic and unpredictable than fire itself and directly involved in evacuation decision making, will ultimately be the deciding factor between life and death when building in an area with such known risks.

2.4. An unaddressed fire safety impact of Fanita Ranch is that a fire which necessitates evacuation of the project site will also necessitate an evacuation of the surrounding developments. WFEP page 21 states:

Depending on the nature of the emergency requiring evacuation, it is anticipated that the majority of the community traffic would exit the project via Cuyamaca Street or Magnolia Avenue. These are the most direct routes for the Fanita Ranch Community.

Fanita Parkway may be used by the western portion of the Fanita Parkway Community, depending on the time available for evacuation and the need for additional movement via the southerly route. In a typical evacuation that allows several hours or more time (as experienced for most areas during the 2003, 2007, 2014, 2016, and 2017 wildfires), all traffic may be directed to the south and out Cuyamaca Street and/ or Magnolia A venue.

Because the egress roads from Fanita Ranch will merge with existing major evacuation routes along Cuyamaca St., Magnolia Ave., and Fanita Pkwy, the road network must not only be capable of routing Fanita Ranch residents but also the residents from nearby.neighborhoods. A wildland fire that requires evacuation of one of these developments will require evacuation of all of them; to treat evacuation of the individual developments as separate, unrelated events neglects the fact that evacuating residents from these developments will rely on the same road network.

2.5. Under Santa Ana winds, a fire ignited within or adjacent to the project footprint would spread toward population centers to the southwest of the project site. Potential impacts, especially evacuation impacts, to communities around the proposed Project from fires igniting both within and outside the project site under Santa Ana wind conditions are not addressed in the PPP. To qualitatively illustrate potential impacts to the means of egress in and around the project site, 2 hours of fire spread was modeled withFlamMap under Santa Ana conditions with a wind speed of30 mph out of the northeast.

Modeled fire perimeters are shown in Figure 8 and Figure 9. Both scenarios would likely trigger evacuation protocols for Fanita Ranch and the surrounding communities. 11 Figure 8. Offsite ignition that impacts evacuation routes under Santa Ana winds.

The FPP does not adequately address adjacent communities' increased fire risk from the Fanita Ranch development. Instead, the DEIR and FPP conclude that the project would mitigate any increase in ignition sources with irrigated areas, fuel modification zones, and additional human presence and that the project, due to these irrigated areas, zones, and additional human presence, would improve fire safety for residents 12 and adjacent communities. I do not agree with this conclusion because a fire ignited in the project site under Santa Ana winds could easily spread Southwest toward population centers through complex, steep terrain and highly flammable chaparral and coastal scrub vegetation types, at rates of several miles per hour with spotting distances more than 1 mile ahead of the flame front. With these spotting distances, embers would be largely unimpeded by fuel modification zones, irrigated areas, etc. Thus, the increase in ignition probability associated with the project has a significant negative impact on adjacent communities' risk from fire and adjacent communities' exposure to significant injury or death during an evacuation.

Summary and Concluding Remarks
This letter highlights several deficiencies in the environmental documentation for the planned Fanita Ranch development. I have also reviewed Neal Liddicoat's July 22, 2022 repott on the project, and I agree with his comments.

The Fire Protection Plan does not adequately address the increase in ignition probability caused by the project or the threat to surrounding communities caused by additional traffic during an evacuation. Indeed, the FPP reaches acknowledges on page 25:

Based on Fanita Ranch fire history data for the project vicinity, fire return intervals range between one and twenty-five years, indicating significant wildfire potential in the region and the potential for the Proposed Project site to be subject to occasional wildfire encroachment, most likely from the large expanses of open space to the north and east.

It is difficult to understand how this conclusion justifies construction of a major development. It is imperative that the County take these findings of critical fire risk impacts into account.

Sincerely,
Christopher W. Lautenberger, PhD, PE
13 Chris Lautenberger, PhD, PE
Reax Engineering, Inc.
1921 University Ave.

Berkeley, CA 94704
510-387-2155
[email protected] REAX

ENGINEERING
Professional Profile
Chris Lautenberger is a co-founder of Reax Engineering, a fire protection engineering and fire science firm with offices in Berkeley and Auburn, CA. He is a licensed Fire Protection Engineer with expertise in fire science, fire dynamics, fire modelling, and forensic fire reconstruction. Lautenberger's professional activities involve applying fire dynamics and combustion principles to analyze various aspects of fire and combustion processes, ranging from smallscale smoldering combustion to large-scale wildland fire dynamics. He has published on several aspects of combustion and fire, including flammability, pyrolysis, ignition, fire spread, and fire modeling. Lautenberger has over 20 years of experience applying fire dynamics calculations and fire models in support of scientific research, fire protection engineering design, and forensic fire reconstruction. Chris has developed computer models to analyze trajectories and ignition potential of metallic and woody particles generated by conductor clashing and interactions between vegetation and overhead electrical utilities, wildland fire propagation, and wildland fire risk. Lautenberger has provided expert testimony at deposition and trial on more than 25 occasions on litigation matters related to both wildland and structure fires, including several fires with losses in excess of $1 OOM. Dr. Lautenberger has co-taught Masters-level courses in Fire Dynamics and Fire Modeling in the Department of Fire Protection Engineering at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo.

Professional Licensure
Licensed Professional Engineer, State of California, # FPl 676 (Fire Protection Engineering) Education
PhD - Mechanical Engineering, University of California at Berkeley, January 2003 - December 2007 • Dissertation title: "A Generalized Pyrolysis Model for Combustible Solids" • Major field: Combustion
• Minor fields: Wildland Fire Science and Fluid Dynamics MS - Fire Protection Engineering, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, January 2000 - December 2001 • Thesis title: "CFD Simulation of Soot Formation and Flame Radiation" BS - Mechanical Engineering, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, August 1995 - December 1999 Professional Experience
8/08 - present Reax Engineering Inc. Berkeley, CA and Auburn, CA Founding Partner and Principal Engineer Representative projects:
• California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) High Fire Threat District Mapping: Co-led ( along with Pacific Gas & Electric and San Diego Gas & Electric) the Peer Development Panel tasked by the CPUC with developing high fire threat districts that identify areas where overhead electrical utilities present elevated or extreme risks of igniting damaging wildland or wildland urban interface fires. This map was adopted by the CPUC for regulatory purposes in 2018 and is currently used to promulgate regulations related to electrical utility fire safety in California. • Next Generation Open Source Wildfire Models for Grid Resiliency: Currently leading the realtime wildfire spread and risk forecasting component of this $SM project recently funded by the California Energy Commission. This project provides utilities and other stakeholders with realtime forecasts of active wildland fires as well as landscape-scale bum probabilities up to one week in the future. It also models ignition probability, fire size, and impacts from utility-caused Chris Lautenberger Reax Engineering, Inc. Page 1 of 10
fires under forecasted wind and weather conditions to inform proactive de-energization decisions.
• Utility-associated fire risk mapping: Reax has mapped utility-associated fire risk over more than 500,000 square miles of service territoty in the US and Canada on behalf of eight utilities.

These techniques leverage numerical weather prediction, fire spread modeling, and high performance computing to generate high resolution maps of powerline fire risk that are then used internally for system hardening and proactive de-energization decisions. • Moonlight Fire (United States v. Sierra Pacific Industries et al.): Conducted NFPA 921 origin and cause hypothesis testing using fire science and fire modelling in the $1B litigation surrounding the 2007 Moonlight Fire. Modeled initial fire spread and plume dynamics. Exposed a critical error in opposing expert's fire model that invalidated his opinions. • San Mateo Bridge Limousine Fire: Analyzed ignition and spread of a limousine fire that killed five women as they traveled across the San Mateo Bridge. Modeled initial fire spread using Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) and small-scale materials flammability data to quantify available safe egress time and time to incapacitation.
• Roseville Galleria Fire: Analyzed ignition, initial spread, and effect of automatic sprinkler system failure on the outcome of the 2010 Roseville Galleria Fire that destroyed several stores, led to partial collapse of the roof and caused over $SOM in damage to a shopping mall in Northern California.
• Modelling manufacturing of Ceramic Matrix Composites (CMCs). Working in conjunction with United Technologies and Pratt & Whitney in !l project funded by the Air Force Research Laboratory, adapted Gpyro (a generalized pyrolysis for combustible solids) to model pyrolysis of ceramic matrix composites used in aircraft engines during manufacturing.

Selected wildland fire hazard analysis and modeling J!roject work:
• Determined maximum reasonably foreseeable Santa Ana wind speed in Malibu Canyon using wind modeling and pole-mounted anemometers installed specifically for this project • High resolution smoke plume modeling to assess potential for Libby Amphibole Asbestos (LAA) to be transported by large-scale wildland fires
• Developed de-energization criteria and associated weather monitoring analytics for utilities in California and Nevada
• Analyzed fire hazard/risk associated with major housing developments in San Diego County including Otay Ranch and Newland Sierra
• Developed ELMFIRE (Eulerian Level .Set Model of Fire Spread), a parallelized model for simulating wildland fire spread and quantifying wildland fire risk via Monte Carlo simulation • Conducted high resolution wind/weather modeling to analyze historical fire weather in Southern California
• Assisted utility clients with data requests and analytics associated with preparation of Senate Bill 209 Wildfire Mitigation Plans
Selected wildland fire forensic reconstructions and analyses:
• Reconstruction of initial spread of the 2011 Bastrop Complex Fire (Bastrop, TX) • Analyzed ignition dynamics associated with the 2012 Sheep Fire near Lucille, ID • Analysis of ignition, initial spread, and smoke transport from the 2009 Murrindindi Bushfire (Victoria, Australia)
• Simulation of smoke transport from the 2010 Crown Fire near Palmdale, CA • Reconstruction of the spread of the 2008 Iron Complex Fire in Northern California and assessment of the impact of firing activities on timber loss in private inholdings • Calculation of trajectory and temperature histories of metallic particles allegedly generated by clashing between aluminum and copper electrical conductors and analysis of grass-fire ignition potential, initial spread rate, and plume dynamics (Victoria, Australia) • Analysis ofwildland fires ignited by exhaust particles from a locomotive including analysis of particle trajectories and fuel ignitability (Victoria, Australia) Chris Lautenberger Reax Engineering, Inc. Page 2 oflO
Selected structure and vehicle fire forensic reconstructions and analyses:
• Analysis of a methane generation, transport, and ignition from decomposing manure in a fatal pig barn fire
• Analysis of diesel fuel ignitability by hot surfaces in a fracking rig fire • Reconstruction of fatal apartment fire where smoke alarms failed to activate (Long Beach, CA) • Reconstruction of fatal fire in manufactured home including time to smoke alarm activation and analysis of available safe egress time (Castleberry, AL) • Analysis of crude oil ignitability and time to incapacitation in a fatal fire where the cab of a truck was engulfed in flames from burning crude oil released during an accident. • Analysis of ignitability of water/antifreeze mixture discharged from residential sprinkler system, analysis of initial fire spread, and assessment of bum injuries (Herriman, UT) • Origin hypothesis testing for fatal alleged arson fire (Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana) • Fire cause hypothesis testing and analysis of residential LPG explosion for alleged arson fire (Round Mountain, CA)
• Analysis of role of inoperable fire hydrant on manual fire suppression efforts and associated property damage during total loss fire in residential apartment building (Atlanta, GA) • Reconstruction of fatal apartment fire: inter-apartment fire spread, time to smoke alarm activation, identification of contributory building code issues (Carrboro, NC) Selected Fire Protection Engineering project work:
• Calculation of Light Rail Vehicle heat release rates in the San Francisco Central Subway using fire growth modeling and fire testing (San Francisco, CA) • Analysis of rail vehicle design fires, testing, and modeling for Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority (Los Angeles, CA)
• Material property estimation for fire development modeling in new rail vehicle • Development of automatic sprinkler protection criteria and analysis of flammable liquids processes at semiconductor plant (Santa Rosa, CA)
• Application of computer fire modeling and egress modeling to determine appropriate smoke exhaust rate for atrium at Marist College (Poughkeepsie, NY) • Analysis ofwildland urban interface fire and life safety concerns at proposed subdivisions in Oakland, CA, St. Helena, CA, and Encinitas, CA
• Sizing of atrium smoke exhaust rate in the new Student Union Building at San Jose State University (San Jose, CA)
• Development of a model for ignition of HEPA filters by embers at the Hanford nuclear waste treatment plant (Richland, WA)
• Modeling smoke and heat detector activation to develop a request for alternate means of protection at a large theater (Cincinnati, OH)
• Analysis of atrium smoke control system in residential highrise (Dallas, TX) Selected thermal sciences & general project work:
• Heat transfer analysis and pyrolysis modeling for municipal solid waste to energy incineration technology
• Thermo-chemical analysis and heat transfer modeling of biomass torrefaction (low temperature pyrolysis) reactor
• Detailed Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) modeling of fluid flow and heat transfer in a rotary kiln biochar reactor
• CPD-based furnace modeling, heat transfer analysis, and pyrolysis modeling of proposed screw auger wood chip pyrolysis reactor
• Development of a comprehensive three-dimensional computational model for predicting heat release and emissions from charcoal combustion
• Flammability and thermal property assessment ofnew wall board product • CFD modeling of blast wave from a bird bomb
• Thermodynamic analysis of non-traditional methods for carbon capture and sequestration • Calculation of overhead electrical utility catenary curves and excursions in high winds • Atmospheric dispersion modeling of pollutant transport using EPA's AERMOD software Chris Lautenberger Reax Engineering, Inc. Page 3 oflO
12/10-2021
12/07 -2/11
California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo Instructor • Fire Protection Engineering Instructor in Cal Poly's Masters degree program • Teaching responsibilities include FPE 502 Fire Dynamics and FPE 504 Fire Modeling University of California at Berkeley Post Doctoral Researcher • Conducted research on NSF Grant 0730556, "Tackling CFD Modeling of Flame Spread on Practical Solid Combustibles"
• Assessed predictive capabilities of Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS) for simulating flame spread and fire growth
• Modified subroutines to improve predictive capabilities ofFDS for flame spread modeling • Developed pyrolysis model and material property estimation techniques needed to simulate the pyrolysis ofreal-world solid fuels
• Developed computer model for ignition of fuel beds by hot particles and fire brands to predict ignition of fuel beds and initiation of spot fires
1/02 -6/08 Arup Fire San Francisco, CA Fire Protection Engineer • Assisted clients with fire safety design and achieving code compliance or performance-based solutions for hospitals, casinos, malls, libraries, schools, museums, airports, and offices • Assessed fire performance of buildings using fire modeling and egress analyses in support of alternate methods of design
• Developed and programmed a CF AST-based Monte-Carlo fire simulator • Simulated fire development in a rail vehicle and calibrated the model with large-scale experimental fire test data
• Representative projects include Wynn Las Vegas, Hard Rock Hotel and Casino Las Vegas, Kaiser Permanente templates, New Los Angeles Federal Courthouse, San Mateo Public Library, California Academy of Sciences, Bay Area Rapid Transit (BAR'li') Montgomery Street Station, and Seattle Public Library
10/00 -12/01 FM Global Research (formerly Factory Mutual Research Corporation) Norwood, MA • Examined existing soot formation and oxidation models in the literature and used this research to postulate a new engineering soot model that is compatible with FDS • Worked with FM Global and NIST scientists to add this new model for soot formation and oxidation to FDS, and performed simulations oflaminar and turbulent diffusion flames 5/00 -8/00 Code Consultants, Inc. Saint Louis, MO
• Responsible for examining proposed building designs for compliance with relevant codes • Performed engineering analyses to support equivalencies Dissertation and Thesis
1/03 -12/07 PhD Dissertation University of California, Berkeley 9/00-12/01
8/98-5/99
• Developed a generalized pyrolysis/material decomposition model (Gpyro) to simulate the gasification, pyrolysis, and combustion of condensed-phase fuels • Developed an optimization technique that uses a genetic algorithm to extract material pyrolysis properties needed for simulation of solid-phase pyrolysis from bench-scale fire tests • Performed FDS-based simulations of ignition, flame spread, and fire growth in normal and reduced gravity environments as part of a NASA-sponsored project MS Thesis Worcester Polytechnic Institute
• Developed a model for soot formation/oxidation in non-premixed flames • Implemented model in FDS to calculate soot formation and flame radiation Major Qualifying Project (MQP) Worcester Polytechnic Institute • Developed an experimental program and ran several real-scale room/corner fire tests in WPI's room calorimeter to evaluate the flame spread characteristics of composite wall linings Chris Lautenberger Reax Engineering, Inc. Page 4 oflO
Peer Reviewed Publications

1. Lautenberger, C., de Ris, J., Dembsey, N.A., Barnett, J.R. & Baum, R.R., "A Simplified Model for Soot Formation and Oxidation in CFD Simulation of Non-premixed Hydrocarbon Flames," Fire Safety Journal 40:
141-176 (2005).

2. Lautenberger, C., Zhou, Y.Y. & Fernandez-Pello, AC., "Numerical Modeling of Convective Effects on Piloted Ignition of Composite Materials," Combustion Science and Technology 177: 1231-1252 (2005).

3. Lautenberger, C. & Fernandez-Pello, A.C., "Approximate Analytical Solutions for the Transient Mass Loss Rate and Piloted Ignition Time of a Radiatively Heated Solid in the High Heat Flux Limit," Fire Safety Science 8: 445- 456 (2005).

4. Lautenberger, C., Rein, G. & Fernandez-Pello, A.C., "Application of a Genetic Algorithm to Estimate Material Properties for Fire Modeling from Bench-Scale Fire Test Data," Fire Safety Journal 41: 204-214 (2006).

5. Rein, G., Lautenberger, C., Fernandez-Pello, A.C., Torero, J.L. & Urban, D.L., "Application of Genetic Algorithms and Thermogravimetry to Determine the Kinetics of Polyurethane Foam in Smoldering Combustion," Combustion and Flame 146: 95-108 (2006).

6. Rich, D., Lautenberger, C., Torero, J.L., Quintiere, J.G. & Fernandez-Pello, C., "Mass Flux of Combustible Solids at Piloted Ignition," Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 31: 2653-2660 (2007).

7. Kwon, J.-W., Dembsey, N.A., & Lautenberger, C.W., "Evaluation ofFDS v4: Upward Flame Spread," Fire Technology 43: 255-284 (2007).

8. Avila, M.B., Dembsey, N.A., Kim, M.E., Lautenberger, C., & Dore, C., "Fire Characteristics of Polyester FRP composites with Different Glass Contents," Composites Research Journal 2: 1-14 (2008).

9. Lautenberger, C., Kim, E., Dembsey, N. & Femandez-Pello, C., "The Role of Decomposition Kinetics in Pyrolysis Modeling - Application to a Fire Retardant Polyester Composite," Fire Safety Science 9: 1201-1212 (2008).

10. Dodd, A.B., Lautenberger, C. & Fernandez-Pello, AC., "Numerical Examination of Two-Dimensional Smolder Structure in Polyurethane Foam," Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 32: 2497-2504 (2009).

11. Lautenberger, C. & Femandez-Pello, A.C., "Generalized Pyrolysis Model for Combustible Solids," Fire Safety Journal 44: 819-839 (2009).

12. Lautenberger, C. & Femandez-Pello, A.C., "A Model for the Oxidative Pyrolysis of Wood," Combustion and Flame 156: 1503-1513 (2009).

13. Hadden, R., Scott, S., Lautenberger, C., & Femandez-Pello, A.C., "Ignition of Combustible Fuel Beds by Hot Particles: an Experimental and Theoretical Study," Fire Technology 47: 341-355 (2011).

14. Fereres, S., Lautenberger, C., Femandez-Pello, C., Urban, D.L., & Ruff, G.A., "Mass Loss Rate at Ignition in Reduced Pressure Environments," Combustion and Flame 158: 1301-1306 (2011).

15. Lautenberger, C. & Femandez-Pello, C., "Optimization Algorithms for Material Pyrolysis Property Estimation," Fire Safety Science 10: 751-764 (2011).

16. Dodd, A.B., Lautenberger, C., & Femandez-Pello, A.C., "Computational Modeling of Smolder Combustion and Spontaneous Transition to Flaming," Combustion and Flame 159: 448-461 (2012).

17. Matala, A., Lautenberger, C., & Hostikka, S., "Generalized direct method for pyrolysis kinetics parameter estimation and comparison to existing methods," Journal of Fire Sciences 30: 339-356 (2012).

18. Fereres, S., Lautenberger, C., Femandez-Pello, A.C., Urban, D.L., and Ruff, G.A., "Understanding ambient pressure effects on piloted ignition through numerical modeling," Combustion and Flame 159: 3544-3553 (2012).

19. Wong, W., Alston, J., Lautenberger, C., and Dembsey, N., "CFD Flame Spread Model Validation: Multicomponent Data Set Framework," Journal of Fire Protection Engineering 23: 85-134 (2013).

20. Lautenberger, C., "Wildland Fire Modeling with an Eulerian Level Set Method and Automated Calibration," Fire Safety Journal 62: 289-298 (2013).

21. Lautenberger, C., "Gpyro3D: A Three Dimensional Generalized Pyrolysis Model," Fire Safety Science 11: 193- 207 (2014).

22. Femandez-Pello, AC., Lautenberger, C., Rich, D., Zak, C., Urban, J., Hadden, R., Scott, S., and Fereres, S., "Spot fire ignition of natural fuel beds by hot metal particles, embers, and sparks," Combustion Science and Technology 187: 269-295 (2015).

23. Yashwanth, B.L., Shotorban, B., Mahalingam, S., Lautenberger, C.W., and Weise, D.R., "A numerical investigation of the influence of radiation and moisture content on pyrolysis and ignition of a leaf-like fuel element," Combustion and Flame 163: 301-316 (2016).

24. Lautenberger, C., "Mapping Areas at Elevated Risk of Large-Scale Structure Loss Using Monte Carlo Simulation and Wildland Fire Modeling," Fire Safety Journal 91: 768-775 (2017).

25. Fawaz, M., Lautenberger, C., and Bond, T., "Prediction of organic aerosol precursor emission from the pyrolysis of thermally thick wood," Fuel 269: 117333 (2020).

Chris Lautenberger Reax Engineering, Inc. Page 5 oflO
Book Chapters

1. Lautenberger, C., Torero, J.L. & Fernandez-Pella, A.C., "Understanding Materials Flammability," in Flammability Testing of Materials Used in Construction, Transport and Mining, Edited by V. Apte, Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge, UK pp. 1-21, 2006.

2. Lautenberger, C. & Fernandez-Pella, A.C., "Pyrolysis Modeling, Thermal Decomposition, and Transport Processes in Combustible Solids," in Transport Phenomena in Fires, Edited by M. Faghri and B. Sunden, WIT Press, Billerica, MA pp. 209-248, 2008.

3. Lautenberger, C. & Fernandez-Pella, A.C., "Spotting Ignition of fuel beds by firebrands," in Computational Methods and Experimental Measurements XIV, Edited by C.A. Brebbia and G.M. Carlomango, WIT Press, Billerica, MA pp. 603-612, 2009.

4. Lautenberger, C. & Hostikka, S., "Large Scale Fire Modeling," in Flame Retardancy of Polymeric Materials, Second Edition, Edited by C.A. Wilkie and A.B. Morgan, Marcel Dekker pp. 551- 585, 2010.

5. Lautenberger, C., Tien, C.L., Lee, KY., and Stretton, A.J., "Radiation Heat Transfer," in SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering, 5
th Edition, Springer, pp. 102-137 (2016).

6. Lautenberger, C., "Pyrolysis," in Encyclopedia of Wildfires and Wild/and-Urban Interface (WU!) Fires, Ed.

Manzella, S.L., Springer (2018).

Selected Conference Publications and Technical Reports

1. Beyler, C., Hunt, S., Lattimer, B., Iqbal, N., Lautenberger, C., Dembsey, N., Barnett, J., Janssens, M., & Dillon, S. "Prediction of ISO 9705 Room/Comer Test Results". United States Department of Transportation. United States Coast Guard Research and Development Center. Washington, DC. 1999.

2. Lautenberger, C., Stevanovic, A., Rich, D., & Torero, J., "Effect of Material Composition on Ignition Delay of Composites," Composites 2003, Anaheim CA, October 2003.

3. Lautenberger, C., Stevanovic, A., Rich, D., Torero, J. & Fernandez-Pella, A.C., "An Experimental and Theoretical Study on the Ignition Delay Time of Composite Materials," Western States Section/The Combustion Institute, Los Angeles CA, October 2003.

4. Rein, G., Lautenberger, C., Fernandez-Pella, A.C., Torero, J.L. & Urban, D.L., "Derivation of the Kinetics Parameters of Polyurethane Foam Using Genetic Algorithms," Fourth Joint Meeting of the US Sections of the Combustion Institute, Philadelphia PA, March 2005.

5. Rein, G., Lautenberger, C. & Fernandez-Pella, A.C., "On the Derivation of Polyurethane Kinetics Parameters Using Genetic Algorithms and its Application to Smoldering Combustion," Fourth International Conference on Computational Heat and Mass Transfer, Paris France, Vol. 1 pp. 578-584, May 2005.

6. Rein, G., Lautenberger, C. & Fernandez-Pella, A.C., "Using Genetic Algorithms to Derive the Parameters of Solid-Phase Combustion from Experiments," 201h International Colloquium on the Dynamics of Explosions and Reactive Systems, Montreal, Canada, August 2005.

7. Rich, D., Lautenberger, C., McAllister, S. & Fernandez-Pella, A.C., "Microgravity Flame Spread Rates Over Samples of Polymer and Polymer/Glass Composites," Western States Sectior,/The Combustion Institute, Boise ID, March 2006.

8. Coles, A., Wolski, A., Lautenberger, C.W., & Dembsey, N.A., "Building Code Requirements for Performance Based Designs and Fire Modeling", Composites 2006, St. Louis, MO, October 2006.

9. Lautenberger, C., McAllister, S., Rich, D., & Fernandez-Pella, C., "Modeling the Effect of Environmental Variables on Opposed-Flow Flame Spread Rates with FDS," International Congress on Fire Sqfety in Tall Buildings, Santander, Spain, October 2006.

10. McAllister, S., Rich, D., Lautenberger, C., & Fernandez-Pella, C., "Modeling Microgravity and Normal Gravity Opposed Flame Spread over Polymer/Glass Composites," 45th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV, January 2007, AIAA Paper 2007-7 40.

11. Lautenberger, C., McAllister, S., Rich, D., & Fernandez-Pella, C., "Effect of Environmental Variables on Flame Spread Rates in Microgravity," 45th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV, January 2007, AIAA Paper 2007-383.

12. Chatterjee, P., de Ris, J.L., & Lautenberger, C.W., "A General Combustion Model for Radiation Dominated Nonpremixed Flames," Fifth International Seminar on Fire and Explosion Hazards, Edinburgh, UK, 2007.

13. McAllister, S., Rich, D., Lautenberger, C., Fernandez-Pella, C. & Yuan, Z.G., "Modeling Microgravity and Normal Gravity Flame Spread Rates over Samples of Polymer and Polymer/Glass Composites," Fifth International Seminar on Fire and Explosion Hazards, Edinburgh, UK, April 2007.

14. Lautenberger, C. & Fernandez-Pella, C., "A Generalized Pyrolysis Model for Combustible Solids," Fifth International Seminar on Fire and Explosion Hazards, Edinburgh, UK, April 2007.

Chris Lautenberger Reax Engineering, Inc. Page 6 oflO

15. Coles, A., Wolski, A., & Lautenberger, C., "Using Fire Dynamics Simulator for Fire Growth Modeling," Interflam 2007, London, UK, September 2007.

16. Dembsey, N., Avila, M., Kim, E., Lautenberger, C., & Dore, C., "Fire Characteristics of Polyester FRP Composites with Different Glass Contents," Composites & Polycon 2007 Tampa, FL, October 2007.

17. Lautenberger, C. & Femandez-Pello, A.C., "Modeling Ignition of Combustible Fuel Beds by Embers and Heated Particles," Forest Fires 2008, 2008.

18. Coles, A., Lautenberger, C., Wolski, A., Smits, B., & Wong, K., "Using Computer Fire Modeling to Reproduce and Predict FRP Composite Fire Performance," Composites & Polycon 2009, 2009.

19. Kim, E., Dembsey, N., & Lautenberger, C., "Parameter Estimation for Pyrolysis Modeling Applied to Polyester FRP Composites with Different Glass Contents," Fire and Materials 2009, 2009.

20. Lautenberger, C., Wong, W., Dembsey, N., Coles, A., & Femandez-Pello, C., "Large-Scale Turbulent Flame Spread Modeling with FDS5 on Charring and Noncharring Materials," Fire and Materials 2009, 2009.

21. Coles, A., Wolski, A., & Lautenberger, C., "Predicting Design Fires in Rail Vehicles," 13th International Symposium on Aerodynamics and Ventilation of Vehicle Tunnels (ISA VVT 13), 2009.

22. Dodd, A.B., Lautenberger, C., & Femandez-Pello, A.C. "Numerical Modeling of Smoldering Combustion and Transition to Flaming," Sixth US National Combustion Meeting, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Ml, 2009.

23. Scott, S, Hadden, R., Fereres, S., Lautenberger, C., & Fernandez-Pello, A.C., "Ignition of Combustible Fuel Beds by Embers and Heated Particles," Western States Section/The Combustion Institute, Irvine, CA, October 2009.

24. Fereres, S., Lautenberger, C., Fernandez-Pello, C., Urban, D., & Ruff, G., "Effect of Ambient Pressure on Mass Loss Rate at Piloted Ignition," Western States Section/The Combustion Institute, Boulder, CO, March 2010.

25. Lautenberger, C., Rich, D., Kramer, M., Fernandez-Pello, C., and Stephens, S., "Communication Infrastructure Provider Assets in the Wildland Setting: CIP Fire Threat Map," June 9, 2010.

26. Lautenberger, C., Wong, W.C., Coles, A., Dembsey, N., & Fernandez-Pello, C., "Comprehensive Data Set for Validation of Fire Growth Models: Experiments and Modeling," Interflam 2010, Nottingham, UK, July 2010.

27. Thiry, A., Suzanne, M., Bellivier, A., Bazin, H., Coppalle, A., & Lautenberger, C., "Different Approaches for Fire Source Modeling-Application to Arcueil Experiments," Interflam 2010, Nottingham, UK, July 2010.

28. Dodd, A., Lautenberger, C., Femandez-Pello, C., & Putzeys, 0., "Examination of the Spontaneous Transition from Smoldering to Flaming: Comparison of Simulations and Experiments," Interflam 2010, Nottingham, UK, July 2010.

29. Fereres, S., Lautenberger, C., Femandez-Pello, C., Ruff, G., & Urban, D., "Modeling the effect of ambient variables on piloted ignition of solid combustible materials," Seventh US National Combustion Meeting, March 2011.

30. Matala, A., Lautenberger, C., & Hostikka, S., "Direct method for estimation of pyrolysis kinetics and comparison to existing methods," Seventh US National Combustion Meeting, March 2011.

31. Lautenberger, C., "Modeling Wildland Fire Spread Using an Eulerian Level Set Method and High Resolution Numerical Weather Prediction," International Congress on Fire Computer Modeling, October 2012, Santander, Spain.

32. Lautenberger, C., Sexton, S., & Rich, D., "Understanding Long Term Low Temperature Ignition of Wood," International Symposium on Fire Investigation Science and Technology, College Park, MD, September 22-24, 2014, p. 361.

33. Zicherman, J., Lautenberger, C., & Wolski, A., "Challenges in Establishing Design Fires for Passenger Rail Vehicles," Proceedings of Fire and Materials 2015, lnterscience Communications, February 2-4 2015, San Francisco, CA, pp. 749 - 764.

Short Courses

1. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories Fire Modeling Short Course - A Short Course Presented to Fire Protection Engineers. Co-taught, with Professor James Milke (University of Maryland) and Professor Frederick Mowrer (California Polytechnic State University), a 3-day short course on fire dynamics and fire modeling for Lawrence Livermore and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories employees (March 20 - 22, 2012).

2. First Asia-Pacific Combustion Institute Summer School-Fundamental Combustion Problems in Fire. Co-taught sessions related to fire science and pyrolysis modelling in Valparaiso, Chile (November 11 -15, 2019).

Chris Lautenberger Reax Engineering, Inc. Page 7 oflO
Selected Presentations and Invited Lectures

1. "A Practical CFD Model for Soot Formation and Flame Radiation," International Co,iference on Engineered Fire Protection Design, San Francisco, CA, June 13, 2001.

2. "Effect of Material Composition on Ignition Delay of Composites," Composites 2003 Convention and Trade Show, Anaheim, CA, October 2, 2003.

3. "Experimental and Theoretical Study on Ignition Delay of Composites," Western States Section of the Combustion institute Fall 2003 Meeting, Los Angeles, CA, October 20, 2003.

4. "Approximate Analytical Solutions for the Transient Mass Loss Rate and Piloted Ignition Time of a Radiatively Heated Solid in the High Heat Flux Limit," The Eighth International Symposium on Fire Sqfety Science, Beijing, China, September 20, 2005.

5. "Effect of Environmental Variables on Flame Spread Rates in Microgravity," 45th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV, January 8, 2007.

6. "Generalized Pyrolysis Model for Combustible Solids," 2007 Annual Fire Co,iference, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, April 4, 2007.

7. "Generalized Pyrolysis Model for Combustible Solids," 5 th International Seminar on Fire and Explosions
Hazards, Edinburgh, UK, April 24, 2007.

8. "Generalized Pyrolysis Model for Combustible Solids," FM Global Research, Norwood, MA, June 19, 2007 (invited seminar).

9. "Pyrolysis Modeling - What Level of Accuracy is Needed to Match Current Gas-Phase Accuracy?," The Ninth International Symposium on Fire Safety Science, Fire Spread Modeling Workshop, Karlsruhe, Germany, September 21, 2008 (invited presentation).

10. "Estimating Material Properties for Numerical Pyrolysis Modeling from Laboratory Experiments," The Ninth International Symposium on Fire Safety Science, Karlsruhe, Germany, September 21, 2008 (invited presentation).

11. "The Role of Decomposition Kinetics in Pyrolysis Modeling - Application to a Fire Retardant Polyester Composite," The Ninth International Symposium on Fire Safety Science, Karlsruhe, Germany, September 26, 2008.

12. "Fire Growth Modeling in Buildings - Where We Are and Where We Need to Be," IIE Seminar, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK, October 30, 2008 (invited seminar).

13. "Some Unsolved Problems in Fire Dynamics: The Needed Physics and Mathematics," Mathematical Problems in Fire Safety Engineering Joint Workshop, Edinburgh, UK, October 31, 2008 (invited seminar).

14. ''Large-Scale Turbulent Flame Spread Modeling with FDS5 on Charring and Noncharring Materials," Fire and Materials 2009, San Francisco, CA, January 26, 2009.

15. "Fire Growth Modeling: Small-Scale Flammability Tests to Large Scale Fire Behavior," ASTM E5 Research Review, Vancouvl')r, BC, June 15, 2009 (invited presentation).

16. "Optimization Algorithms for Material Pyrolysis Property Estimation," The Tenth International Symposium on Fire Safety Science, College Park, MD, June 21, 2011.

17. "The Role of Fire Science, Fire Dynamics, and Fire Modeling in Testing Forensic Fire Investigation Hypotheses," IIE Seminar, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK, August 20, 2012 (invited seminar).

18. "Modeling Wildland Fire Spread Using an Eulerian Level Set Method and High Resolution Numerical Weather Prediction," International Congress on Fire Computer Modeling, October 19, 2012, Santander, Spain.

19. "Gpyro3D: A Three Dimensional Generalized Pyrolysis Model," The Eleventh International Symposium on Fire Safety Science, Christchurch, New Zealand, February 10, 2014.

20. "Understanding Long Term Low Temperature Ignition of Wood," International Symposium on Fire Investigation Science and Technology, College Park, MD, September 22, 2014.

21. "Current Status of Applied Fire Dynamics Simulations," 2015 Northern California/Nevada SFPE Fire Protection Engineering Seminar, San Ramon, CA, April 8, 2015 (invited seminar).

22. "Identifying Areas with Elevated Risk of Large-Scale Structure Loss from Wildland Fires," The J21h International Symposium on Fire Safety Science, Lund, Sweden, June 14, 2017.

23. "Wildfire Modeling and Risk of Potential Structure Loss," 2018 Annual Society of Fire Protection Engineers Greater Atlanta Chapter Fire Safety Co,iference, Duluth, GA, March 14, 2018.

24. "Wildfire Modeling and Risk of Potential Structure Loss," 2018 Northern California/ Nevada Society of Fire Protection Engineers Seminar, San Ramon, CA, March 28, 2018.

25. "Smoke Alarm Failures: Owner/Landlord Responsibility," 2018 Inner Circle of Investigators Seminar, Newpott Beach, CA, October 4, 2018.

26. "California's 2017 Wildfires: What Happened? And Can we Map Areas Where it Could Happen Again?," 2018 Society of Fire Protection Engineers Annual Conference & Expo, Nashville, TN, October 29, 2018.

Chris Lautenberger Reax Engineering, Inc. Page 8 of 10

27. "Applications and Limitations of Current-generation 2D Wildfire Models," National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Large Outdoor Fire Modelling Workshop, Gaithersburg, MD, March 18, 2019.

28. "Automated Real-time Ensemble Fire Forecasting in California," 6 1h International Wildland Fire Behavior and
Fuels Conference, Albuquerque, NM, May 1, 2019.

29. "California's October 2017 Wildfires: What Happened, and Can We Map Areas Where It Could Happen Again?," Society of Fire Protection Engineers Webinar Series, May 13, 2019.

30. Applications and Limitations of Current-generation 2D Wildfire Spread Models in the Utility Sector," California Utility Forecasters Meeting, Irwindale, CA, June 25, 2019.

31. "Mapping Wildland Fire Risk in the Western US Using Fire Modeling and Monte Carlo Simulation," FM Global Research Forum, Norwood, MA, June 28, 2019.

32. "Automated Real-time Ensemble Fire Forecasting in the Continental US," National Academies Workshop:

Modeling and Simulation of Fires, Berkeley, CA, October 7, 2019.

33. "Automated Real-Time Fire Forecasting in California: A Mid-season Assessment," 2019 Society of Fire Protection Engineers Annual Conference & Expo, Phoenix, AZ, October 15, 2019.

34. "Emerging Technologies for Detecting, Mapping, and Forecasting the Spread of Wildfires," 2019 National Wildfire Litigation Conference, Bastrop, TX, October 20, 2019.

35. "Overview ofWildland Fire Science and Basic Methods for Modeling Spread," Environmental Governance and Climate Resilience course, Stanford University, January 21, 2020.

36. "Automated Real-Time Fire Spread and Risk Forecasting," Northwest Hydroelectric Association 2020 Annual Conference, Seattle, WA, February 19, 2020.

Publication and Presentation Awards
• Best Paper Overall at Composites & Polycon 2007, Tampa, FL, October 2007 for Dembsey, N. et al., "Fire Characteristics of Polyester FRP Composites with Different Glass Contents," presented by N. Dembsey. • Best paper (second prize) at the Fifth International Seminar on Fire and Explosion Hazards, Edinburgh, UK, April 2007 for Lautenberger, C. & Fernandez-Pella, C., "Generalized Pyrolysis Model for Simulating Charring, Intumescent, Smoldering, and Noncharring Gasification," presented by C. Lautenberger. • 2011 International Association for Fire Safety Science Best Thesis Award (Americas Region) for 2007 PhD Dissertation entitled "Generalized Pyrolysis Model for Combustible Solids". This IAFSS award recognizes the best research dissertation at the PhD and Masters levels in the field of fire safety science and engineering that was completed between 2007 and 2010.
• International Association for Fire Safety Science Best Paper Award (honorable mention) for 2008 paper entitled "The Role of Decomposition Kinetics in Pyrolysis Modeling - Application to a Fire Retardant Polyester Composite," by Lautenberger, C., Kim, E., Dembsey, N. & Fernandez-Pella, C. [Fire Safety Science 9: 1201-1212 (2008)].
• 2014 Society of Fire Protection Engineer's Jack Bono Award for the paper from Volume 23 of the Journal of Fire Protection Engineering that has most contributed to the advancement and application of professional Fire Protection Engineering for the paper entitled "CFD Flame Spread Model Validation: Multi-component Data Set Framework," by Wong, W., Alston, J., Lautenberger, C., and Dembsey, N., [Journal of Fire Protection Engineering 23: 85-134 (2013)].
• 2017 Philip Thomas Medal ofExcellence. This is awarded to the author(s) of the best paper presented at the previous International Association for Fire Safety Science (IAFSS) Symposium. It is based on five criteria that are used to identify the best paper: pertinence, utility, significance, rationality, and eloquence.

Conference/Journal Advisory Boards/Technical Committees • Associate Editor of Fire Technology, 2014 - present
• Member of Scientific Advisory Board for International Congress on Combustion and Fire Dynamics, Santander, Spain, October 2010
• Member of Technical Program Committee (Compartment Fires) for the Tenth International Symposium on Fire Safety Science (IAFSS Symposium), College Park, MD, June 2011 • Member of Scientific Advisory Board for International Congress on Fire Computer Modeling, Santander, Spain, October 2012
Chris Lautenberger Reax Engineering, Inc. Page 9 of 10
Journal Referee/ Peer Review
• Advances in Engineering Software
• Advances in Materials Science and Engineering
• Applied Thermal Engineering
• Artificial Intelligence Review
• Asia-Oceania Symposium on Fire Science and Technology • Brazilian Journal of Chemical Engineering
• Chemical Engineering Science
• Combustion and Flame
• Combustion Science and Technology
• Construction and Building Materials
• Earth and Space Science
• Ecological Modeling
• Energy & Fuels
• Engineering Science and Technology
• Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science
• Express Polymer Letters
• Fire and Materials
• Fire Safety Journal
• Fire Safety Science (IAFSS Symposia)
• Fire Technology
• Frontiers Mechanical Engineering
• Fuel Processing Technology
• Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
• International Colloquium on the Dynamics of Explosions and Reactive Systems • International Journal of Computational Fluid Dynamics • International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer
• International Journal of Thermal Sciences
• International Journal of Wild/and Fire
• Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems
• Journal of Computational Science
• Journal of Fire Protection Engineering
• Journal of Fire Sciences
• Proceedings of the Combustion Institute
• Science of the Total Environment
• Thermochimica Acta
Chris Lautenberger Reax Engineeiing, Inc. Page 10 of 10 RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
1 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF SANTEE CERTIFYING THE REVISED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH # 2005061118),

INCLUDING THE RECIRCULATED SECTIONS OF THE REVISED EIR, FOR THE FANITA RANCH PROJECT; ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT AND A STATEMENT

OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT; ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM; AND APPROVING THE PROJECT
WHEREAS, on August 25, 2021, the City of Santee adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 592, declaring the need for an Essential Housing Program to boost housing production and improve housing affordability in the City to address and respond to the existing housing crisis in the City of Santee; and
WHEREAS, on August 26, 2021, the City filed a Notice of Exemption in connection with its adoption of Urgency Ordinance No. 592, and no legal challenges were timely filed; and
WHEREAS, on November 29, 2021, the Applicant, HomeFed Fanita Rancho LLC, submitted an Essential Housing Project Application under Urgency Ordinance No. 592 for the Fanita Ranch Project (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, on December 27, 2021, the Director of Development Services certified the Project as an Essential Housing Project as it met the specified criteria in Urgency Ordinance No. 592; and
WHEREAS, on December 27, 2021, the City filed a Notice of Exemption in connection with its certification of the Project as an Essential Housing Project, and no legal challenges were timely filed; and

WHEREAS, the Project proposes a community consisting of approximately 2,949 housing units under a preferred land use plan with school, or 3,008 units under a land use plan without school, up to 80,000 square feet of commercial uses, parks, open space, and agricultural uses; and
WHEREAS, on May 4, 2022, pursuant to Urgency Ordinance No. 592, HomeFed Fanita Rancho LLC submitted the additional application materials for the Project consisting of a Fanita Ranch Development Review Permit DR2022-4, a Vesting Tentative Map TM2022-1, a Preliminary Application under the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (Senate Bill 330), and Conditional Use Permits P2022-1, P2022-2 and P2022-3; and WHEREAS, the Project site has been subject to environmental review and land use planning for the past 40 years; and
WHEREAS, development of the Project site would be clustered into three villages in order to designate approximately 63 percent of the site as Habitat Preserve; and RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
2 WHEREAS, the villages would be arranged around a centralized Farm to support farming and wellness as the theme for Fanita Ranch; and WHEREAS, a Special Use area separated from the rest of the development would be located in the southwestern corner of the site, allowing for a limited range of uses; and WHEREAS, the Project would provide a coordinated system of parks and nonmotorized use trails that would connect to the three villages, regional trails and open space; and
WHEREAS, the Project would improve and construct new segments of three Santee General Plan Mobility Element Roads, namely Fanita Parkway, Cuyamaca Street, and Magnolia Avenue; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21067, State CEQA Guidelines section 15367, and the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, the City is the lead agency for the Project; and
WHEREAS, in 2018, pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines the City determined that a Revised Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) should be prepared in order to analyze all potential adverse environmental impacts of the proposed Project; and

WHEREAS, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines section 15082, on November 10, 2018, the City sent to the Office of Planning and Research and each responsible and trustee agency a Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) stating that a Revised Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse # 2005061118) would be prepared; and
WHEREAS, in the NOP, the City solicited comments from various public agencies, other entities, and members of the public; and
WHEREAS, on November 29, 2018, the City held a public scoping meeting to further solicit comments on the scope of the EIR; and
WHEREAS, a Draft Revised EIR was prepared incorporating comments received in response to the NOP, and it determined that despite the incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures, the proposed Project would nonetheless result in significant and unavoidable impacts; and
WHEREAS, on or about May 29, 2020 the City initiated a 45-day public review and comment period for the Draft Revised EIR ending on July 13, 2020 at 5:00 p.m.; and WHEREAS, on September 23, 2020, the City Council approved the previous version of the Fanita Ranch project and certified the Final Revised EIR (Reso. No. 093- 2020); and
RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
3 WHEREAS, on October 21, 2020, a Petition for Writ of Mandate was filed in the San Diego County Superior Court (Case No. 37-2020-00038168-CU-WM-CTL) challenging the September 23, 2020 decision to approve the previous Fanita Ranch project;
WHEREAS, on March 3, 2022, the Court issued its ruling identifying deficiencies in the Final Revised EIR related to wildfire evacuation; and WHEREAS, on March 25, 2022, the Court entered judgment based on the ruling and issued a writ ordering the City to set aside and vacate all resolutions and approvals pertaining to the previous Fanita Ranch project (the “Judgment”); and WHEREAS, on May 25, 2022, pursuant to the Judgment, the City set aside and vacated in its entirety the previous Fanita Ranch project approvals, including certification of the Final Revised EIR (Reso. No. 070-2022); and
WHEREAS, the City has prepared Recirculated Sections of the Final Revised EIR (“Recirculated Sections”) to correct the deficiencies identified in the Judgment and clarify the Project’s designation as an Essential Housing Project; and WHEREAS, the Recirculated Sections include Section 0, Preface; Section 4.18, Wildfire, and associated technical appendices; portions of Chapter 3.0, Project Description; and portions of Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning; and WHEREAS, on or about June 10, 2022, the City initiated a 45-day public review and comment period for the Recirculated Sections ending on July 25, 2022 at 5:00 p.m.; and
WHEREAS, during the public review and comment period, copies of the Recirculated Sections and technical appendices were available for review and inspection at the City’s Department of Development Services (Building 4), the City Clerk’s Office (Building 3), Santee County Library, and on the City’s website; and WHEREAS, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15086, the City consulted with and requested comments from all responsible and trustee agencies, other regulatory agencies, and others during the 45-day public review and comment period of the Recirculated Sections; and
WHEREAS, during the review and comment period of the Recirculated Sections, the City received three (3) comments from federal and state agencies, one (1) comment from local or regional agencies, five (5) comments from non-government organizations, and 112 comments from individuals; and
WHEREAS, the City has prepared a Final Recirculated Sections of the Final Revised EIR, consisting of the written comments received during the review and comment RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
4 period on the Recirculated Sections; written responses to those comments as well as thematic responses; and an errata showing revisions to the Recirculated Sections and technical appendices in response to comments. The Final Recirculated Sections of the Final Revised EIR will be considered along with the portions of the Final Revised EIR that were not subject to substantive revision. For the purposes of this Resolution, the “EIR” shall refer to the Final Recirculated Sections of the Final Revised EIR, together with the other sections of the Final Revised EIR; and
WHEREAS, after the close of the 45-day public review and comment period, the City continued to receive additional late comments. These late comments have been addressed in the Staff Report for the Project and do not raise any significant environmental issues under State CEQA Guidelines section 15088 beyond what has already been addressed in the Final Recirculated Sections of the Final Revised EIR; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.5, the City provided copies of its responses to timely commenting public agencies at least ten (10) days prior to the City Council’s consideration of the EIR; and WHEREAS, on September 14, 2022, the City Council held a public hearing on the Project, at which all persons wishing to testify were heard; and WHEREAS, the environmental impacts identified in the EIR that the City finds are of no impact or constitute a less than significant impact and do not require mitigation are described in Section II of the CEQA Findings of Fact, attached hereto as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the environmental impacts identified in the EIR as potentially significant but which the City finds can be mitigated to a level of less than significant through the incorporation of feasible Mitigation Measures identified in the EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section III of the CEQA Findings of Fact, attached hereto as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the City finds that even with the incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures, the environmental impacts that are identified in the EIR that are significant and unavoidable are set forth in Section IV of the CEQA Findings of Fact, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the cumulative impacts of the Project identified in the EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section V of the CEQA Findings of Fact, attached hereto as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the significant and irreversible environmental changes that would result from the Project, but which would be largely mitigated, and which are identified in the EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section VI of the CEQA Findings of Fact, attached hereto as Exhibit A; and
RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
5 WHEREAS, the existence of any growth-inducing impacts resulting from the Project identified in the EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section VII of the CEQA Findings of Fact, attached hereto as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, alternatives to the Project that might eliminate or reduce significant environmental impacts are described in Section VIII of the CEQA Findings of Fact, attached hereto as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, because the EIR identified significant and unavoidable impacts, the City Council explains its reasoning for recommending the adoption of the Project despite those impacts in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, as set forth in Section IX of the CEQA Findings of Fact, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program setting forth the mitigation measures to which the City shall bind itself in connection with adopting the Project is attached hereto as Exhibit B; and
WHEREAS, as contained herein, the City has endeavored in good faith to set forth the basis for its decision on the Project; and
WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the City Council has heard, been presented with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record, including the EIR, and all oral and written evidence presented to it during all meetings and hearings; and
WHEREAS, the EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council and is deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the Project; and WHEREAS, the City has not received any comments or additional information that constitute substantial new information requiring recirculation of the EIR or any portion thereof under Public Resources Code section 21092.1 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5; and
WHEREAS, all the requirements of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City’s Local CEQA Guidelines have been satisfied by the City in the EIR, which is sufficiently detailed so that all of the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project have been adequately evaluated; and
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Santee City Council, after considering the evidence presented at the public hearing, as follows:

SECTION 1: RECITALS
RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
6 The recitals above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Resolution by reference as findings of fact.

SECTION 2: CEQA COMPLIANCE
As the decision-making body for the City, and in the City’s role as lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.), the City Council has reviewed and considered the information relating to the Project contained within the EIR and all supporting documentation, together with all oral and written comments received during the public review process, and all other related documents, which are available at City Hall and which are incorporated by reference herein. The City Council finds that the EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City. The City Council further finds that the EIR contains a complete and accurate reporting of environmental impacts associated with the Project, and was prepared in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City’s Local CEQA Guidelines. The City Council further finds and declares that the City has not received any evidence of new significant impacts, as defined by State CEQA Guidelines, section 15088.5, after circulation of the EIR which would require recirculation. No substantial changes to the Project have occurred that would require a supplemental or subsequent EIR.

SECTION 3: FINDINGS OF FACT
In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines, sections 15091 and 15093, the City Council hereby adopts the Environmental Findings of Fact attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth herein.

SECTION 4: CERTIFICATION OF EIR
In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines, sections 15090, the City Council hereby certifies that:

A. The EIR is an accurate and objective statement that has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines.

B. The City Council has been presented with and has reviewed and considered the information contained in the EIR prior to approving the Project.

C. The EIR reflects the City Council’s independent judgment and analysis.

SECTION 5: MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the City Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference. The City Council finds that the MMRP is designed to ensure that, during the implementation of the Project, the City and RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
7 any other responsible parties implement the components of the Project and comply with the mitigation measures identified in the MMRP. To the extent there is any conflict between the MMRP, the EIR, or the Findings of Fact, the terms and provisions of the MMRP shall control.

SECTION 6: APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT
Based upon the entire record before the City Council and the findings set forth herein, the City Council of the City of Santee approves the proposed Project.

SECTION 7: RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this Resolution has been based are located at City Hall, 10601 N. Magnolia Avenue, Santee, CA 92071. The custodian of the record of proceedings is the Department of Development Services.

SECTION 8: NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
The City Council hereby directs staff to prepare and file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk of the County of San Diego within five working days of the execution of this Resolution and approval of the Project and with the Office of Planning and Research.

ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Santee, California, at a Regular Meeting thereof held this 14th day of September, 2022 by the following roll call vote to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:

JOHN W. MINTO, MAYOR
ATTEST:

ANNETTE ORTIZ, MBA, CMC, CITY CLERK
Attachments:Exhibit A Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
8 Exhibit B Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
9 EXHIBIT A

FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS SECTION I: INTRODUCTION
Public Resources Code section 21002 states that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]” Section 21002 further states that the procedures required by CEQA “are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects.” Pursuant to section 21081 of the Public Resources Code, a public agency may only approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been completed that identifies any significant environmental effects if the agency makes one or more of the following written finding(s) for each of those significant effects accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding:

1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.

2. Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency.

3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.

As indicated above, section 21002 requires an agency to “avoid or substantially lessen” significant adverse environmental impacts. Thus, mitigation measures that “substantially lessen” significant environmental impacts, even if not completely avoided, satisfy section 21002’s mandate. (Laurel Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 521 [“CEQA does not mandate the choice of the environmentally best feasible project if through the imposition of feasible mitigation measures alone the appropriate public agency has reduced environmental damage from a project to an acceptable level”]; Las Virgenes Homeowners Fed., Inc. v. County of Los Angeles (1986) 177 Cal. App. 3d 300, 309 [“[t]here is no requirement that adverse impacts of a project be avoided completely or reduced to a level of insignificance . . . if such would render the project unfeasible”].)
While CEQA requires that lead agencies adopt feasible mitigation measures or alternatives to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts, an agency need not adopt infeasible mitigation measures or alternatives. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002.1(c) [if “economic, social, or other conditions make it infeasible to mitigate one or RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
10 more significant effects on the environment of a project, the project may nonetheless be carried out or approved at the discretion of a public agency”]; see also State CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.6(a) [an “EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible”].) CEQA defines “feasible” to mean “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21061.1.) The State CEQA Guidelines add “legal” considerations as another indicia of feasibility. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15364.) Project objectives also inform the determination of “feasibility.” (Jones v. U.C. Regents (2010) 183 Cal. App. 4th 818, 828-829.) “‘[F]easibility’ under CEQA encompasses ‘desirability’ to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.” (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 401, 417; see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715.) “Broader considerations of policy thus come into play when the decision making body is considering actual feasibility[.]” (Cal. Native Plant Soc’y v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 1000 (“Native Plant”); see also Pub.

Resources Code, § 21081(a)(3) [“economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations” may justify rejecting mitigation and alternatives as infeasible] (emphasis added).)
Environmental impacts that are less than significant do not require the imposition of mitigation measures. (Leonoff v. Monterey County Board of Supervisors (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1337, 1347.)
The California Supreme Court has stated, “[t]he wisdom of approving . . . any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced.” (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 576.) In addition, perfection in a project or a project’s environmental alternatives is not required; rather, the requirement is that sufficient information be produced “to permit a reasonable choice of alternatives so far as environmental aspects are concerned.” Outside agencies (including courts) are not to “impose unreasonable extremes or to interject [themselves] within the area of discretion as to the choice of the action to be taken.” (Residents Ad Hoc Stadium Com. v. Board of Trustees (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 274, 287.)
SECTION II: FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS NOT

REQUIRING MITIGATION
The City Council hereby finds that the following potential environmental impacts of the Project are less than significant and therefore do not require the imposition of Mitigation Measures.

A. AESTHETICS
RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
11 1. Scenic Vistas
Threshold: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Finding: Less than significant. (EIR, § 4.1.5.1.)
Explanation: The Santee General Plan Community Enhancement Element describes numerous topographic features in the City and the surrounding vicinity as providing distinctive views and vistas from developed portions of the City. Although the Santee General Plan does not designate specific scenic vistas in the City, the major ridgeline and hillside systems provided by undeveloped areas of the northern portion of the City, including the project site, present a large portion of the views and vistas in the City. Jurisdictions outside of the City surrounding the project site, such as the County’s Lakeside Community Plan, do not designate scenic vistas in the viewshed of the project site.

To show the changes in key views and describe the visibility of the proposed project from surrounding areas and potential scenic vistas, visual simulations were prepared using photographs of the project site and computer-generated, three-dimensional project modeling (Visual Impact Group 2020).

Sixteen key vantage points were analyzed and the proposed project’s design would retain most of the major ridgelines and landform features on the project site visible from public viewpoints, and the surrounding topography would be retained. This would allow for the continued screening of views into much of the proposed project from throughout the City and adjacent public view areas.

Additionally, the proposed project would comply with the design recommendations set forth by the City through the development review process, which ensures development projects adhere to the City’s design principles. Further, there are no designated scenic vistas on or around the project site. Therefore, development of the proposed project would not obstruct or detract from a designated scenic vista. Impacts would be less than significant.

2. Scenic Resources
Threshold: Would the Project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
Finding: Less than significant. (EIR, § 4.1.5.2.)
Explanation: SR-52 is a state designated scenic highway which runs in an east– RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
12 west direction approximately 1.8 mile south of the southern project site boundary. The approximately 3.5-mile segment from Santo Road east to Mast Boulevard within the City of San Diego was officially designated as a state scenic highway in February 2016 (Caltrans 2017). Due to its distance and intervening topography, future project development would not be seen from this location. To demonstrate this, three locations were studied along this designated segment as part of the visual simulation effort for the proposed project. As part of that effort, all three locations were determined to have no view of the project site. Consequently, the proposed project would not alter views from within the rights-of-way of a designated or eligible state scenic highway. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a significant impact associated with views from scenic highways.

3. Visual Character
Threshold: In non-urbanized areas, would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public view of the site and its surroundings?
Finding: Less than significant. (EIR, § 4.1.5.3.)
Explanation: Visual Character. Sixteen key vantage points (KVPs) were analyzed depicting various existing and proposed condition views surrounding the project site and the off-site improvement areas. The proposed project would alter the existing aesthetic characteristics of the project site from a variety of vantage points within the City and adjacent areas. As demonstrated by the representative KVPs, changes in the project site’s aesthetic appearance would be visible from public vantage points located adjacent to the project site on the south, west, and east; recreational areas such as Santee Lakes Recreation Preserve and Stowe Trail; and major roadways such as SR-125, Fanita Parkway, Cuyamaca Street, and Magnolia Avenue.

As illustrated with the KVPs, some existing residences and user groups would be affected by the proposed landform alteration and site development. The KVP that displays the largest potential change in visual character is KVP-15, which shows a view looking south onto the project site from the Stowe Trail. This KVP shows the proposed Active Adult neighborhood and, due to close proximity to the existing trail, reveals considerable views of the development. However, the proposed landscaping and revegetated slopes would screen much of this development and allow it to blend in with the surrounding existing environment. In addition, the proposed project proposes to grade this area in accordance with Hillside Development Guidelines (Policy 1.3 of the Conservation Element of the Santee General Plan RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
13 [City of Santee 2003]), which require contour grading and clustering of development to minimize the grading footprint. The resulting revegetated slopes would blend in with the native landscape and further act as wildfire buffers to the community.

Due to uneven topography and the far distances from the proposed village development area to the nearest off-site receptors, it is difficult to distinguish the proposed development along most ridgelines. In addition, the proposed project’s design would retain most of the major ridgelines and landform features on the project site’s periphery, which would allow for the continued screening of views into much of the proposed project from throughout the City and adjacent areas. The changes in views due to the extension of Fanita Parkway, and the off-site improvements to Cuyamaca Street and Magnolia Avenue have been anticipated as part of the Santee General Plan Circulation Element roadway improvements. These improvements would be enhanced through the use of natural vegetation, landscaping, and revegetated manufactured slopes.

Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on the visual character or quality of the area.

Landform Alteration. Sensitive landforms are natural landforms that are unique or contribute to the character of a site. The Santee General Plan Conservation Element (City of Santee 2003) identifies two main topographic landforms that exist in the City, one being the Peninsular Range, which traverses much of the project site. Policies within the Conservation Element call for significant natural landforms to be maintained during development whenever possible. To protect and wisely manage hillsides and topographic resources, the City lays out specific hillside development guidelines.

Construction of the proposed project would involve extensive excavation and grading into the native terrain. Earthwork would involve approximately 27 million cubic yards of cut and fill materials, which would be balanced on site (Figure 3-16, Conceptual Cut and Fill Plan, in Chapter 3, Project Description). Construction would include cuts up to 165 feet and fills up to 142 feet. The site would be graded into development pads using a maximum 2:1 slope ratio for fill slopes and a maximum 1.5:1 for cut slopes, which is a requirement of the Santee Municipal Code, Section 11.40.320, and to closely mimic the interval of the natural contours. The Special Use area has been previously graded and no significant grading or introduction of water into the soil is proposed.

While the proposed project would generally preserve the existing contours of the landforms where feasible for development, the proposed project includes considerable grading into steeply sloped RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
14 areas. Some of the largest differences from the existing grade would occur with the development of a Neighborhood Park and multi-family residences in the central area of Orchard Village and Low Density Residential in southern and central areas of Vineyard Village. The prominent hilltop in Fanita Commons would be preserved within the planned Community Park. These large cut and fill slopes, as identified on the Vesting Tentative Map, that are visible from the public rights-of-way would utilize landform grading techniques to recreate and mimic the flow of natural contours and drainages within the natural surroundings. Where development is proposed on hillsides, grading would be efficient to minimize the grading footprint.

Special contour grading techniques would be utilized at edges and transitions in landform. In addition, the proposed extensions of Fanita Parkway and Cuyamaca Street into the village development area would be designed to preserve natural hillsides and rock outcroppings and follow the existing slopes and landforms to the extent possible.

Manufactured slopes along the edges of the development footprint, primarily visible along the northern village development area of Vineyard Village and at the proposed extensions of Cuyamaca Street and Magnolia Avenue, would be revegetated with natural vegetation to restore the native habitat and blend with the existing environment, further limiting the visibility of the landform alteration of these areas.

These slopes, some of which are highly visible from public rights-ofway, are identified in the Fanita Ranch Development Plan as “public interest” slopes. During construction, these slopes would be temporarily devoid of vegetation; however, they would be revegetated and landscaped in compliance with the Santee Municipal Code, Chapter 12.26, Landscape and Irrigation Regulations, and the Guidelines for Implementation of the City of Santee Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (2017). Therefore, by complying with the policies in the Santee General Plan and the requirements of the Santee Municipal Code, as well as adhering to the guidelines set forth in the Fanita Ranch Development Plan, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact associated with landform alteration.

4. Lighting and Glare
Threshold: Would the proposed project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views? Finding: Less than significant. (EIR, § 4.1.5.4.)
Explanation: Implementation of the proposed project would result in the development of new structures that would have the potential to RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
15 increase sources of light or glare. The proposed new development would take place in currently undeveloped areas, and potential new sources of light would include exterior building illumination, sports field lighting, Special Use area security lighting, residential lighting, parking lots, new landscaped areas, and new roadway lighting. New sources of glare could result from reflective building surfaces or the headlights of vehicular traffic.

During the day, lighting has limited potential to impact views.

Potential impacts from glare would primarily occur from the sun reflecting off reflective building surfaces. Daytime views that are subject to a substantial amount of new glare may be significantly impacted. However, the proposed project would not include the implementation of large, uninterrupted expanses of glass or any other highly reflective material. The Special Use area would include space for approximately 18.4 acres of photovoltaic solar panels atop an RV/boat storage area, which could result in potential glare impacts to surrounding residents. However, photovoltaic solar panels are designed to absorb light, not reflect it, and would be coated with anti-reflective materials to maximize light absorption. In addition, solar panels face upward resulting in a small likelihood of directly affecting nearby residents on the ground. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in substantial glare that would adversely affect daytime views in the area.

Sensitive views of the night sky could be impacted from new light and glare in a previously undeveloped area. The proposed project would include 2,949 residences with a school, or 3,008 residences without a school, commercial uses, parks, open space, agriculture uses, and a network of streets with off-site roadway improvements. In addition, yellow flashing beacons with advisory speed signs would be situated along the proposed extension of Magnolia Avenue to alert drivers of steep roadway grades and to reduce speed. These lighted beacons would be directed away from existing residences and comply with the standards in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Chapter 4L (Caltrans 2014). The increase in light and glare from the implementation of the proposed project would have a potentially significant impact to views of the night sky. The proposed project would be replacing a natural backdrop with a large residential development with exterior building illumination, sports field lighting, residential lighting, parking lots, new landscaped areas, and new roadway lighting.

To minimize the impacts of lighting and glare as a result of new development, the proposed project has prepared a Conceptual Lighting Plan as part of the Fanita Ranch Development Plan. The Conceptual Lighting Plan provides general lighting design guidance RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
16 for streets, pathways, common open space, recreation areas, buildings, special accent lighting, and sign illumination. One of the primary goals of the Conceptual Lighting Plan is to reduce or eliminate light pollution by utilizing low glare and full cutoff light fixtures, lower wattage luminaires, and lighting controls to create a “Dark Sky” friendly community. This would be achieved by designing lighting according to use; prohibiting certain types of light sources; using appropriate shielding and direction of lighting sources; and enforcing lighting curfews for certain uses. Outdoor lighting would be designed and placed to efficiently direct light downward, particularly lighting for streets and parking areas. All outdoor lighting would be shielded to confine light within the site and prevent glare onto adjacent properties, the Habitat Preserve, riparian areas, and streets.

The Conceptual Lighting Plan for the proposed project states specific requirements for lighting within or adjacent to the Habitat Preserve and other environmentally sensitive areas. These requirements would prohibit lighting in or adjacent to conserved habitat, except where essential for roadway use, facility use, safety, or security purposes; use of low-pressure sodium illumination sources or other similar technology; would not use low-voltage outdoor or trail lighting, spotlights or bug lights; and would shield light sources adjacent to conserved habitat so that the lighting is focused downward.

Proposed Streets “V” and “W” would traverse the Habitat Preserve to connect Fanita Commons and Orchard Village with Vineyard Village. These streets would be designed to include wildlife crossings and use retroreflective pavement markers and touch-activated lighted bollards, instead of conventional lighting, to allow for the safe crossing of automobiles and wildlife while minimizing excessive light pollution on adjacent uses.

In addition, the anticipated development of the proposed project would be required to comply with the lighting guidelines of the Santee General Plan and the City Zoning Ordinance (Title 13 of the Santee Municipal Code) to assure that the proposed project would not include nuisance lighting. Therefore, by complying with the City Zoning Ordinance, guidelines in the Santee General Plan, and adhering to the requirements set forth in the Conceptual Lighting Plan designed for the proposed project, the proposed project’s potential to create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area would be less than significant.

B. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES
RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
17 1. Farmland Conversion
Threshold: Would the Project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide significance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
Finding: No impact. (EIR, § 5.1.1.)
Explanation: Pursuant to the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, the project site is designated as Grazing Land. Grazing Land is defined as “land on which the existing vegetation is suited to the grazing of livestock” (DOC 2020).

California Public Resources Code, Section 21060.1, defines agricultural land as “prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance, or unique farmland.” Soils on the project site have been mapped by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (2020) and consist predominantly of portions of three soil series: Redding, Diablo, and Linne. The Redding and Diablo soils are the most common on site.

The Linne soil is generally limited to smaller areas throughout the project site. Redding soil is composed of gravelly loamy soils that have a gravelly clay subsoil and a hardpan, while Diablo and Linne soils consist chiefly of deep clay loams derived from soft, calcareous sandstones and shale. The above soils do not meet the criteria for prime farmland or soils of statewide importance outlined in the U.S.

Department of Agriculture’s land inventory and monitoring program for San Diego area (2020). The project site does not support prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance.

Therefore, the proposed project would not impact classified farmland, either directly or indirectly, or result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. As such, no impact would occur to prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance.

2. Agricultural Zoning
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
Finding: No impact. (EIR, § 5.1.1.)
Explanation: As shown on the City’s Zoning District Map (2017), no lands zoned for agricultural use are on the project site. The project site is zoned as Planned Development (PD). Further, the project site is not in the vicinity of any lands zoned for agricultural use. No lands affected by the proposed project are currently under a Williamson Act contract.

Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on a RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
18 Williamson Act contract property or conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use.

3. Forest Land
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)?
Threshold: Would the Project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Threshold: Would the Project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to nonforest use? Finding: No impact. (EIR, § 5.1.1.)
Explanation: The project site does not support prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance and would not involve other changes in the existing environment, which would result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. In addition, the City has no designated forest land or timberland within its boundaries.

The project site is not zoned for timberland production and is not in proximity to any lands zoned as Forest Land. The land area affected by the proposed project does not support forest land or timberland resources or operations. Therefore, no impact would occur from project implementation with regard to conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land or timberland, and the proposed project would not result in the potential loss or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.

C. AIR QUALITY

1. Other Adverse Emissions
Threshold: Would the Project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Finding: Less than significant. (EIR, § 4.2.5.4.)
Explanation: Heavy-duty equipment on the project site during construction would emit odors, primarily from equipment exhaust. However, the construction activity would cease to occur after individual construction is completed in a given area. Generally, construction RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
19 would be separate from existing receptors by hundreds of feet due to the distance of the nearest off-site residences to the village development areas. Additionally, emissions of SOx, the pollutant most associated with odors, would be minimal. Therefore, impacts during construction would be less than significant.

Following construction, operation of the proposed agricultural areas (specifically the Farm) could release localized odors. However, localized odors would generally be confined to the Agriculture Overlay zone on the project site and would dissipate quickly beyond the limits of the Farm based on typical agricultural operations. An extensive animal husbandry operation is not proposed and would not be accommodated within the Farm; therefore, the potential to generate odors would be low. The remaining proposed commercial and residential uses are not typical sources of nuisance odors.

Although not an impact under CEQA, as an impact of the
environment on the proposed project, it is noted that operation of the proposed project would require implementation of Conditional Use Permit measures at the Padre Dam Municipal Water District (PDMWD) Ray Stoyer Water Recycling Facility (WRF) located on Fanita Parkway west of the project site. The existing Conditional Use Permit for the PDMWD Ray Stoyer WRF contains measures that require implementation once the proposed project is constructed.

These measures include the use of an odor scrubber to limit hydrogen sulfide, the replacement of the existing primary clarifier system with a chemical scrubbing system, the covering of all zones of the biological nutrient removal basins, the installation of additional chemical scrubbers, and the installation of an additional SO2 neutralization system at the dechlorination building (Helix 2015).

Therefore, objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people would not occur because of the proposed project. This impact would be less than significant.

D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

1. Local Policies and Ordinances
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Finding: Less than significant. (EIR, § 4.3.5.5.)
Explanation: The City of Santee’s Urban Forestry Ordinance contains tree-related policies, regulations, and generally accepted standards for planting, RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
20 trimming, and removing trees on public property and public rights-ofway (Santee Municipal Code, Section 8.06 [City of Santee 2020]).

The ordinance gives the City control of all trees, shrubs, and other plantings in any street, park, public right-of-way, landscape maintenance district or easement, or other City-owned property. City review of development plans for the City-owned and maintained property would ensure that the proposed landscaping and maintenance requirements conform to the Urban Forestry
Ordinance. Therefore, the proposed project would comply with the Urban Forestry Ordinance, and impacts would be less than significant.

In the Conservation Element of the Santee General Plan, biological resources are discussed and specific objectives and policies are presented. The proposed project does not conflict with any objectives or policies as presented in the Conservation Element of the Santee General Plan. Impacts would be less than significant.

2. Habitat Conservation Plans
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Finding: Less than significant. (EIR, § 4.3.5.6.)
Explanation: The City is actively preparing its Draft MSCP Subarea Plan. The Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan would implement the MSCP Subregional Plan and is intended to result in issuance to the City of federal and state authorizations (permits) for the take of certain listed threatened or endangered species. These authorizations would be granted to the City by USFWS and CDFW pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act and Section 2835 of the California Natural Community Conservation Planning Act, respectively. The City, in turn, may then extend the take authorizations to public and private projects within its jurisdiction, as long as those biological resources are adequately conserved by the Santee MSCP Subarea Plan and the projects are consistent with and covered by the provisions of the Santee MSCP Subarea Plan.

The proposed project design is consistent with the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan through specific adherence to conditions of coverage and mitigation/conveyance requirements for hardline Covered Projects as defined in the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan (City of Santee 2018). The proposed project would not compromise continued implementation of the MSCP in the County or other cities because their Subarea Plans do not rely on the City of Santee for RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
21 coverage of any species. Furthermore, the current project footprint has been reduced from the previous development hardline footprint identified in the approved 1998 MSCP Plan (City of San Diego 1998).

A large development bubble in the southern portion site from the 1998 project design was removed, increasing the size of the current Habitat Preserve by more than 200 acres. Development of the proposed project would contribute 1,650.4 acres to the targeted 171,917 acres within the MHPA for conservation (City of San Diego 1998). Therefore, implementation of the current project design would be consistent with the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan and would not compromise future implementation of the MSCP Subarea Plan within the City of Santee because the current project meets all requirements and provides a greater level of conservation than required for the Santee MSCP Subarea Plan pursuant to the MSCP Plan.

The proposed project comprises the Fanita Ranch Subunit of the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan. The Santee General Plan, including its Conservation Element, and the NCCP Enrollment Agreement executed by the City require that any development in the City comply with the Draft MSCP Subarea Plan. This requirement applies to the proposed project and all other development that would impact biological resources in the City.

Therefore, the proposed project’s consistency with the MSCP Subarea Plan would be ensured by the City, and impacts related to consistency with habitat conservation plans (HCPs) would be less than significant.

E. CULTURAL RESOURCES

1. Historical Resources
Threshold: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, section 15064.5?
Finding: Less than significant. (EIR, § 4.4.5.1.)
Explanation: The Cultural Resources Phase I Survey Report evaluated one potential historic resource, the Stowe Trail, which runs through the very western edge of the area of potential effect (APE) and connects the City of Santee with the City of Poway. Atkins was unable to locate any documentation specifying the precise length or boundaries of the Stowe Trail. However, historical U.S. Geological Survey maps suggest it is quite short, extending approximately 1 mile north of Stowe to intersect with other trails. The dirt road was of local RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
22 importance to Stowe, a small ranching community in northern Sycamore Canyon (north of the project site), in the latter half of the nineteenth century. The dirt road had likely fallen out of use by 1942.

Although this dirt road was locally important for several decades, no historic artifacts were observed during the pedestrian survey. It is likely that modern activity, including road maintenance, entirely replaced the original road surface and has disturbed or obscured any subsurface historic or prehistoric cultural materials. For these reasons, this section of the dirt road is unlikely to contain cultural deposits and was recommended not eligible to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), or any local designation because it lacks the integrity necessary to convey its historic significance. Therefore, the proposed project’s impact to this site would be less than significant.

No other historic resources were observed on site or identified through records searches or archival research. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. Impacts are less than significant.

F. ENERGY

1. Wasteful Use of Energy
Threshold: Would the Project result in a potentially significant impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
Finding: Less than significant. (EIR, § 4.5.5.1.)
Explanation: Construction. Construction of the proposed project would result in temporary energy consumption and one-time, non-recoverable energy costs associated with construction of structures, utilities, and roadways. Energy consumption as a result of construction of the proposed project would primarily consist of the consumption of fossil fuels as a result of use of off-road construction equipment, movement of soil, and use of on-road vehicles for worker commuting and vendors.

As shown in EIR Tables 4.5-5 and 4.5-6 of the EIR, peak total daily energy consumption from on- and off-road sources would be approximately 1,855 MMBtu per day and would occur during Phase

1. The transportation fuel consumption in California is approximately

2.9 billion MMBtu per year, or approximately 7.8 million MMBtu per day. The proposed project would result in an increase in temporary indirect energy consumption compared to energy consumption RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
23 without project construction. However, this level of energy consumption would be negligible at the regional level (approximately

0.03 percent of statewide transportation fuel consumption) and would be a one-time use during project construction. Construction of the proposed project would not include unusual construction practices that would result in wasteful or inefficient consumption of energy compared to typical construction. Therefore, construction of the proposed project would not cause a significant temporary energy impact during construction. This impact would be less than significant.

Operation:

Electricity. The proposed project’s estimated electricity consumption and renewable energy generation were calculated for project operation. EIR Table 4.5-7 provides estimated energy consumption with and without implementation of the mitigation measures required to reduce air quality and GHG emissions in Sections 4.2 and 4.7, respectively. Specifically, Mitigation Measure AIR-8 would reduce energy use, and Mitigation Measure GHG-1 requires generation of renewable energy on the project site. The annual electricity consumption of the proposed project with Mitigation Measures AIR7, GHG-4, and GHG-6 would be higher than without mitigation measures due to the electricity consumption by electric vehicles (EVs) and all-electric residences. However, mitigation would include on-site renewable electricity generation (Mitigation Measure GHG-1) that would offset the higher electricity consumption of the proposed project.

The U.S. Census Bureau reported that, in 2017, the total population in the County was 3,325,468 (U.S. Census Bureau 2020). The proposed project is anticipated to generate a service population of approximately 8,424 people under the preferred land use plan with school, or 8,345 people under the land use plan without school, which is equal to approximately 0.3 percent of the County’s total population. The proposed project would be home to approximately

0.3 percent of the County’s population but would consume approximately 0.15 percent of the County’s total electricity consumption without any mitigation and 0.06 percent of the County’s total electricity consumption when on-site renewable generation is taken into account. Therefore, before mitigation, the proposed project’s electricity consumption per person would be efficient compared to its proportion of the County’s population and would not result in significant environmental impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. The implementation of the air quality and GHG mitigation measures RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
24 further improves the proposed project’s energy efficiency by decreasing its proportion of energy consumption in the County.

Additionally, with implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1, the proposed project would generate renewable energy on site. By buildout, the proposed project would generate approximately 20,472,039 kilowatt-hours (kWh) and 20,378,877 kWh of electricity per year from distributed photovoltaic solar electric generation on site, under the preferred land use plan with school and land use plan without school, respectively, which is equal to approximately 63 percent of the total electricity demand. The on-site generation of renewable energy would reduce the project’s percent of County 2017 energy consumption to 0.06 percent. Therefore, the proposed project’s operational electricity impacts would be less than significant.

Natural Gas. Natural gas consumption was estimated for the preferred land use plan with school and the land use plan without school and with and without implementation of the mitigation measures required to reduce air quality and GHG emissions.

Specifically, Mitigation Measure GHG-4 requires all-electric residences, which would substantially reduce natural gas consumption. These mitigation measures are not required to reduce energy consumption but would have the added benefit of reducing natural gas consumption. EIR Table 4.5-8 of the EIR provides estimated natural gas use at project buildout with and without mitigation measures required for air quality and GHG impacts.

At full buildout, without mitigation, the proposed project would result in an annual natural gas consumption of approximately 60,889 MMBtu and 62,329 MMBtu under the preferred land use plan with school and the land use plan without school, respectively, which is approximately 0.13 percent of the County’s total natural gas consumption of 48,000,000 MMBtu in 2017. Because the population of the proposed project would be approximately 0.3 percent of the County’s total population, and its natural gas consumption would be

0.13 percent, the proposed project’s natural gas consumption would be efficient compared to its population. This impact would be less than significant prior to implementation of mitigation measures for air quality and GHG emissions impacts. However, with implementation of all-electric residences (Mitigation Measure GHG-4), natural gas use on the project site would be further reduced to approximately

0.04 percent of the County’s total consumption under the preferred land use plan with school and 0.03 percent for the land use plan without school. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant environmental impact due to the wasteful, inefficient, or RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
25 unnecessary consumption of natural gas. This impact would be less than significant.

Petroleum. EIR Table 4.5-9 of the EIR shows the annual petroleum demand at full buildout of the proposed project under the preferred land use plan with school and the land use plan without school and with and without the transportation demand management mitigation measure (Mitigation Measure AIR-6). The mitigation measure is not required to reduce energy use but would have the added benefit of reducing fuel consumption. The petroleum consumption estimate at the state level is available for comparison to the proposed project’s petroleum consumption estimate. The proposed project would consume approximately 0.01 percent of the state’s total petroleum consumption. The U.S. Census Bureau reported that, in 2018, the total population in California was 39,557,045 (U.S. Census Bureau 2020). The proposed project is anticipated to generate a service population of approximately 8,424 people under the preferred land use plan with school, or 8,345 people under the land use plan without school, which is equal to approximately 0.02 percent of the state’s total population. Therefore, the proposed project’s petroleum consumption would be efficient compared to its proportion of the state population and would not result in a significant environmental impact due to the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Impacts related to petroleum consumption would be less than significant.

2. Energy Efficiency Plans
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Finding: Less than significant. (EIR, § 4.5.5.2.)
Explanation: Energy use on the project site during construction would be temporary, and energy use associated with operation of the proposed project would be relatively small in comparison to the state’s and County’s available energy sources. It would also be efficient compared to the proposed project’s estimated proportion of the state’s and County’s population. In addition, on-site renewable energy generation (Mitigation Measure GHG-1) combined with allelectric residences (Mitigation Measure GHG-4) would significantly reduce the energy usage associated with operation of the proposed project. Because the proposed project’s per capita energy consumption would be less than the state or County level for the same resource, the proposed project would not conflict with California’s energy conservation plans as described in the California Energy Commission’s (CEC) 2019 Integrated Energy Policy Report RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
26 (IEPR). Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. This impact would be less than significant.

G. GEOLOGY AND SOILS

1. Fault Rupture, Seismic Groundshaking, and Seismic-Related Ground Failure Threshold: Would the Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault; strong seismic ground shaking; seismic-related ground failure including liquefaction; or landslides?
Finding: Less than significant. (EIR, § 4.6.5.1.)
Explanation: Fault Rupture. The geotechnical investigations prepared for the proposed project indicated that no known active, potentially active, or inactive faults are on the project site or in off-site improvement areas. In addition, the proposed project is not on the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map. The nearest known active faults are the Newport-Inglewood Fault and Rose Canyon Fault Zone, both located approximately 15 miles west of the project site. As a result, ground surface rupture is not likely to occur due to an earthquake or seismic event. Due to the distance of these faults from the project site, the proposed project is not anticipated to be at risk from ground surface rupture at these faults. In addition, all new structures associated with the proposed project would be constructed in compliance with the 2019 CBC or most current code at the time of construction. Therefore, because no active faults are located on or near the project site and project construction would comply with the CBC, implementation of the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact associated with the rupture of a known earthquake fault.

Ground Shaking. The project site is located in a seismically active area that has the potential to experience strong ground shaking.

Ground shaking has the potential to dislodge objects from walls, ceilings, and shelves and to damage and destroy buildings and other structures. People in the area would be exposed to these hazards.

The proposed project would minimize hazards associated with damage or destruction to buildings and other structures through compliance with the CBC, which includes specific structural seismic safety provisions. Given the proposed project’s compliance with the RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
27 CBC, impacts associated with ground shaking would be less than significant.

Liquefaction. Soil liquefaction typically occurs when loose, saturated, and relatively cohesionless soil deposits found below the water table lose strength during strong seismic ground motions. Seismically induced soil liquefaction is a phenomenon in which loose to medium dense, saturated granular materials undergo matrix rearrangement, develop high pore water pressure, and lose shear strength due to cyclic ground vibrations induced by earthquakes. Due to the relatively high density and grain-size distribution characteristics of the fill and formational materials at the project site, and the absence of a permanent water table in the proposed development area, the risk of seismically induced soil liquefaction occurring at the project site is very low. In addition, due to the dense formational material encountered, lack of significant deposits of saturated soils that could be susceptible to liquefaction, and compliance with the CBC, liquefaction occurrence at the off-site improvement areas is also low.

Therefore, impacts related to liquefaction would be less than significant.

Landslides. The stability and potential impacts of ancient landslides located on the project site and off-site improvement areas were evaluated in the geotechnical investigations prepared for the proposed project. The geotechnical investigations found that landslide instability due to seismic ground shaking is not anticipated and that there are no known ancient landslides within the Friars Formation in the County that have reactivated due to natural causes.

Therefore, the potential for seismically induced landslides occurring on the project site is low. Impacts would be less than significant.

2. Septic Tanks
Threshold: Would the Project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Finding: No impact. (EIR, § 4.6.5.5.)
Explanation: The proposed project proposes connections to existing sewer lines within the City. No septic systems or other alternative wastewater disposal systems are proposed. Therefore, no impact would occur.

H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

1. Hazardous Materials
RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
28 Threshold: Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Finding: Less than significant. (EIR, § 4.8.5.1.)
Explanation: Construction. Project construction activities could result in the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials such as fuels, grease, and lubricants for construction equipment and vehicle use, asphalt during roadway construction activities, and toxic solvents, pesticides, and herbicides during site clearing and landscaping activities. These materials would be used and stored in designated construction staging areas within the boundaries of the project site and in staging areas for off-site improvements. Activities associated with the temporary aggregate plant would include crushing rock and producing roadway subbase and other aggregate materials for use on the project site using electricity to power the plant. If electricity is not available, a diesel generator would be used to power the aggregate plant. Project construction activities would comply with all applicable local standards set forth by the City, as well as state and federal health and safety requirements that are intended to minimize hazardous materials risk to the public, such as the RCRA, CERCLA, SARA, Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, CCR Title 22 and Title 27, Cal/OSHA requirements, the Hazardous Waste Control Act, the California Accidental Release Protection (CalARP) Program, and the California Health and Safety Code. The construction contractor would be required to implement such regulations relative to the transport, handling, and disposal of any hazardous materials, including the use of standard construction controls and safety procedures to avoid a significant hazard to the public or environment.

Standard construction practices would be observed such that any materials released are appropriately contained and remediated as required by local and state laws.

Operation: The types of uses proposed by the proposed project include residential units, Village Center buildings, potential school, agricultural uses, recreational and trails, sewer/water connections, and roadway improvements typical of residential community development. Without development of the school site, the potential sources of hazardous materials typically associated with schools would not contribute to the proposed project’s potential impacts related to hazardous wastes.

Residential, Village Center, and Parks and Recreational Uses:

Operation of the proposed project would involve the use of potentially hazardous materials typical of residential, commercial, agricultural, recreational, and civic uses including cleaning fluids, detergents, RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
29 solvents, adhesives, sealers, paints, fuels/lubricants, and fertilizers or pesticides for landscaping. The proposed land uses would result in an increase in hazardous chemical waste generation at the site compared to the current baseline condition. However, these materials would be transported, contained, stored, used, and disposed of in accordance with manufacturers’ instructions, applicable standards, and federal, state, and local regulations.

Compliance with applicable state and local regulations would serve to protect against a significant and irreversible environmental change that could result from the routine use of these hazardous materials.

Agricultural Uses: Implementation of the proposed project would include agricultural uses associated with the Farm and within the Agriculture Overlay area. This includes terraced vegetable fields, pasture lands, limited housing for employees, raised gardens, and pastures/facilities for farm animals. These uses are anticipated to involve the use of pesticides, fertilizers, and other hazardous materials. However, any use of fertilizers or pesticides as part of agricultural operations are required to comply with CalEPA’s enforcement of pesticide laws and regulations in California.

Additionally, animal raising would generate animal waste which could result in vectors, such as flies, and could be considered a hazard itself if not handled and disposed of correctly. However, standard housekeeping practices and best management practices are adequate for addressing the hazards of animal waste. Therefore, compliance with existing federal and state regulations and using standard housekeeping practices and best management practices would ensure that the routine transport, use, and dispose of hazardous materials related to agricultural uses would result in a less than significant impact.

School Use: The School Overlay reserves a school site for a potential K–8 public school or other educational uses on the project site. If acquired by the Santee School District, the site would be able to accommodate up to 700 students, including existing Santee students and new students on the project site. Schools throughout the state generate hazardous waste as a normal part of the operation and maintenance of each school. Typical wastes generated by the routine operation and maintenance of K–12 schools include the following: Electronic equipment (e.g., computer monitors), batteries, and copier or printer toners from school daily operation and administration; chemical and biological hazardous wastes from chemistry and science labs; used oil, antifreeze, solvents, degreasers, and auto batteries from auto repair shops and classrooms or compressors; pesticides, cleaning solvents, RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
30 detergents, and oil-based or latex paint wastes from school maintenance and housekeeping or janitorial functions.

In California, on-site and off-site storage of hazardous waste is a regulated activity that requires authorization under the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) five-tiered program for hazardous waste treatment or storage. School uses are required to comply with DTSC requirements for on-site and off-site collection and storage of hazardous wastes. This requires obtaining permits to manage and transport hazardous waste products. Therefore, compliance with state requirements and permitting under the DTSC would ensure that the routine transport, use, and dispose of hazardous materials associated with the potential school would result in a less than significant impact.

2. Hazards Near Schools
Threshold: Would the Project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within onequarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Finding: Less than significant. (EIR, § 4.8.5.3.)
Explanation: Sycamore Canyon Elementary School, is located on Settle Road, approximately 500 feet from the proposed Special Use area along the southwestern boundary of the project site in the Carlton Hills neighborhood. Approximately 350 students are currently enrolled in the elementary school. The Special Use area falls within the notification area for Gillespie Field and has a height restriction, thus limiting its development potential. It is also on landslide deposits, which further limits its development potential. Therefore, the Special Use area would allow for a limited range of uses, such as a solar farm, recreational vehicle and boat storage, aboveground agriculture without irrigation, and other similar uses. The types of hazardous materials that would be potentially emitted from the site could include gasoline, diesel fuel, oils, and grease from the recreational vehicle and boat storage and pesticides from the aboveground agriculture.

However, due to the limited nature of development proposed, the Special Use area is not anticipated to emit or handle hazardous materials in quantities large enough to affect the nearby school. As such, the permitted uses for the Special Use area would not result in activities that emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances, or waste in quantities that would affect persons at Sycamore Canyon Elementary School.

In addition, existing residential uses and intervening topography provide a buffer from any hazardous materials that could be RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
31 potentially emitted from the Special Use area. The applicant is required to include a minimum 50-foot buffer adjacent to the existing homes to the south and southwest and a minimum 100-foot buffer to the west to preserve neighbor privacy. This would also provide an additional buffer between the existing and permitted land uses. In the event that agricultural uses are implemented in the Special Use area, the potential for pesticides to become airborne during application exists. However, they would be handled and disposed of in accordance with all federal, state, and local laws regulating the management and use of hazardous materials such that an impact would not occur.

CEQA Guidelines, Section 15186(b), stipulates that before certifying an EIR for a project located within 0.25 mile of a school that involves the construction of a facility that might emit hazardous air emissions or handle an extremely hazardous substance, the lead agency is required to consult with and provide written notification to the school district no less than 30 days prior to the certification of the EIR.

Sycamore Canyon Elementary School is located within 0.25 mile of the proposed Special Use area. However, as discussed previously, the Special Use area is not anticipated to emit hazardous air emissions or handle an extremely hazardous substance or a mixture containing extremely hazardous substances in a quantity equal to or greater than the state threshold quantity specified in the California Health and Safety Code. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the proposed project would trigger the requirements of CEQA Guidelines, Section 15186(b), and consultation with and notification to the Santee School District would not be required.

The preferred land use plan with school includes a 15-acre school site with a School Overlay to allow for the development of a future school by the Santee School District. Land uses in the vicinity of the school would include residential, commercial, agricultural, recreational, and civic uses, which would require the routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials. However, these materials would be contained, stored, and used on site in accordance with manufacturers’ instructions, applicable standards, and federal, state, and local regulations. While hazardous materials and waste would be handled within 0.25 mile of a proposed school associated with the proposed project, these materials would not exist in quantities large enough to pose a health risk to users of the nearby school. Additionally, these types of land uses do not typically constitute incompatible land uses near a school.

The PDMWD Ray Stoyer WRF is approximately 0.25 mile southwest of the 15-acre school site proposed in Fanita Commons under the preferred land use plan with school. The WRF handles hazardous RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
32 materials, including chlorine and sulfur dioxide gas. The RMP for the WRF lays out a comprehensive plan for the protection of public health and addresses potential chlorine and sulfur dioxide spills at this facility. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15186(c)(2), notification is required in writing by the Santee School District to consult with the San Diego Air Pollution Control District over the siting of the new school near a facility known to handle hazardous materials. The PDMWD Ray Stoyer WRF is within 0.25 mile of the proposed school site. This is a formal notification requirement that would be completed in accordance with Section 25502 of the California Health and Safety Code and would be necessary for the Santee School District to make a finding to approve the site.

The DTSC school siting requirements would not allow for development of a school adjacent to incompatible land uses or those that would release hazardous materials. In accordance with the California Education Code and California Code, Sections 17210.1 through 17213.2, as with all proposed school sites that would receive state funding for acquisition or construction, the Santee School District would be required to comply with CEQA for its acquisition of the proposed project’s school site. The proposed school site has been reviewed in the Phase I ESA prepared for the proposed project.

As concluded in the Phase I ESA, the project site is not a former waste disposal site and has not been identified by DTSC as a hazardous waste release site, and there are no pipelines carrying hazardous waste that traverse the project site. Therefore, there is no evidence of existing on-site RECs in connection with the proposed school site. Under the land use plan without school, no impact would occur.

The proposed project would comply with federal and state regulations pertaining to hazardous waste, such as proper handling, disposal practices, and cleanup procedures, to ensure that risks associated with hazardous emissions or materials to existing or proposed schools within one-quarter mile of the project site would not result in a significant impact. Impacts would be less that significant.

3. Waste Sites
Threshold: Would the Project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Finding: Less than significant. (EIR, § 4.8.5.4.)
RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
33 Explanation: As part of the Phase I ESA, a hazardous materials record search was conducted for the project site and surrounding properties from federal, state, and local databases. According to the government hazardous materials databases searched, no reported hazardous materials sites are located within the boundaries of the project site.

Pursuant to Government Code, Section 65962.5, there is one facility located within one-quarter mile of the project site that was listed three times on LUST database. This facility is the 7-Eleven located at a facility at 9750 Cuyamaca Street. According to the findings in the Phase I ESA, all three LUST listings identified for the facility relate to a release of gasoline on three separate occurrences (March 1986, May 1991, and June 1994). Regulatory closure was granted in each case.

The Phase I ESA determined that based on distance from the project site, downstream position, and closed regulatory status, the facility located at 9750 Cuyamaca Street is unlikely to have caused a REC at the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant hazard to the public or the environment due to the presence of hazardous materials sites identified pursuant to Government Code, Section 65962.5, as it relates to annual updates to the Cortese List. Impacts would be less than significant.

4. Airport Safety
Threshold: For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
Finding: Less than significant. (EIR, § 4.8.5.5.)
Explanation: The project site is located in the vicinity of two airports: MCAS Miramar (private federal) and Gillespie Field (public). The project site is east of MCAS Miramar. The portions of the project site proposed for development fall outside of any Overflight Zones and are not subject to overflight-related disclosure or notification requirements.

According to the MCAS Miramar ALUCP, the entire project site is located within the Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77 Outer Boundary, which establishes standards and Federal Aviation Administration notification requirements for potential hazards to use of navigable airspace. A small northerly portion of the project site falls within Review Area 2 of the AIA, which requires ALUC review for any proposed objects with a height greater than 35 feet above ground level. However, this portion of the project site would be dedicated as Habitat Preserve and would not be developed. The easterly portions of the project site are within a High Terrain zone but RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
34 are not within Review Area 2; therefore, they do not require ALUC review. The remainder of the project site is located outside of the AIA. Thus, the proposed project would not be subject to any land use restrictions from MCAS Miramar.

The project site is also located north of Gillespie Field. Southerly portions of the project site are located within the Federal Aviation Administration Height Notification Boundary and are proposed as Habitat Preserve and Special Use area. Within this boundary, the Federal Aviation Administration shall be notified of any proposed construction or alteration having a height greater than an imaginary surface extending 100 feet outward and 1 foot upward (slope of 100 to 1) from the runway elevation. The Special Use area also falls within the Gillespie Field Review Area 2, which requires limitations on the height of structures. Review Area 2 also requires overflight notification documents for residential uses; however, residential uses would not be permitted within the Special Use area, except for a caretaker unit. If a caretaker unit is proposed, the applicant is required to provide notification and compliance in accordance with the Gillespie Field Review Area 2 requirements. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in a significant impact regarding airspace safety hazards or conflicts with the land use plans for MCAS Miramar or Gillespie Field.

I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

1. Water Quality Standards
Threshold: Would the Project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
Finding: Less than significant. (EIR, § 4.9.5.1.)
Explanation: Construction and operation activities associated with the proposed project could result in an increase in potential discharge of pollutants to receiving waters, including waters designated as impaired for certain conditions of concerns. Hydromodification could increase stormwater runoff and intensify erosion and the transport of sediments and other pollutants. Development of vacant land would introduce new types of pollutants in stormwater runoff.

Construction: During construction, the proposed project has the potential to produce pollutants such as sediment, nutrients, heavy metals, organic compounds, trash and debris, oxygen-demanding substances, oil and grease, bacteria and viruses, and
pesticides/herbicides. Additionally, waste materials such as wash water, paints, wood, paper, concrete, food containers, and sanitary RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
35 wastes may be discharged from the project site during construction.

These pollutants could impact water quality if they were washed off site by stormwater or non-stormwater or are blown or tracked off site to areas susceptible to wash off by stormwater or non-stormwater.

Pollutants are likely to drain into Sycamore Canyon Creek. Sycamore Canyon Creek drains into the San Diego River, which then drains into the Pacific Ocean. Therefore, these water bodies are identified as the receiving waters of the proposed project. Impairments for these water bodies include dissolved oxygen, benthic community effects, cadmium, indicator bacteria, nitrogen, dissolved oxygen, phosphorus, total dissolved solids, and toxicity for the San Diego River. Under these impairments, the receiving water cannot assimilate or accommodate additional loading of pollutants, and any increases in pollutants would contribute to the impairment.

The proposed project would be subject to compliance with Construction General Permit requirements and with Chapter 9.06 of the Santee Municipal Code, which prohibits non-stormwater discharges and eliminates illicit discharges and illicit connections to the stormwater conveyance system, reduces the discharge of pollutants from the stormwater conveyance system to the maximum extent practicable in order to achieve applicable water quality objectives for surface waters in the County, and achieves compliance with TMDL regulations (City of Santee 2020).

Prior to project grading or construction, the Construction General Permit requires preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP would include a series of specific BMPs to be implemented during construction in order to address erosion, accidental spills, and the quality of stormwater runoff. The SWPPP applies only to the time period in which construction activity is taking place, and is no longer operative once the soil on the project site has been stabilized and a Notice of Termination is completed. BMPs that must be implemented as part of a SWPPP can be grouped into two major categories: (1) erosion and sediment control BMPs and (2) non-stormwater management and materials management BMPs.

As part of project compliance with the General Construction Permit, a Notice of Intent would be prepared and submitted to the San Diego RWQCB providing notification and intent to comply with the General Permit. The Construction General Permit also requires that construction sites be inspected before and after storm events and every 24 hours during extended storm events. The purpose of the inspections is to identify maintenance requirements for BMPs and to determine the effectiveness of BMPs that are being implemented.

RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
36 Operation: Operation of the proposed project land uses would have the potential to generate pollutants that could degrade the surface water quality of downstream receiving waters. Pollutant sources from operation of the proposed project would include landscaping, rooftops, parking and driveways, roadways, agricultural uses, general use areas, and trash storage areas. Pollutants from operation of the proposed project would include sediment, nutrients, heavy metals, organic compounds, trash and debris, oxygendemanding substances, oil and grease, bacteria and viruses, and pesticides. In addition, project implementation would require routine operation and maintenance activities, thereby increasing instances of accidental spills and non-stormwater discharges to storm drains, and non-stormwater connections (e.g., sewer connections) that could result in the potential discharge of pollutants to storm drainage systems and associated receiving waters.

Consistent with the City’s Stormwater Management Ordinance, the proposed project is considered a priority development project and is required to identify and incorporate measures for hydromodification management to ensure that stormwater runoff rates and durations do not exceed pre-development conditions or result in adverse erosion or sedimentation effects. All priority development projects are required to implement structural BMPs for stormwater pollutant control. Additionally, projects subject to hydromodification management requirements must implement structural BMPs for flow control. Structural BMPs, such as biofiltration (basins and proprietary modular units) and combined pollutant control and hydromodification control measures, have been incorporated into the proposed project design.

Runoff from natural and sloped areas containing no impervious areas would be collected in separate storm drains and discharged through riprap energy dissipaters to avoid comingling of drainage and to allow any course sediment generated in the areas to pass through. The proposed project would extend and make
improvements to Fanita Parkway and would include features in accordance with Green Streets design elements, including rock garden swales and tree wells, to address water quality. Street improvements would reset roadway widths, medians, utilities, and storm drain conveyance systems. The proposed storm drain system would be constructed to collect and convey on-site runoff as well offsite run-on from developed areas east of Fanita Parkway that confluences with the Fanita Parkway flows. However, instead of discharging into an open channel along the western side of Fanita Parkway as it currently does, confluence flows would be conveyed within a storm drain pipe within Fanita Parkway to an existing drainage. Cuyamaca Street and Magnolia Avenue would also be RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
37 extended and improved to provide access to the project site. Similar to Fanita Parkway, these streets would also include Green Street design elements, such as rock gardens and tree wells.

Through changes in topography and land cover on the project site, the proposed project has the potential to result in impacts to sedimentary transport to downstream channel areas, known as Potential Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas (PCCSYA), by altering the sediment producing areas on the project site. The alteration of PCCSYAs has the potential to negatively impact characteristics of sediment supply and delivery which can lead to water quality degradation of downstream receiving waters. To avoid impacts to PCCSYAs produced on the project site and resulting downstream water quality impacts, the discharges of the sediment producing areas would be diverted to adjust the sediment production as close as possible to the original conditions. As a result, the proposed project would not encroach into more than 5 percent of the proposed project’s potential PCCSYAs areas off site and would have no net encroachment into on-site areas. In addition, the discharges of the project site would be adjusted by designing BMPs such that the erosion from the discharged flows is as close as possible to the pre-development conditions. The proposed project would avoid significant impacts to both on- and off-site PCCSYAs and water quality through redirecting sediment producing discharges, adherence to BMPs, and the protection of the remaining natural areas. Therefore, alteration of the drainage area on the project site would have less than significant impacts to PCCSYAs and would not result in the loss of sedimentary transport or decreased water quality to downstream channel areas.

The Stormwater Quality Management Plan identifies a number of site design BMPs to ensure that water quality is maintained during project operation. BMPs have been incorporated into the project design to minimize impacts from project-generated operational pollutant sources, which include sediment, nutrients, heavy metals, organic compounds, trash and debris, oxygen-demanding substances, oil and grease, bacteria and viruses, and pesticides.

Preparation of and compliance with the SWPPP, implementation of BMPs identified in the Stormwater Quality Management Plan, and compliance with existing federal, state, and local regulations as discussed previously would protect water quality and ensure project compliance with applicable water quality standards. The proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or WDRs.

Additionally, the implementation of these BMPs would help treat runoff and decrease the amount of pollution entering receiving waters. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
38 2. Groundwater Supplies
Threshold: Would the Project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Finding: Less than significant. (EIR, § 4.9.5.2.)
Explanation: The City does not rely on groundwater sources for its water supply.

No groundwater would be used for project construction or operation activities. Therefore, the proposed project would not adversely affect or deplete groundwater supplies due to water demand generated by the proposed development.

Development of the proposed project would result in new impervious surfaces that may lead to a decrease in the amount of water recharged into the groundwater system within the project boundaries. To minimize potential effects on groundwater recharge, the proposed project would be designed to include pervious, landscaped areas, allowing groundwater recharge to continue to occur. Runoff from developed areas would drain into proposed onsite basin system designed to slow peak flow and discharge to rates equal to or less than existing conditions. Hydromodification management would occur through storage of stormwater within the basins, with outlets that regulate the flow rate and duration of stormwater released. Source control and low-impact development measures would be implemented to incorporate pervious surfaces and maximize the amount of open space, landscaping, and vegetated swales to slow and absorb runoff, allowing for groundwater recharge.

Further, the proposed project would include a total of approximately 2,022.6 acres of undeveloped area including 256 acres of Open Space, 1,650.4 acres of Habitat Preserve, and 116.2 acres of Agriculture and Parks (Community, Neighborhood, and Mini). As such, groundwater recharge in these areas would continue after project implementation.

The proposed project is not anticipated to substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. No groundwater would be used for project construction or operation, and the proposed project would be designed to minimize potential effects to groundwater recharge through consolidation of impervious surfaces and the retaining of approximately 2,022.6 acres as Open Space, Habitat Preserve, and Agriculture and Parks.

Impacts would be less than significant.

RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
39 3. Erosion or Siltation
Threshold: Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site; create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or impede or redirect flood flows?
Finding: Less than significant. (EIR, § 4.9.5.3.)
Explanation: Construction. Land-disturbing construction activities associated with implementation of the proposed project, such as vegetation clearing, grading, and excavation of project sites, and construction of new building foundations, streets, driveways, and trenches for utilities, could result in localized alteration of drainage patterns and temporarily increase erosion and sedimentation in the construction area.

Temporary ponding or flooding could also result from construction activities from temporary alterations of the drainage system (reducing its capacity of carrying runoff). Alterations may temporarily result in increased erosion and siltation if flows were substantially increased or routed to facilities or channels without capacity to carry the additional flow.

Construction phase activities implemented under the proposed project would be required to comply with the SWRCB General Construction Stormwater Permit, which requires preparation of a SWPPP. The SWPPP would include a series of specific BMPs to be implemented during construction to address erosion, accidental spills, and the quality of stormwater runoff, which have been developed in part to reduce the potential adverse effects associated with construction activities. In addition, construction phase activities implemented under the proposed project would be required to comply with Chapter 9.06 of the Santee Municipal Code, which mandates the implementation of a pollution control plan for each phase of construction and season of the year (City of Santee 2020).

The pollution control plan would incorporate BMPs in accordance with the California Stormwater Quality Association’s Construction BMP Handbook (2015).

Therefore, with the adherence to regulatory requirements, which include the implementation of erosion and sediment control BMPs, RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
40 any short-term impacts resulting from alterations of drainage and hydrology during construction would be less than significant.

Operation. The proposed project would result in hydromodification from development of impervious surfaces in an area that is currently undeveloped. Hydromodification could increase stormwater runoff and intensify erosion and the transport of sediments and other pollutants. Changes to delivery of coarse sediment and transport of coarse sediment result in increased transport capacity and the potential for adverse channel erosion (City of Santee 2016).

Additionally, impervious surfaces do not allow percolation of the water down into the soil. Water is instead forced directly into storm drain systems or streams, where increases in erosion and siltation could result, as well as increased flood risks. These alterations could also result in exceeding the existing capacity of stormwater facilities if substantial drainage is rerouted or stormwater flow or velocities are substantially increased. To avoid these types of impacts, the proposed project includes a drainage network designed to control and filter stormwater runoff in conformance with RWQCB and City’s requirements, which call for retention first, then biofiltration. The proposed stormwater system would include the use of biofilters, onsite storage of stormwater in basins with outlets that regulate the flow rate and duration of stormwater released, and the use of both retention and detention basins to slow and sequester runoff.

The pre- and post-development conditions for the proposed project were evaluated to determine if the proposed biofiltration facilities are sized adequately to meet the current HMP requirements of the RWQCB. Hydromodification management would occur through storage of stormwater in proposed on-site basins, with outlets to regulate the flow rate and duration of stormwater released. Runoff would be collected in storm drain inlets from street surfaces and routed toward multi-purpose basins and treated for stormwater quality, flow control for hydromodification, and flood attenuation to maintain existing peak-flow rates during a 100-year storm event.

As indicated in the Master Drainage Study, the pre-development project 100-year flows are 3,312 cubic feet per second. Through project design, stormwater runoff upon project completion would result in 2,729 cubic feet per second 100-year flows. Thus, project design would help to reduce flows by approximately 583 cubic feet per second versus existing conditions.

The proposed project would construct a total of 19 stormwater basins and 3 vaults. Of the 19 stormwater basins, the proposed project would construct 15 on-site stormwater basins (BF-1-1 through BF-1- 6, BF-1-17, HMP-17, HMP-18, and BF-1-RV1 through BF-1-RV6).

RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
41 Biofiltration basins BF-1-1 through BF-1-6, BF-1-17, and BF-1-RV1 through BF-1-RV6 would serve as combined water quality, hydromodification, and detention basins. Basins HMP-17 and HMP18 would serve as hydromodification and detention basins. In addition, the proposed project would construct four off-site stormwater basins (BF-1-10A, BF-1-10B, HMP-11, and HMP-12) and three vaults (HMP-13, HMP-15, and HMP-16). Basins BF-1-10A and BF-1-10B would serve as combined water quality,
hydromodification, and detention basins. Basins HMP-11 and HMP12 and vaults HMP-13, HMP-15, and HMP-16 would serve as hydromodification and detention facilities.

The system would collect stormwater through a series of swales, catch basins, and culverts that direct stormwater to
detention/biofiltration basins. Runoff from the residential portions of the site would generally be collected by inlets and conveyed toward one of the proposed detention basins. Flows would outlet the basins and discharge into downstream conveyance channels consisting of storm drain pipes, constructed channels, or natural drainage ways.

The proposed basins would also serve as detention for flow-control hydromodification and peak-flow attenuation. Peak-flow attenuation would be required not only due to the increase in imperviousness associated with the development but also because the site design proposes to divert acreage from areas that currently drain easterly and southerly to drain westerly toward Sycamore Canyon Creek.

Other areas along the roadway corridors of Fanita Parkway, Cuyamaca Street, and Magnolia Avenue would include storage facilities such as underground vaults and aboveground basins to address local peak-flow attenuation. Each detention facility would be equipped with a riser designed to accomplish the various functions.

Orifices placed along the height of the rise would regulate the lower flow rates to address flow-control hydromodification. The crosssectional area of the riser would aid in regulating the higher flows to reduce flows below existing conditions. The basins would also include a second riser installed for redundancy and as an emergency outlet should the primary riser clog. Design of this secondary riser would be performed during final engineering. Depending on the accessibility of the riser structures, it may be necessary to equip some of them with a grate over the top opening as a safety measure.

The biofiltration basins proposed for the site would be lined; therefore, no infiltration is assumed in the biofiltration basins.

The storm drain system and layout would be designed to address peak flows and to integrate water quality features needed to comply with the City’s BMP Design Manual requirements for water quality and hydromodification. As designed, the proposed project would RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
42 allow biofiltration, evapotranspiration, and filtering of stormwater to remove microscopic organisms, suspended solids, organic material, nitrogen, and phosphorous. The results show that development of the proposed project would not increase peak flows for any point of discharge. Therefore, the proposed project would not compromise the capacity of downstream drainage facilities, and effects due to erosion, sedimentation, and flooding are anticipated to be minimal.

The proposed project has been designed in compliance with the San Diego RWQCB and the City’s requirements. Post-development flow rates would be reduced to below pre-development flow rates with implementation of bioretention and hydromodification basins.

Construction runoff would be contained in compliance with the State of California Construction Permit. Post-construction runoff would be cleaned through bioretention basins and modular wetlands in compliance with the San Diego RWQCB Order R9-2013-0001.

Portions of Fanita Parkway and Cuyamaca Street, Magnolia Avenue, and Summit Avenue have been designed as a Green Street per the requirements of the San Diego RWQCB.

All site runoff would receive water quality treatment prior to discharging off site. To prevent erosive velocities at pipe outlet locations, energy dissipating measures would be included as part of project design. These measures would be designed during final engineering and would include but not be limited to riprap and concrete energy dissipating headwalls. Landform grading has been incorporated into the proposed project to mimic existing conditions where the proposed grading ties into or daylights with the existing terrain. It is intended that the stormwater running off manufactured slopes would sheet flow and follow existing drainage patterns.

Implementation of hydromodification measures would reduce postproject flows to below pre-project conditions. As shown, the basins proposed for the proposed project would help to reduce flows by approximately 583 cubic feet per second compared to existing conditions. Thus, post-project flows would be released into Sycamore Canyon Creek at a lower rate than existing natural flows.

Runoff from the adjacent hillsides and natural off-site areas would be collected in a series of brow ditches and conveyed to culverts located within the proposed street improvements. Runoff generated by the hardscape improvements would be intercepted via curb and gutter, draining to an internal storm drain system that would convey these flows to Modular Wetland Biofiltration BMP’s prior to draining to HMP detention facilities. Once treated and detained, these flows are then discharged to their respective discharge location. Proposed structural BMPs would be maintained by the homeowners
association in perpetuity.

RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
43 Additionally, Green Streets principles and infrastructure are proposed for meeting water quality requirements for portions of Fanita Parkway, Cuyamaca Street, Magnolia Avenue and Summit Avenue in the areas outside of the villages where the roadways are proposed to be improved. The Green Streets approach integrates strategies into roadway design that help protect, restore, and mimic the natural water cycle such that runoff is encouraged to be percolated or stored in a more natural manner, with the use of features such as rock garden swales and tree wells, which are designed to capture runoff from hardened surfaces, slow water down, spread it out, and allow it to sink into the soil during storms.

Methods like this would help to trap silt and pollutants to reduce siltation and erosion. The use of Green Street principles would reduce the proposed project’s potential to increase peak flows.

Therefore, compared to existing conditions, the potential for erosion to occur downstream of the project site would be reduced with implementation of the proposed project. Existing flow velocities would be lessened with implementation of the proposed project since post-development flows would be reduced. As such, the proposed project would not compromise the capacity of downstream drainage facilities, and effects due to erosion and sedimentation are anticipated to be minimal. Therefore, erosion and siltation is not expected downstream of the project site.

Further, the project design includes improvements to allow connection to the City’s existing stormwater infrastructure system.

Proposed improvements would ensure that stormwater flows are properly maintained and treated on site so that runoff volumes or velocities do not exceed that which currently occur under existing conditions. The proposed project would be subject to National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements and other local, state, and federal regulations pertaining to maintaining water quality and minimizing potential adverse effects on downstream water bodies. Because stormwater runoff from the site would be less with the proposed project, it would not create or contribute runoff that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems, and the proposed project would not generate additional sources of polluted runoff.

Lastly, the project site is in Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Zone X, which is outside of the 100- and 500-year flood hazard areas. The proposed project would be designed to reduce peak-flow rates such that downstream locations would be below existing flow rates. The proposed project would not impede or redirect flood flows because redirected areas would be reduced by attenuation facilities such that post-development flows would not exceed pre-project flows. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially alter RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
44 the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner that would substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a way that would impede or redirect flood flows or result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site or flooding on or off site. The proposed project would not create or contribute runoff that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems, and the proposed project would not generate additional sources of polluted runoff. As such, impacts would be less than significant.

4. Flood Hazard
Threshold: In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the Project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Finding: No impact. (EIR, § 4.9.5.4.)
Explanation: The project site is not subject to inundation by tsunami or seiche. The project site is located approximately 16 miles from the Pacific Ocean negating the potential for the site to be subject to a tsunami event. A seiche is a wave on the surface of a lake or landlocked bay that is caused by atmospheric or seismic disturbances. The nearest lake to the project site is San Vincente Reservoir located approximately 2 miles from the northeastern portion of the project site. This portion of the project site is located at approximately 1,000 feet above mean sea level and the area between the reservoir and the project site is a valley. This topographical variation would make it difficult for the project site to be inundated by the reservoir. Further, the project site is located in Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Zone X, which is outside of the 100- and 500-year flood hazard areas.

Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not release pollutants due to inundation caused by a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche.

5. Water Quality Control Plan
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Finding: Less than significant. (EIR, § 4.9.5.5.)
Explanation: The project site is located within the San Diego River Hydraulic Unit (HU) of the San Diego region as defined by the San Diego RWQCB and is further located within the Santee Hydrologic Subarea. The project site currently drains west to Sycamore Canyon Creek and east to unnamed tributaries and storm drain conveyance systems that eventually discharge to San Diego River, both of which are on RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
45 the CWA Section 303(d) list for dissolved oxygen. Once developed, on-site hydromodification would divert acreages from areas that drained easterly to now drain west toward Sycamore Canyon Creek.

As identified in the Basin Plan, the designated beneficial uses for Sycamore Canyon Creek include: agricultural supply (AGR), industrial services supply (IND), contact water recreation (REC1), non-contact water recreation (REC2), warm freshwater habitat (WARM), and wildlife habitat (WILD), and rare, threatened, or endangered species (RARE). Sycamore Canyon Creek is a tributary to the San Diego River, which is on the CWA Section 303(d) list for benthic community effects, cadmium, indicator bacteria, nitrogen, dissolved oxygen, phosphorus, total dissolved solids, and toxicity.

Construction and operation activities associated with the proposed project could result in an increase in potential discharge of pollutants to receiving waters, including waters designated as impaired.

Additionally, hydromodification could increase stormwater runoff and intensify erosion and the transport of sediment and other pollutants.

Land use changes may also introduce new types of pollutants in stormwater runoff. There is no sustainable groundwater
management plan prepared for the project site.

Construction. Construction activities associated with the proposed project would involve various types of equipment such as bulldozers, scrapers, backhoes, and other earthmoving equipment; dump trucks; cranes; trucks; concrete mixers; and generators. Pollutants associated with these construction activities that could result in water quality impacts include soils, debris, other materials generated during demolition and clearing, fuels and other fluids associated with the equipment used for construction, paints, other hazardous materials, concrete slurries, and asphalt materials. The proposed project would be required to comply with General Construction Stormwater Permit requirements, including the development and implementation of a SWPPP. The SWPPP must identify BMPs that the discharger would use to protect stormwater runoff from pollutants and the placement of those BMPs. Therefore, with the
implementation of policies and regulatory requirements, which include the implementation of construction-period BMPs to address potential discharges of pollutants to stormwater, any short-term water quality impacts during construction of the proposed project would be minimized and would not cause a conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Basin Plan. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Operation. Implementation of the proposed project would result in land use changes that would have the potential to generate pollutants that could degrade the surface water quality of downstream receiving waters. Pollution sources for the proposed RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
46 project would include landscaping, rooftops, parking, and trash storage areas. In addition, implementation of the proposed project would also result in routine operation and maintenance activities, increasing opportunities for accidental spills and non-stormwater discharges to storm drains and non-stormwater connections (e.g., sewer connections) that could result in the potential discharge of pollutants to receiving waters.

However, the proposed project requires the implementation of construction and operation BMPs, which include low-impact development site design and source control BMPs, to reduce runoff or pollutants at the source. Therefore, with implementation of appropriate BMPs, compliance with Chapter 9.06 of the Santee Municipal Code, and applicable state requirements, project impacts would be minimized and would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Basin Plan. Impacts would be less than significant.

J. LAND USE AND PLANNING

1. Established Communities
Threshold: Would the Project physically divide an established community? Finding: Less than significant. (EIR, § 4.10.5.1.)
Explanation: The proposed project does not contain any components that could result in dividing an established community. The project site is an undeveloped area located in the City’s boundary. Areas directly north are currently undeveloped, though they are designated as Rural Lands (RL-40) (one residential unit per 40 acres) and Open Space (Conservation) by the San Diego County General Plan and zoned Agriculture (A70) and Specific Plan (S80). Beyond that, north of the project site and west of SR-67 lies the 2,272-acre Goodan Ranch/Sycamore Canyon County Preserve. Areas northeast include undeveloped hillsides and Slaughterhouse Canyon, where active mining operations take place. East of the project site is an unincorporated rural residential subdivision known as Eucalyptus Hills. Existing detached single-family residences in the Carlton Hills neighborhood are south of the project site. The Santee Lakes Recreation Preserve is southwest of the project site and MCAS northwest of the project site.

Proposed roadways would connect, rather than separate, the project site from established communities in the vicinity. A proposed extension of Fanita Parkway and Cuyamaca Street would connect the project site to the existing residential development to the south.

RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
47 The proposed project also proposes to construct Magnolia Avenue from its current terminus to the extension of Cuyamaca Street just south of the project site.

Additionally, people have historically taken informal access through the proposed project for active and passive recreation.

Implementation of the proposed project would formalize permanent public access trails, trailheads, and staging areas. The proposed project proposes more than 35 miles of multimodal public trails allowing access for pedestrians and bicyclists throughout the site and providing connections to the City center and regional trails. Thus, the proposed trail system would provide enhanced connectivity to existing trails in and near the project site. The proposed project would not result in the physical division of an established community.

Impacts would be less than significant.

2. Conflicts With Plans
Threshold: Would the Project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Finding: Less than significant. (Recirculated Sections of Final Revised EIR, § 4.10.5.2.)
Explanation: The review of local land use plans, including the ALUCPs for MCAS Miramar and Gillespie Field, SANDAG’s Regional Plan, the Santee General Plan, and the City’s Zoning Ordinance, has indicated that the proposed project would be generally consistent with the implementation of these plans.

San Diego County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans: The project site is located in the vicinity of two airports: MCAS Miramar and Gillespie Field. The project site abuts the easterly property line of the MCAS Miramar. The entire project site is within the Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 77, Outer Boundary, which establishes standards and Federal Aviation Administration notification requirements for potential hazards to use of navigable airspace. The easterly portions of the project site are in a High Terrain zone, which is an area of land in the vicinity of an airport where the ground is above a surface regulated by Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 77. However, only a small northerly portion of the site falls in Review Area 2 of the AIA.

The portion of the site in Review Area 2 would be dedicated as Habitat Preserve and would not be developed, and the remainder of the project site is outside of any AIA. Therefore, the proposed project addition, the areas proposed for development fall outside of any Overflight Zones and are not subject to overflight-related disclosure RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
48 or notification requirements (SDCRAA 2011).

The project site is north of Gillespie Field. Southerly portions of the site are within the Federal Aviation Administration Height Notification Boundary. The proposed Habitat Preserve and Special Use area are within this notification boundary. Within this boundary, the Federal Aviation Administration is required to be notified of any proposed construction or alteration having a height greater than an imaginary surface extending 100 feet outward and 1 foot upward (slope of 100 to 1) from the runway elevation. The Special Use area also falls in the Review Area 2, which requires limitations on the height of structures. Review Area 2 also requires overflight notification documents for residential uses; however, residential uses are not permitted in the Special Use area, except for one caretaker unit. If a caretaker unit is proposed, notification in accordance with the Review Area 2 requirements would be made. The development standards for the Special Use area consider the site’s relationship to Gillespie Field and adjacency to off-site neighbors. Height in the Special Use area would be limited to conform to the Gillespie Field ALUCP. Buffers would be required adjacent to existing residences off site to preserve privacy (SDCRAA 2010). Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the ALUCPs for MCAS Miramar and Gillespie Field.

San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan: In accordance with SB 375, the Regional Plan includes five building blocks that are accompanied by strategies to move the San Diego region toward sustainability and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The building blocks and strategies aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through a land use pattern that accommodates the region’s future employment and housing needs and protects sensitive habitats, cultural resources, and resource areas.

The proposed project proposes Village Center, Medium Density Residential, Low Density Residential, and Active Adult land use designations that would allow for a diversified mix of housing types.

Additionally, the proposed development would be clustered into three villages to preserve approximately 63 percent of the site as Habitat Preserve to maintain core habitat identified in the Final MSCP Plan, preserve known wildlife corridors, and maintain a contiguous and connected open space system, which would help implement the first building block. By clustering compact, walkable, sustainable, low-impact development in strategic locations that minimize ecological impacts, development of the proposed project would allow for the restoration of sensitive habitat areas and management of the Habitat Preserve. Implementation of the proposed project would include the establishment of a formal RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
49 management entity and a management plan to monitor and protect biodiversity. Open space corridors between the villages would preserve connectivity and allow for continued wildlife movement through the site. Wildlife crossings at roadways would be designed to support the safe and efficient movement of wildlife. In addition, existing drainages between the villages would allow for revegetation and restoration of these important features, which provide habitat and connectivity for wildlife.

The proposed project’s mobility plan focuses on reducing the number and length of vehicle trips and providing alternatives to fossil fuelpowered vehicle use, which would help implement the second building block. This would be achieved through organizing land uses to locate services and goods close to residences and optimizing circulation systems to create direct, efficient, safe, and comfortable routes for a variety of transportation modes. The proposed project land uses are designed to meet the daily needs of the project residents to minimize trips outside the project site. Emphasis is placed on encouraging a transportation network that generate fewer emissions, such as walking, biking, electric vehicles, transit, and ridesharing. A Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan has been prepared to support alternative modes, manage shared facilities to optimize transportation modes, implement and support appropriate advanced technologies, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The TDM Plan considers community programs to support and encourage ridesharing, alternative modes, and other strategies to reduce single-occupancy vehicle use, which would help implement the third and fourth building blocks. Implementation of the TDM Plan would be required by Mitigation Measure AIR-6.

The proposed project includes a Complete Streets system that supports various modes of transportation and offers alternatives to single-occupancy vehicle travel. Streets on the project site are designed as a system of Complete Streets that safely accommodate and support multiple user types, including motorists, pedestrians, bicycles, and transit riders in an effort to manage the transportation system. The Fanita Ranch Development Plan establishes the street designs within the boundaries of the project site. Street improvements associated with development on the project site include the extension of existing streets and the construction of a new internal systems of public and private streets. The proposed project establishes a network of streets of varying design capacities tailored to meet the unique concepts of the three villages.

RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
50 Additionally, the proposed project street designs address safety, aesthetics, and functionality, as well as site constraints.

The proposed project would offer sustainable transportation features that would reduce the number of vehicle trips, reduce emissions, and improve the overall mobility of people in the community, all of which would help implement the fifth building block (innovative pricing policies) of the Regional Plan. One proposed mobility feature is a bicycle circulation network throughout the community through a combination of on-street bike lanes and off-street multi-purpose trails. Bicycle trails would be designed for both recreation and to provide direct access between the villages. Another project feature is a project layout that promotes walkability and wellness. The proposed project would provide direct connections to multiple destinations that shorten the routes and allow walking to be an efficient and viable method of travel. The project proposes two pedestrian bridges that would provide direct connections across the two drainages in Fanita Commons to shorten the walking distance.

The bridge that would traverse the northerly drainage would provide convenient access between the Active Adult neighborhood and the Community Park. The bridge that would traverse the southerly drainage would connect Orchard Village to the school, Community Park, and Fanita Commons. Additionally, every street on the project site would include a sidewalk or multi-purpose trail to accommodate pedestrian travel. Trails along the northerly and southerly drainages would also offer pedestrian connections between the school, the Farm, and the Active Adult neighborhood with minimal interruptions from vehicular traffic. The proposed project would include a pedestrian and bicycle mobility system consisting of sidewalks, trails, and bikeways throughout the proposed project, providing linkages between neighborhoods to other key land uses.

The proposed project supports the Regional Plan by proposing a land use pattern and TDM strategies that would accommodate the region’s future employment and housing needs and protect sensitive habitats, cultural resources, and resource areas. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the strategies and objectives of the Regional Plan.

Multiple Species Conservation Program: The proposed land use plan would be consistent with the Fanita Ranch Subunit of the City’s Draft MSCP Subarea Plan. The proposed project would adhere to or exceed conditions of coverage and mitigation/conveyance requirements for covered projects as defined in the City’s Draft MSCP Subarea Plan (City of Santee 2018). The Santee General Plan, including its Conservation Element and the Natural Communities Conservation Plan Enrollment Agreement executed by RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
51 the City, requires that any development in the City comply with the City’s Draft MSCP Subarea Plan.

Santee General Plan: The Santee General Plan provides the framework for the City’s long range planning vision. The project site is designated for Planned Development (PD).

The proposed project provides for mixed-use development of employment, commercial, recreational, and various residential densities consistent with the framework for development set forth by the Santee General Plan PD designation.

Further, the proposed project would implement development generally consistent with the 16 Guiding Principles for the project site. The proposed project would include business and office uses in the Village Center and include a community focus including public parks, commercial, school, a fire station, and other uses. The proposed project would provide a range of residential densities, including Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, and Active Adult. The proposed project would be developed sensitive to natural open space and major landforms: 1,650.4 acres of the site would be preserved as Habitat Preserve. The Habitat Preserve would include hillsides with steep slopes to minimize landslide and mudslide hazards and to protect key visual resources.

The proposed project would provide approximately 78 acres of public parklands for active and passive recreation (including sports fields and parks) and private parklands and 4.5 acres of trail lands consisting of perimeter trails and the Stowe Trail connections planned on the project site, totaling 82.5 acres. Mini-Parks, Neighborhood Parks, a Village Green, Linear Parks, and Community Parks would be included.

The proposed Fanita Ranch Development Plan contains a
comprehensive pedestrian and bicycle trail system that provides connectivity within and between the villages and with the adjacent regional trails and local trails that connect to surrounding open space areas, residential neighborhoods, parks, and the Santee Town Center to the south. Multi-purpose trails would be within the street rights-of-way along Fanita Parkway and Cuyamaca Street, which would support pedestrian and bicycle travel. The multi-purpose trail along Cuyamaca Street would extend south off site to connect to the Santee Town Center and the San Diego River as part of the north– south regional corridor. Trail access in the Habitat Preserve would RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
52 be subject to the requirements and provisions of the Public Access Plan and the City’s Draft MSCP Subarea Plan.

The project includes an extension of Fanita Parkway along the western boundary of the property, an extension of Cuyamaca Street into the site, the Magnolia Avenue extension, and additional circulation improvements. The Fanita Ranch Development Plan includes a comprehensive implementation chapter (Chapter 10) identifying public improvements, phasing, financing, and other plans according to projected need. The site will not be subdivided until the Fanita Ranch Development Plan is adopted by the City. Chapters 4 and 6 of the Fanita Ranch Development Plan also include illustrative plans showing prototype circulation systems and residential product types. The proposed project does not include a golf course or lake, meet minimum lot size requirements, provide a dedicated Sports Park accessed by Carlton Hills Boulevard, or include a Development Agreement. Overall, the project is generally consistent with the 16 Guiding Principles. Moreover, as discussed below, the project is consistent with the Santee General Plan pursuant to Urgency Ordinance No. 592.

Urgency Ordinance No. 592, the City’s Essential Housing Program, provides an alternative process to boost housing production and improve housing affordability for housing projects that meet specified criteria through 2026 (City of Santee 2021). Under the program, projects that follow the procedures and meet the strict requirements of the program are deemed to be in compliance with the Santee General Plan, including the Land Use Element and Housing Element, and do not require an amendment to the Santee General Plan or other legislative act for approval. Specifically, by complying with the City’s Essential Housing Project Credits Assessment Guide and Checklist, Essential Housing Projects will have demonstrated Santee General Plan consistency by furthering the objectives and policies of the plan while not obstructing their attainment. Urgency Ordinance No. 592 controls any other City plan or ordinance in the event of a conflict, with its interpretation being afforded the fullest possible weight to the interest, approval, and provision of housing.

Certification as an Essential Housing Project is available for use to expedite (1) any new application for a Housing Development Project, (2) any Housing Development Project currently under City review, or (3) any approved, entitled, and/or permitted Housing Development Project not yet built by the date application for certification is made.

An application under the Essential Housing Program was submitted for the proposed project in November 2021. On December 27, 2021, the City’s Director of Development Services certified the proposed RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
53 project as an Essential Housing Project based on the criteria adopted by the City Council.

As demonstrated by the December 27, 2022, certification, the proposed project would address the City’s housing crisis by providing a mix of residential and nonresidential uses and a mix of housing types and sizes. A total of 2,949 housing units would be developed if the proposed project includes a school, or 3,008 units without a school, including 435 moderate-income units. The proposed project would also contribute up to $2 million for affordable housing.

Stringent environmental and Santee General Plan consistency criteria established by the Essential Housing Program would be met.

The proposed project would implement mobility improvements, including bus stops, traffic calming, an up to $300,000 contribution to relieve congestion on SR-52, and rideshare/carshare parking.

Open space would be conserved. In addition to preserving 1,650.4 acres in the Habitat Preserve, the proposed project would provide at least $300,000 in funding for the management of City-owned natural open space and would plant at least 10 trees per acre of land to be developed. Water use would be reduced by connections to recycled or advanced treated water when PDMWD’s East County Advanced Water Purification project is completed.

With regard to energy, air quality, and GHG emissions, the proposed project’s residential units would be all-electric and would exceed Title 24 standards by all-electric residential development, implementing heat pump technology, increasing solar production, and expanding ventilation systems. Appliances would be Energy Star rated, electric vehicle chargers would be provided in the Village Center, and solar panels would be installed on accessory buildings and car ports.

Wildfire safety would be ensured through implementation of fuel management zones and the Fire Protection Plan (FPP), among the many other measures set forth in the FPP and Wildland Fire Evacuation Plan.

Many miles of trails and sidewalks would be provided with the proposed project, and up to $300,000 would be provided to the City to fund additional improvements to trail facilities. Finally, the proposed project’s extensive park and recreational facilities would exceed the Santee Municipal Code standards by at least 5 percent and would provide for multi-purpose playing fields and public recreational facilities for Citywide use. The certification of the proposed project based on the City’s Essential Housing Project Credits Assessment Guide and Checklist demonstrates that the current development proposal for the project site addresses the City’s immediate housing needs and furthers Santee General Plan RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
54 objectives and policies. Therefore, the proposed project is deemed Santee General Plan consistent and does not require an amendment to the Santee General Plan or other legislative act for approval. The proposed Fanita Ranch Development Plan establishes a program for the comprehensive implementation of the project, including development guidelines and standards, which are imposed through a Development Review Permit process.

Table 4.10-1 of the Recirculated Sections of Final Revised EIR identifies the goals, objectives, and policies found in the various elements of the Santee General Plan that are relevant to the proposed project and provides an evaluation of the proposed project’s consistency with them. Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, only the goals, objectives, and policies adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect are discussed.

City of Santee Zoning Ordinance: The proposed project promotes the Planned Development (PD) designation because it provides a unique development that includes creative housing types and use configurations not currently addressed in the City’s existing Zoning Ordinance. The proposed project would include detailed
development standards and design guidelines intended to facilitate the creation of new and innovative housing types and configurations, walkability, and housing attainability by creating greater efficiency and addressing the diverse range of incomes, lifestyles, special needs, and household types in Santee and the greater San Diego County region. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the City’s Zoning Ordinance upon project approval.

K. MINERAL RESOURCES

1. Regional and Statewide Mineral Resources
Threshold: Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
Finding: Less than significant. (EIR, § 4.11.5.1.)
Explanation: Construction of the proposed project has the potential to impact the mineral resources of both known and unknown significance in MRZ2 and MRZ-3 on the project site. The proposed project would have the potential to impact MRZ-2 lands in the northeastern and central portions of the proposed project where the Vineyard and Orchard Villages would be developed. The development of Fanita Commons, the Farm, and surrounding roadways would have the potential to RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
55 impact MRZ-3 lands. The MRZ-2 lands in the southern portion of the project site and the majority of the MRZ-3 lands throughout the rest of the project site would remain undeveloped in the proposed Habitat Preserve. Although there is the potential of mineral recovery from the MRZ-2 and MRZ-3 areas on the project site, in accordance with the Santee General Plan Conservation Element, economic, land use compatibility, and environmental protection factors must be considered when deciding on the appropriateness of mining in a particular area. Furthermore, the Santee General Plan designates the project site for Planned Development, not mineral resources extraction.

The majority of the project site is underlain with two major rock types, granitic rock and Stadium Conglomerate, with alluvial deposits made up of sand, gravel, and silt overlaying these basement rocks. These rock formations are commonly mined elsewhere in the County and the State of California for use as aggregate and are considered valuable to the region and the state. The proposed project would reuse on-site rock materials, such as large boulders, rock cobble, decomposed granite, and processed rock. There are large quantities of rock cobble existing on site. Rock cobble would be collected and used in the construction of water quality and landscape features. It is also anticipated that a relocatable, temporary aggregate plant would be permitted and set up on site during construction. The temporary aggregate plant would crush rock and produce roadway subbase and other aggregate materials for use on site. In addition to rock materials, there are large deposits of decomposed granite on site, which would be reused for trails and other landscape related purposes.

The processing and use of the on-site aggregate would reduce the need for mining and trucking aggregate materials from off-site sources for the infrastructure needs of the proposed project. The onsite aggregate plant would be capable of producing the materials required for roads, drain rock and backfill materials for wet and dry utilities, cobbles to line drainage channels and road medians, and a variety of landscaping materials for on-site and off-site road improvements. Construction of the proposed project would require on-site processing of approximately 937,500 tons of raw aggregate obtained from the project site. This equates to approximately 300,000 cubic yards of manufactured aggregate to be used for the building materials for the proposed project. Areas of high-grade Stadium Conglomerate or granite would be selected as the cut operation is ongoing and would be moved to the aggregate plant as aggregate is needed. The on-site aggregate plant would be permitted by the City as a part of the overall project entitlement RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
56 process. Rock-crushing activities would comply with the City’s noise standards and regional air quality standards. The on-site aggregate plant would not be designed to produce materials for asphalt or ready-made concrete. These materials would be brought in from local off-site sources. The use of the on-site aggregate plant would terminate at project buildout.

In consideration of the Santee General Plan Conservation Element’s Objective 5.0 and Policy 5.1, the project site’s proximity to the Goodan Ranch/Sycamore Canyon County Preserve and the Santee Lakes Recreation Preserve would likely preclude the proposed project from eligibility for mineral extraction due to the potential habitat and water quality impacts to those preserve areas. Use of the on-site aggregate plant would allow for the mineral resources existing on the project site to be used as part of the proposed project and would not contribute to other environmental impacts from transporting aggregate from off-site locations. Transitioning the onsite aggregate production areas to the proposed project uses would comply with the Santee General Plan Conservation Element’s Objective 6.0 and Policy 6.1, which prioritize the reclamation of mined lands for the use of recreational, wildlife habitat, and residential uses. In addition, consistent with the Santee General Plan Conservation Element’s Objective 10.0, over 60 percent of the project site would remain in open space, and the mineral resources like aggregate and sediment in the open space would not be lost to the region. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact associated with the loss of mineral resources that would be of value to the region and the state.

2. Locally-Important Mineral Resource
Threshold: Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a locallyimportant mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Finding: Less than significant. (EIR, § 4.11.5.2.)
Explanation: The Santee General Plan Conservation Element designates the project site as MRZ-2 and MRZ-3 lands containing mineral resources of known and unknown importance. However, the proposed project would satisfy the Santee General Plan Conservation Element’s Objectives 5.0, 6.0, and 10.0 and Policies 5.1 and 6.1 regarding consideration of environmental disturbance from mineral resources extraction; reclamation of mined lands for recreational, habitat, and residential uses; and the preservation of mineral resources. In addition, the Santee General Plan designates the project site as Planned Development, not mineral resource extraction, and does not RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
57 consider the project site a potential significant local source of mineral resources. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact associated with the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site.

L. NOISE

1. Airport Noise
Threshold: For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Finding: Less than significant. (EIR, § 4.12.5.3.)
Explanation: MCAS Miramar is located adjacent to the west/northwestern boundary of the project site. The runways are located approximately 6 miles west of the project site. Additionally, Gillespie Field is located approximately 1.75 miles south of the project site. The project site is currently subject to periodic, audible overflights, particularly from MCAS Miramar. However, the proposed project site is not located within the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour of either airport (SDCRAA 2010, 2011). Additionally, the proposed project does not include any components that would increase air traffic or require changes to existing air traffic patterns. As such, overflights are anticipated to continue to be audible at the project site; however, the proposed project is not anticipated to increase exposure to excessive noise levels from airport operation. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

M. POPULATION AND HOUSING

1. Population Growth
Threshold: Would the Project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of road or other infrastructure)?
Finding: Less than significant. (EIR, § 4.13.5.1.)
Explanation: Direct Impacts
Preferred Land Use Plan with School: The proposed project would result in the construction of 2,949 residential units under the preferred land use plan with school. Of the 2,949 residential units, RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
58 445 are proposed to be designated as Active Adult units. The proposed project residential population is based on a population generation factor of 2.9 persons per household and 1.6 persons per Active Adult unit. Based on this population factor, the proposed project is expected to result in a population increase of approximately 7,974 residents (2.9 x 2,703 residential units) + (1.6 x 445 Active Adult units). It is unknown whether the proposed project would generate residents from in the City or result in resident migration from other areas. Presumably, the additional residents generated by the proposed project would be a combination of current residents in the City and residents who migrate from other areas. The analysis conservatively assumes the proposed project would increase the City’s population by 7,974 residents.

SANDAG’s population projections for the City are based on the adopted Santee General Plan. The current designation of the project site as Planned Development (PD) in the Santee General Plan Land Use Element and the identification of the site to provide 1,395 units in the Santee General Plan Housing Element demonstrate that the site has been planned for residential growth by the City. Using the

2.9 persons per household multiplier, a development project of 1,395 units could result in a population increase of approximately 4,045 residents. The difference between the planned and proposed land uses, when translated to persons per household, is approximately 3,929 persons. However, the project site has been subject to land use planning for the past 40 years, indicating that this site was planned for development even before it was part of the City. In 1980, the project site was designated in the County General Plan for development of approximately 14,000 residential units. When the City adopted its first General Plan (1984), the project site was designated for a maximum of 8,100 residential units. The number of residential units proposed on the project site has continued to vary over the years, with many proposals greater than the 2,949 residential units currently proposed, indicating that the project site has been intended for population growth by the City and the County for many decades.

Further, the production of housing in California has not returned to the level required to meet the projected housing demand and would need to be approximately 100,000 additional residential units annually to meet this demand (HCD 2018). In the County, SANDAG projected that housing production at the regional level will not be able to keep pace with population growth in the coming years. Because new development in the County are constrained to the north by Camp Pendleton, to the west by the Pacific Ocean, and to the south by Mexico, the proposed project would be beneficial to County residents because it would contribute to the overall County housing RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
59 stock. Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to begin in 2021 with a buildout of approximately 10 to 15 years. Thus, based on a conservative estimate and averaged over 10 years, the 7,974- person population increase would equate to approximately 797 new residents per year, which would be consistent with the City’s historical population increases. In the context of the housing shortage currently experienced by the state and the San Diego region, the provision of new housing on the project site would be considered growth accommodating and would represent a regional benefit.

In addition, the RHNA has identified housing needs based on income level for the City. The Santee General Plan Housing Element lists the project site as the only source for above moderate income residential units. Other sites are identified to meet RHNA requirements for the other income levels. The proposed project would satisfy the RHNA requirements for above moderate residential units and provide additional residential units to meet the anticipated future deficiencies in the City.

Further, the widening of State Route 52 from Cuyamaca Street to State Route 67 has contributed to the loss of housing in the City. This project resulted in the loss of approximately 199 residential units as of 2006, which the proposed project would replace (Poucel 2006).

Therefore, the preferred land use plan with school would not result in direct impacts to unplanned population growth, and impacts would be less than significant.

The Planned Development (PD) land use designation in the Santee General Plan allows for a variety of mixed-use development types, including commercial uses. The non-residential components of the proposed project, including commercial uses (retail, service, and office) in the Village Centers, the Farm, and the proposed school, would result in the creation of approximately 450 jobs (411 full-time and 39 part-time positions), which would not induce substantial population growth given the size of the labor pool anticipated on the project site and in the existing City and nearby communities.

Approximately 250 jobs would be associated with the proposed onsite school. The proposed project is not anticipated to cause significant numbers of people to relocate to the area solely to be close to the project site for employment purposes. This proposed non-residential development is allowed by the PD land use designation and would not contribute to unplanned population growth.

Land Use Plan Without School: The underlying land use for the onsite designated school location is Medium Density Residential. If the RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
60 school site is not acquired for school use by the Santee School District within 2 years of filing the final map containing the school site, then the Medium Density Residential land use may be implemented on the school site for development of an additional 59 residential units, for a total project development potential of 3,008 residential units. Using the same population generation factors of 2.9 persons per household (U.S. Census Bureau 2020) and 1.6 persons per Active Adult unit, the land use plan without school would provide housing for approximately 8,145 residents, which would be an increase of 171 persons compared to the preferred land use plan with school.

As discussed previously, SANDAG’s population projections for the City are based on the adopted Santee General Plan land uses for the project site, which would allow 1,395 residential units that could result in a population increase of approximately 4,045 residents (assuming 2.9 persons per household). The difference between the planned and proposed land uses, when translated to persons per household, is approximately 4,100 persons. As stated previously, the project site has been slated for development for the past 40 years with designated residential development ranging from 1,395 to 14,000 residential units. In addition, the state and the County recognize a prominent housing deficit, and the provision of new housing on the project site would be considered growth
accommodating and would represent a regional benefit. The proposed project proposes to increase the units on the site up to 3,008 without a school, which would be consistent with the Santee General Plan Housing Element, as amended.

Additionally, the land use plan without school would be a phased development with a construction start date of 2021 and a buildout of approximately 10 to 15 years. Therefore, based on a conservative estimate and averaged over 10 years, the 8,145-person increase would equate to approximately 815 new residents per year. The land use plan without school would be consistent with the historical numeric population increases that have occurred in the City.

Therefore, under the land use plan without school, the proposed project would not induce unplanned population growth, and impacts would be less than significant.

The Planned Development (PD) land use designation on the project site would allow for a variety of mixed-use development, including commercial uses. The non-residential components of the land use plan without school would include commercial uses (retail, service, and office) in the Village Centers and the Farm. These uses are estimated to create approximately 200 jobs (161 full-time and 39 part-time staff positions), which would not induce substantial RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
61 population growth given the size of the labor pool anticipated on the project site and in the existing City and nearby communities. Nonresidential development is allowed by the Planned Development (PD) land use designation and would not contribute to unplanned population growth.

Indirect Impacts
Preferred Land Use Plan With School and Land Use Plan Without School: Population growth can be induced indirectly with the provision of streets or other infrastructure. Substantial new infrastructure would be built to serve the project site including the extension of and improvements to Fanita Parkway, Cuyamaca Street, and Magnolia Avenue. These street extensions are included in the Santee General Plan Mobility Element and would facilitate residential development contemplated in the Santee General Plan Land Use Element. The proposed project would also extend water and sewer utilities to the project site. The infrastructure improvements would allow for the development of the proposed project, the resulting growth of which is described previously.

However, the extension of infrastructure would not allow for additional development on the project site or beyond, since the undeveloped open space on the project site would be dedicated in perpetuity as Habitat Preserve and much of the undeveloped land surrounding the project site is owned by the federal government, County and Padre Dam Municipal Water District and is not planned for future growth. Instead, the proposed infrastructure would accommodate growth already planned for in the area. Therefore, the proposed project would not indirectly induce substantial population growth. The proposed project’s indirect impacts would be less than significant.

2. Displacement of Housing
Threshold: Would the Project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere; and displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Finding: No impact. (EIR, §4.13.5.2.)
Explanation: The project site is currently undeveloped, and there are no existing housing units on the project site. As such, the proposed project would have no impacts related to the displacement of substantial numbers of existing housing units or people. Therefore, this significance criterion listed previously would not apply to the proposed project, RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
62 and no additional analysis related to this criterion is required. There would be no impacts related to this issue area.

N. PUBLIC SERVICES

1. Fire Protection
Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection?
Finding: Less than significant. EIR, § 4.14.5.1.)
Explanation: Under the preferred land use plan with school, the proposed project would develop 2,949 new residential units, which would generate approximately 7,974 residents. Under the land use plan without school, the proposed project would develop 3,008 residential units, which would generate approximately 8,145 residents. Using the City’s current per capita call generation factor of 100 calls per 1,000 persons, the project site is projected to add approximately 950 calls per year to the SFD’s existing call load. Under the land use plan without school, the additional population would increase the annual calculated call volume to 889 calls per year.

Due to increased demand and larger service area, response times to emergencies may exceed established response time goals. The primary standard used in the City to determine adequate levels of service is response time. The Santee General Plan (City of Santee 2003) states the goal is to provide an average maximum initial response time of no more than 6 minutes for fire, rescue and emergency medical services with an average maximum response time of no more than 10 minutes for supporting paramedic transport units 90 percent of the time. Secondary to response time is the number of personnel necessary to perform critical tasks required to safely mitigate emergencies.

According to the Fire Service Letter prepared for the proposed project, fire stations and personnel within the City are currently operating at capacity. To accommodate the increased demand and larger service area, the proposed project designates a 1.5-acre site for a new fire station and requires firefighting apparatus and trained firefighters in Fanita Commons to serve the project site and ensure adequate response times. The new station specifications regarding RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
63 size, staffing, and layout would be determined through the Development Plan between the applicant and the City.

The SFD has indicated it can and would serve the project site with the addition of an adequately staffed and equipped fire station. The station design would comply with City building and design standards, including City Ordinance No. 457, Article 86, Amended – Fire Protection Plan Wildland-Urban Interface Areas, in accordance with the approved Development Plan. Either a permanent or a temporary fire station must be constructed prior to the occupancy of any residential units in the proposed project. The proposed project would provide a fully constructed and staffed permanent fire station. In addition, a temporary fire station site equipped with apparatus and personnel may be provided on site until a permanent fire station is complete. The temporary fire station must be in an area that would meet a response time maximum of no more than 6 minutes to all areas of the proposed project. The temporary fire station would be fully equipped and staffed 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. The final location for the temporary fire station would be specified in the approved Development Plan and must be approved by the Santee Fire Chief. The applicant may choose to provide a permanent fire station in lieu of a temporary station. The Santee Fire Chief confirmed the addition of the new fire station, equipment, and staff on the project site would adequately serve the project site while maintaining current response standards. Travel time from the new permanent station to the most remote (distant) lot on the project site is calculated at 3 minutes and 26 seconds. This would allow just under 2 minutes for dispatch and turnout and would meet the Santee General Plan response time goal of no more than 6 minutes.

Fire flow pressure would be required to be a minimum of 2,500 gallons per minute for 3 hours of fire flow for single-family and multifamily residential and 3,500 gallons per minute for 4 hours of fire flow for commercial areas with fire hydrants spaced on average every 300 feet. New construction in the City requires the installation of fire sprinklers, which would further reduce the potential for fire loss on the project site. To address fire and life safety issues on new development, the City’s Fire Marshal reviews proposed residential, commercial, and industrial projects through the City’s Development Review process to ensure that adequate fire hydrant locations, water flow pressures, access for emergency vehicles, and other requirements are met, which would also reduce the need for fire protection services (City of Santee 2003).

The on-site fire station would be constructed to serve the increased development and population associated with the proposed project and would be a project component located within the boundaries of RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
64 the project site. Because the proposed project would provide an onsite fire station to serve the anticipated increase in development and population, it would not require construction or expansion of additional new fire protection facilities off site. Therefore, impacts associated with the need for new or expanded fire facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for fire protection would not result in a new significant impact.

2. Police Protection
Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for police protection?
Finding: Less than significant. (EIR, § 4.14.5.2.)
Explanation: The proposed project would generate additional population under either the preferred land use plan with school or the land use plan without school. The increase in population would increase the demand for law enforcement services, with a consequent increase in the response times to emergency and non-emergency calls. The SDCSD provided a will-serve letter that includes service ratio and response time information for law enforcement services provided to the City by the County. The ratio of officers to population in the City is approximately 2.5 full-time deputies per 1,000 residential unit, which is higher than the SDCSD goal1 of providing 1 patrol position per 10,000 residents. Based on this ratio, the addition of the proposed project would equate to a need for approximately 7.4 new officers to serve the proposed project at full buildout under the preferred land use plan with school or 7.5 officers under the land use plan without school.

The proposed project would be constructed in four phases, and the addition of approximately 7,974 residents under the preferred land use plan with school, or 8,145 residents under the land use plan without school, would be spread out over approximately 10 to 15 years until full buildout, enabling the City to contract with the SDCSD for appropriate increases in the level of service, including personnel, equipment, shifts, and person-hours committed to the City as a

1 The SDCSD staffing goals and facility plans are based on population instead of residential units.

RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
65 whole.

The Village Center land use designation in Fanita Commons allows for the development of a law enforcement satellite office for future expansion of police protection services, if deemed necessary, to accommodate these additional officers. Overall staffing would be a contractual commitment in which both the City and SDCSD would enter into and agree on personnel required for the proposed project.

As stated in the SDCSD will-serve letter for the proposed project, the provision of additional officers would not require the need for new or expanded police facilities on the project site to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for police protection. The additional officers could be in the SDCSD’s existing facilities. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new significant impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities.

3. Schools
Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for schools?
Finding: Less than significant. (EIR, § 4.14.5.3.)
Explanation: According to the Santee School District (SSD), the development of 2,949 residential units under the preferred land use plan with school would generate approximately 635 K–8 students. Though SSD identifies that it has capacity to house some new students in existing schools within the district, in order to accommodate the total influx of new students, a new school facility would need to be constructed.

The proposed project reserves a school site for a potential K–8 public school or other educational uses on the project site boundaries. If acquired by the SSD, the site can accommodate up to 700 students, including existing City students and new students on the project site, plus required staff. Under this land use plan, the proposed project would provide an on-site K–8 school to serve the proposed project’s anticipated increase in population, and would not require construction or expansion of additional K–8 school facilities off site.

Additionally, according to the Grossmont Union High School District (GUHSD), the project site is within the West Hills High School attendance area, and if necessary, the GUHSD may consider a boundary adjustment to allow students living on the project site to RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
66 attend Santana High School. According to the GUHSD, both of these school facilities have adequate capacity to serve students from the project site and the GUHSD does not anticipate the need to modify or expand the schools to accommodate the additional students from the proposed project. Therefore, impacts associated with the need for new or expanded school facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for public schools would be less than significant.

Should the SSD not acquire the on-site school site, the proposed project would allow development of an additional 59 residential units on the school site. Based on the generation rates provided by the SSD, the land use plan without school is anticipated to generate 647 students, which is only 12 more students than the SSD’s calculation of 635 students under the preferred land use plan with school.

According to the SSD, the district does not have sufficient classroom space to accommodate the additional students generated by this land use plan. However, given the 10–15 year project buildout, a new or expanded school would not be needed for several years after onsite residential units begin to be occupied. The SSD uses a centralized, open enrollment system, whereby students are assigned to schools based on available space. Therefore, an interim solution for school placement of new students generated by the proposed project would be to assign them to any of the SSD’s current nine schools, depending on space availability. SSD makes every attempt to assign students to their school of residence, when requested.

However, given available space, it is not always possible to assign students to the facility closest to their residence. An additional option may include the construction of new classrooms on existing school campuses to accommodate the increase in students. If the long-term solution is an expanded or new school, the SSD would be required to comply with CEQA under separate review.

According to the GUHSD, both of the high schools that would serve the project site (West Hills High School and Santana High School) have adequate capacity to serve students from the proposed project, including the additional students generated by the development of 59 residential units in the area sited for the school. The GUHSD does not anticipate the need to modify or expand schools to accommodate additional students from the proposed project.

The applicant would be required to pay development impact fees for the proposed project’s residential and commercial development in the amount required at the time of building permit issuance. Both school districts have established school impact mitigation fees to address the facility impacts created by residential and commercial RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
67 development. The districts use these fees to pay for facility expansion and upgrades needed to serve new students. These fees would be collected during the plan check process. Payment of mandatory school impact fees in accordance with SB 50 would mitigate potential impacts to school facilities from the proposed project. Impacts would be less than significant.

4. Other Public Facilities - Libraries
Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for libraries?
Finding: Less than significant. (EIR, § 4.14.5.4.)
Explanation: The Santee branch library, which is run by the Serra Cooperative Library System in conjunction with the County of San Diego, is considered to be in a space deficit. The City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Five-Year Budget (Fiscal Years 2020 through 2024) includes a project to develop a new library facility (City of Santee n.d.). The CIP project would build a new, 20,000 square foot library facility to replace the undersized space currently rented by the County of San Diego. Though a specific location is not identified at this time, as part of the CIP approval process, the City would conduct environmental review compliant with CEQA and identify mitigation measures to reduce significant impacts, as applicable. The library CIP project is currently unfunded by the City and is anticipated to occur in Fiscal Year 2023–2024. It is anticipated that the New Library Building Fund created by the Friends of Santee Library would provide some funding for the new library.

The construction of the proposed project would incrementally increase the existing library space deficit. The proposed project includes a Village Center land use designation that would allow for a mix of uses including civic uses. While a library is not precluded, a designated library site has not been identified on the project site. If a library is built on the project site in the Village Center area, the library construction and operation would be no more impactful than the other proposed commercial or public uses proposed within this land use designation.

Though the proposed project would be required to pay development impact fees (Chapter 12.30 of the Santee Municipal Code), which fund the construction of public facilities that are reasonably related RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
68 to the impacts of the new development, the fees associated with Chapter 12.30 do not go toward funding the construction of libraries.

The location of a new library on site or an expanded library off site has not been identified; however, the provision of new facilities off site would be subject to separate environmental review. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities. Impacts would be less than significant.

O. RECREATION

1. Increased Use
Threshold: Would the Project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Finding: Less than significant. (EIR, § 4.15.5.1.)
Explanation: Parks. The proposed project would develop 2,949 residential units (under the preferred land use plan with school) or 3,008 residential units (under the land use plan without school). Implementation of the proposed project would result in an increase of approximately 7,974 persons (under the preferred land use plan with school) or 8,145 persons (under the land use plan without school) on the project site and in the City, which, as of 2019, has a current population of 58,408, bringing the estimated population in the City to 66,382 (under the preferred land use plan with school) or 66,553 (under the land use plan without school).

The City’s objective of providing 10 acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents would be satisfied through compliance with the Santee Municipal Code, Chapter 12.40, requirement to provide 5 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents of parkland dedication and the provision of “other recreation and open space areas” equal to 5 acres per 1,000 persons. The increase in population from implementation of the proposed project would require approximately 79 acres of additional parkland under the preferred land use plan with school or approximately 81 acres under the land use plan without school.

Including the proposed project’s population increase, the City would require approximately 663 acres of developed parkland Citywide under the preferred land use plan with school or approximately 665 acres under the land use plan without school to meet the Santee General Plan policy.

To meet the City’s minimum standard while adhering to the Santee Municipal Code, Chapter 12.40, the proposed project would provide RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
69 new recreational amenities, including 78 acres of public and private parkland for active and passive recreation and 4.5 acres (approximately 4.8 miles) of trail land consisting of the perimeter trail and Stowe Trail connection for a total of 82.5 acres. This parkland could be accessed by the public at large and project residents. Per the public park credit provisions set forth in the Santee Municipal Code, Chapter 12.40.110, Credit for Public Parks, developed parkland dedicated to and maintained by the City would receive up to 100 percent park credit. Developed parkland maintained by a homeowners association and trail systems would receive up to 50 percent credit per the private park credit provisions in Santee Municipal Code, Chapter 12.40.100, Credit for Private Parks.

Applying these credits, approximately 52.4 acres of the total 82.5 acres of public and private parkland and trail land would be available for parkland dedication credit, which would satisfy the Santee Municipal Code parkland dedication requirement of 5 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents based on 740.5 square feet per singlefamily unit and 675.2 square feet per multi-family unit. The proposed project would be required to provide 47.6 acres of dedicated parks and trails based on the Santee Municipal Code requirement stated above. With the provision of 52.4 acres of dedicated parks and trails, the proposed project would result in a surplus of 4.8 acres. Under the land use plan without school, the developed parkland and recreational facility dedication requirement would increase by 0.9 acre due to the addition of 59 Medium Density Residential units. This would result in a total parkland dedication requirement of 48.5 acres and would result in a surplus of 3.9 acres under the land use plan without school.

Of the 82.5 acres of parkland and trails, the largest proposed park would be the Community Park (31.2 acres) in Fanita Commons. This park would be the primary location for active and organized recreational activities on the project site. Eight Neighborhood Parks totaling 30.4 acres would be provided in key locations to define neighborhoods and provide community-gathering spaces. Thirty-one Mini-Parks totaling 16.4 acres would be designed to enhance open space areas such as vistas and riparian corridors, break up development patterns, and provide visual relief. The 1.6-acre Village Green would be a special Mini-Park that, together with the Village Center and the Farm, would establish a centralized landmark and event space for the entire community. The proposed perimeter trail and Stowe Trail connection would total approximately 4.5 acres (approximately 4.8 miles). Applying the applicable 50 percent or 100 percent park credit to these acreages, these parks and trails would provide 52.4 acres of credited parkland dedicated to the City for public use.

RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
70 Furthermore, to comply with the specific ratio outlined in Santee Municipal Code, Section 12.40.070 (740.5 square feet per singlefamily unit and 675.2 square feet per multi-family unit), approximately

47.6 acres of other recreation and open space areas would be needed to meet the Santee General Plan Recreation Element Objective 1.0. To meet that requirement, the proposed project would provide 49 additional acres of parks, trails, and other recreation and open space areas, resulting in a surplus of 1.4 acres. The 49 acres includes the 4.8 acres of surplus public and private parks and trails described previously, the 27.3-acre Farm, 10.9 acres of Open Space areas with an Agriculture Overlay, and 6 acres of multi-purpose trails.

In addition, playgrounds and other recreational facilities would be provided at the reserved school site under the preferred land use plan with school should the Santee School District acquire the site and construct a school. When taken together, the 52.4 acres of dedicated parks and trails, the 49 additional acres of other recreation and open space areas, and the miscellaneous playground and recreational facilities would support a broad range of active and passive recreational opportunities to serve the City’s population and proposed residents and would satisfy Objective 1.0 of the Santee General Plan Recreation Element.

The proposed project would be designed so that every residence would be within a short walking distance of a park or trail. Active sports-oriented parks, playgrounds, gardens, and seating areas with views that provide meditative space would be spread throughout the community to allow residents opportunities for outdoor recreation.

Play structures in the parks would be of non-combustible or other materials approved by the Santee Fire Department. Park designs would be consistent with the Fire Protection Plan prepared for the proposed project. In addition, an AgMeander would use the proposed trail, path, and sidewalk system and provide numerous interpretive stations and exhibits.

Under existing conditions, the City has approximately 823 acres of public parkland, or approximately 12 acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents, which exceeds Objective 1.0 in the Santee General Plan Recreation Element. Implementation of the proposed project would increase the parkland inventory for the City to approximately 13 acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents under either the preferred land use plan with school or the land use plan without school. The proposed project would add public parkland acreage to an already surplus City inventory, which would increase access to public recreational facilities for the entire community. In total, the proposed project would provide more than the minimum acreage required by the Santee General Plan Recreation Element for the RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
71 proposed project’s population increase.

Trails. Trails proposed throughout the project site would provide connectivity between the villages, existing City development, and regional trails. The proposed project would provide over 35 miles of trails (23 acres), including the perimeter trail and Stowe Trail connection (approximately 4.8 miles combined), that were used to calculate compliance with the Santee Municipal Code. While not all trails would meet access requirements (particularly the existing primitive trails in the Habitat Preserve), the proposed project would comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act accessibility requirements to the extent practicable. The proposed project’s local trails would connect with the nearby existing regional trails north to Goodan Ranch/Sycamore Canyon County Preserve and south to Mission Trails Regional Park. Trail locations throughout the project site would be coordinated to minimize conflicts with sensitive habitat areas by using existing trails and dirt roads and providing signage, well-defined trail markers, fencing, and community education to protect habitat areas.

The Santee General Plan Recreation Element and Objective 9.0, Policies 9.1 through 9.5, of the Trails Element discuss recreational trails in the City’s 2018 Draft Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan. As considered in the Recreation and Trails Elements, certain trails in the proposed Habitat Preserve would offer recreational benefits and may be included in the overall park and open space calculations for the proposed project.

The proposed project would provide sufficient acreage of parks, trails, and recreational facilities to satisfy the parkland dedication requirements and comply with the Santee General Plan Recreational Element Objectives 1.0 and 2.0 to provide adequate recreational facilities including trails.

The proposed project would provide a variety of new, on-site recreational amenities to occupants of the project site, thereby offsetting the need to go off site to use recreational facilities. While project residents may use existing Neighborhood and Regional Parks or other recreational facilities, they would also be expected to use the on-site recreational amenities due to convenience and variety. Therefore, substantial physical deterioration of the existing recreational facilities would not be expected to occur or be accelerated. Impacts would be less than significant.

P. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC

1. Design Hazards
RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
72 Threshold: Would the Project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Finding: Less than significant. (EIR, § 4.16.5.3.)
Explanation: Implementation of the proposed project would establish a network of streets of varying design capacities tailored to meet the needs of the three proposed villages. The Fanita Ranch Development Plan has developed its own street design criteria intended to address safety, aesthetics, and functionality, as well as site constraints. The streets would be designed to meet or exceed Santee Fire Department (SFD) requirements. The project would design a system of complete streets that supports multiple user types, including motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit riders. On-site streets would generally be two lanes and would include a variety of design elements, including roundabouts, split streets, landscaped medians, and parkways.

A Traffic Calming Plan would be implemented throughout the proposed project in an effort to reduce traffic-related hazards by lowering vehicle speeds on neighboring streets without restricting access. The overall goals of the Traffic Calming Plan would be to improve the quality of life for residents, reduce impacts of motor vehicles on local and collector streets, create safe and attractive streets, and create a friendly environment for pedestrians and bicyclists. Several traffic calming measures would be implemented throughout the project site to assist in meeting these goals.

To relieve potentially dangerous intersections, a series of roundabouts would be incorporated throughout the proposed project to eliminate the need for left-turn and U-turn movements, controlling vehicle speed, and providing a safer environment for pedestrians.

Additional features include specialized wildlife crossing on Streets “V” and “W,” which traverse the Habitat Preserve. To create a safe corridor for automobiles, accommodate nocturnal wildlife movement, and enhance the viability of planned wildlife crossings, these streets would be marked with highly reflective pavement markers instead of standard City roadside lights. A wildlife crossing tunnel would be provided under the extension of Cuyamaca Street near the entrance to Orchard Village. It has been demonstrated that, from an animal’s perspective, the pavement markers mimic a small rock in the landscape and would not negatively impact wildlife movement.

Retroreflective pavement markers (pursuant to the California Department of Transportation specifications) would be spaced 24 feet of center on these segments. Bollard-type lighting with touchactivated sensors would be located on the pedestrian walkway that runs along these streets to enhance pedestrian safety. In addition, RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
73 there would be agricultural uses on the project site primarily within the central Farm. Outside materials storage would be provided for farming equipment and machinery. A tunnel would be constructed under Street “W” to allow for the movement of agriculture equipment to and from the Farm and avoid any potential conflicts with automobile traffic.

The proposed project would improve and construct new segments of three Santee General Plan Mobility Element streets: Fanita Parkway, Cuyamaca Street, and Magnolia Avenue. Improvements would also occur at the terminus of Carlton Hills Boulevard and at existing deadend streets that terminate at the project site boundary. Fanita Parkway and Cuyamaca Street would be widened and include sidewalks, multi-purpose trails, emergency lanes and enhanced pedestrian crossings to encourage multimodal transportation and pedestrian safety.

The proposed project would include transportation design features to enhance public safety and would not result in changes to roadway design that would cause increased hazards. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

2. Emergency Access
Threshold: Would the Project result in inadequate emergency access? Finding: Less than significant. (EIR, § 4.16.5.4.)
Explanation: The project proposes the extension of Fanita Parkway, Cuyamaca Street, and Magnolia Avenue to allow access to and from the project site with planned improvements on the existing segments and intersections to accommodate additional project traffic.

A Fire Protection Plan and Wildland Fire Evacuation Plan were prepared for the proposed project to address emergency access and evacuation in the case of an emergency. The proposed project would provide emergency access that meets current City requirements throughout the proposed development areas. The proposed internal looped roadways would be built to the currently adopted California Fire Code and City Ordinance 545 (Sections 503.2.1, 503.2.3) requirements and would provide travel lane widths consistent with the Fanita Ranch Development Plan standards, adequate parking, 28-foot inside radius, grade maximums, signals at intersections, and extremely wide roadside fuel modification zones. Interior residential streets would be designed to accommodate a minimum of a 77,000- pound fire truck. All dead-end streets would meet SFD requirements.

Additionally, the streets would provide residents the option to RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
74 evacuate from at least two routes that lead to three main arteries.

The project site would have two points of primary access for emergency response and evacuation. Depending on the nature of the emergency, future residents would exit to the south on Fanita Parkway or Cuyamaca Street. It is anticipated that the majority of the community traffic would exit the project site via Cuyamaca Street, which would also connect to the extension of Magnolia Avenue.

These are the most direct routes to the project site. Both streets would include bike lanes that could be used as an additional emergency lane for first responders. These streets would provide access to major traffic corridors including directly or indirectly to SR52 to the south, SR-67 to the east, I-8 to the south, I-125 to the south, and I-15 to the west. Fanita Parkway would be used for emergency access by the western portion of the proposed project development.

The planned extension and improvements to Fanita Parkway and Cuyamaca Street, and Magnolia Avenue south of the Project site would be sized to provide adequate access for fire equipment and personnel. The proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Q. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

1. Water Supplies
Threshold: Would the Project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Finding: Less than significant. (EIR, § 4.17.5.2.)
Explanation: Proposed project water demand was calculated based on land use type, number of residential units, the Santee Municipal Code, and the PDMWD-defined unit demand factors. The calculation also took into account the effects of climate change on water supply, including the rising sea levels and changes in weather events. For water demand per residential land use area, the residential units are multiplied by a per capita water-use factor of 100 gallons per capita per day obtained from PDMWD’s 2015 Comprehensive Facilities Master Plan and multiplied by the estimated number of persons per residential unit as defined in the Santee Municipal Code. Commercial and irrigation water demands are calculated per WAS design criteria based on land area type. The total projected water demand for the entire project site is 1.44 mgd, or 1,618 acre-feet per year (AFY).

PDMWD’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) accounts for 840 AFY of demand associated with the proposed project. Thus, RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
75 the WSA prepared for the project evaluated the additional demand of 778 AFY associated with the proposed project that was not previously accounted for.

Supply shortfalls are projected in the single and multiple dry year scenarios. PDMWD can address the shortfalls identified here and in its 2015 UWMP through the implementation of conservation measures identified in Section 8 of its 2015 UWMP, Water Shortage Contingency Planning (Appendix O3). The San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) 2015 UWMP has identified no shortages in a single dry year until 2035 and no shortages in multiple dry years until 2028, provided carryover storage supplies are utilized in both instances. Carryover storage currently totals 170,000 AFY. SDCWA maintains that single and multiple dry year shortages can be mitigated through extraordinary water conservation actions and dry year transfers, which the SDCWA successfully acquired and used during the 2007–2011 shortage period (SDCWA 2015 UWMP
Section 9.3.) Further, the shortfalls identified in the SDCWA’s 2015 UWMP would be mitigated by the interim demand forecast reduction of approximately 60,000 AFY for the 2020 to 2040 planning horizon identified in the 2018 SDCWA Annual Report based on water-use efficiency increase projections throughout the region and with the increased output at the Carlsbad Desalination Plant in comparison with the SDCWA’s 2015 UWMP. Similarly, PDMWD can address the shortfalls identified in its 2015 UWMP through the implementation of conservation measures identified in Section 8 of its 2015 UWMP, Water Shortage Contingency Planning.

The proposed project’s projected demand is 1,618 AFY. PDMWD’s projected total water demand for 2040 is 16,816 AFY (14,800 AFY potable and 2,016 AFY recycled) or 15 mgd. According to PDMWD’s 2015 Comprehensive Facilities Master Plan and Program
Environmental Impact Report, which were approved by the PDMWD Board in May 2017, only 0.75 mgd or 840 AFY of proposed project demand is accounted for in the 2040 projections for PDMWD because it was based on the previously proposed project from 2007.

Therefore, the 2015 UWMP only accounts for 56 percent of the proposed project’s calculated demand. The proposed project’s accounted for demand of 840 AFY is 5 percent of PDMWD’s total potable demand for the year 2040. The proposed project’s total demand of 1,618 AFY would be about 9.6 percent of PDMWD’s 2040 adjusted potable water demand of 15,578 AFY (14,800 AFY + 778 AFY [unaccounted for demand by the proposed project]).

Since PDMWD’s 2015 UWMP only accounts for 840 AFY of the proposed project’s total projected demand of 1,618 AFY over the 20- year planning horizon, the WSA evaluates and concludes that the RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
76 additional required 778 AFY can be accommodated by additional imported water from the SDCWA. The SDCWA has confirmed in a response letter that it can meet the additional 778 AFY demand associated with the proposed project through the use of its accelerated forecast growth (AFG) component of its 2015 UWMP.

The AFG is incorporated into the SDCWA’s demand forecast at a regional level and is available to all member agencies to meet additional demand increments not previously identified. The demand associated with the AFG component is included in the SDCWA’s regional total demand forecast and is intended to account for a portion of SANDAG’s estimated residential land use development that is currently projected to occur beyond the SDCWA’s 2040 planning horizon but that has the potential to move forward on an accelerated schedule. This AFG demand was incorporated by the SDCWA at a regional level for planning purposes and is not portioned out by member agencies. This allows for an additional 4,807 AFY beginning in 2025, a portion of which (778 AFY) has been allocated by SDCWA to PDMWD for the proposed project.

In addition, the proposed project would implement water-efficient irrigation, landscaping, appliances, and fixtures to further reduce water demand. Landscape plans would be required to ensure compliance with applicable requirements, and the applicant would be required to plan and install water-efficient devices and landscaping in accordance with applicable PDMWD development guidelines and standards, ordinances, and requirements.

PDMWD is also planning and developing a regional drought-proof water supply known as the East County Advanced Water Purification (ECAWP) Project, which would decrease PDMWD’s reliance on imported water supplies and improve water supply reliability. The ECAWP Project, which is currently in the project procurement and permitting phase, is anticipated to treat the combined 2025 wastewater flow of approximately 15 million gallons per day (MGD) and produce up to 12,880 acre-feet per year (AFY), or 11.5 MGD, of new, reliable, and locally controlled potable water supply which represents approximately 30% of East County San Diego’s water demand. If the ECAWP Project is implemented, based on this projected time frame, the proposed project would utilize purified water from the ECAWP Project within the 20-year water supply planning horizon and beyond. The ECAWP Project is not necessary for PDMWD to meet the demand associated with the proposed project, however. But it could provide an additional supply source for further water supply security to the proposed project and other PDMWD customers if it is implemented. Further, PDMWD plans to reduce its dependence on imported supplies from the SDCWA by continuing permanent water conservation efforts.

RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
77 The effects of climate change drastically alter the overall planning required for the conservation and distribution of Metropolitan’s water supply. Accounting for the effects of climate change is a challenging task because the events that can occur are unpredictable. However, previous hydraulic studies produced by Metropolitan have provided a strong basis for the prediction of future events. According to Metropolitan’s UWMP, the predicted impacts of global climate change that could affect Metropolitan’s water supply include, but are not limited to: (1) reduction in the average annual snowpack; (2) changes in the timing, intensity, and location of weather events; (3) rising sea levels; (4) decrease in local sources such as groundwater; (5) increase in urban and agricultural water demand; (6) degrading water source; (7) declines in ecosystem viability; and (8) changes to pumping and power operations.

To prevent further greenhouse gases emissions, Metropolitan has implemented steps to reduce the carbon footprint of its facilities, including the addition of hydroelectric power plants that create energy from the water flowing through pipelines, and implementation of solar power technologies to its facilities. Metropolitan not only audits its own energy usage but also voluntarily reports its greenhouse gas emissions to California’s Climate Registry.

Metropolitan has taken steps to offset the effects of climate change on water supply. To reduce the water impacts due to climate change, Metropolitan has developed and implemented drought response action items. According to “Current Conditions” section of the Metropolitan 2015 UWMP, Metropolitan’s drought response actions include providing incentives for on-site recycled water hook ups; augmenting water supplies with water transfers and exchange; improving storage programs; upgrading its distribution system to enhance CRA water delivery; and implementing the Water Supply Allocation Plan to distribute the limited imported supplies and preserve storage reserves.

The conservation method allows for a reduction in energy that normally would have been used by exporting water instead of storing it. With the use of gravitational distribution for recycled water, less electricity is required to generate energy needed to distribute pressurized water. Efforts to implement water conservation include recycling and reusing sea water and wastewater as a reliable source of potable water. Applying such measures reduces the amount of water imported from the SWP and the Colorado River.

Likewise, SDCWA has developed strategies to manage the supply uncertainties associated with a changing climate. This includes the foundational strategy to diversify the region’s resource mix through RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
78 development of local projects, such as recycled water and seawater desalination and reduce reliance on imported and local surface supplies whose yields could potentially decrease as a result of climate change (see Tables 10-3 and 10-4 of the SDCWA 2015 UWMP). SDCWA uses tracking metrics to monitor the progress on implementation of its water resource mix, which are then used in updates to its UWMP every 5 years.

Therefore, based on PDMWD’s projected supplies, combined with additional confirmed supplies from the SDCWA AFG, water supplies are sufficiently available to meet the proposed project’s demand in normal, single dry, and multiple dry years, provided that the water shortage contingency planning measures identified in PDMWD’s 2015 UWMP and the SDCWA’s 2015 UWMP are implemented in dry years. In addition, efforts underway by Metropolitan, SDCWA, and PDMWD to diversify and augment their supplies provide further assurance of the sufficiency of the water supply for the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on water supply availability.

2. Wastewater Capacity
Threshold: Would the Project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Finding: Less than significant. (EIR, § 4.17.5.3.)
Explanation: The proposed project would construct new public sewer infrastructure that would be owned, operated, and maintained by PDMWD. Sewage generated on the project site would be treated at the existing Ray Stoyer WRF or at the new WRF to be constructed as part of the ECAWP Project. In instances where the WRF is offline for maintenance, capital improvement, etc., sewage generated on the project site would be diverted to the City of San Diego’s Metropolitan Sewerage System. PDMWD’s existing Ray Stoyer WRF does not have adequate capacity alone to serve the sewer demand generated by the proposed project. A combination of the WRF and the available capacity in the San Diego Metropolitan Sewerage System (Metro) would provide sufficient capacity to serve the proposed project.

The Sewer Service Study prepared for the proposed project used flow generation rates developed in PDMWD’s 2015 Comprehensive Facilities Master Plan. The study analyzed average dry weather flow (ADWF), peak dry weather flow (PDWF), and peak wet weather flow RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
79 (PWWF) scenarios. The average daily flow was analyzed for the proposed project under both the preferred land use plan with school and the land use plan without school. Based on the analysis performed, the school site would produce an ADWF of 15,000 GPD while the alternative residential use would generate an ADWF of just under 11,000 GPD. Therefore, the preferred land use plan with school is used because it would generate a higher ADWF and thus represents a worst-case scenario based on PDMWD’s 2015
Comprehensive Facilities Master Plan consumption criteria. The proposed project would generate approximately 591,158 GPD of wastewater. This equates to approximately 662 AFY.

According to the 2015 UWMP, PDMWD’s wastewater collection system consists of sewer mains, lift stations, and flow diversion structures. Almost all of the collected wastewater flows to the PDMWD’s influent pump station. Up to 2,240 AFY of wastewater is pumped to the PDMWD WRF and 2,175 AFY is pumped to the Metro system where it receives advanced primary treatment at the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant. In total, PDMWD can collect approximately 4,426 AFY, or 3,951,277 GPD. However, the PDMWD’s Ray Stoyer WRF was analyzed for adequate treatment capacity for the proposed project, which can treat up to 2,240 AFY.

According to PDMWD’s 2015 UWMP, the Ray Stoyer WRF treated approximately 2,175 AFY in 2015.

The proposed project would generate approximately 662 AFY, or 591,158 GPD ADWF. In addition, PDMWD’s 2015 Comprehensive Facilities Master Plan has already included 1,380 residential units on the project site consistent with the Santee General Plan as part of the ADWF future projections. Therefore, a portion of the proposed project’s sewer demand totaling approximately 392 AFY has already been planned for by PDMWD. Further, there are plans to expand the existing PDMWD influent pump station and Ray Stoyer WRF through the ECAWP Program. This program would increase the capacity of the wastewater system to approximately 6,725 AFY by 2040, consistent with buildout of the proposed project. However, the remaining sewer demand of approximately 270 AFY from the proposed project would be capable of being treated by PDMWD facilities with or without this expansion. Thus, PDMWD has sufficient existing or planned capacity to receive and treat wastewater from the project site. The proposed project would have a less than significant impact on wastewater treatment capacity.

3. Solid Waste
RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
80 Threshold: Would the Project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Finding: Less than significant. EIR, § 4.17.5.4.)
Explanation: Construction activities including clearing, grubbing, grading, and building would occur and produce green waste, scraps, and other debris typical of construction. Operation of the proposed project would require services to pick up solid waste generated by the proposed land uses on the project site.

Residential and commercial trash hauling and industrial solid waste, green waste, and recycling collection and disposal services for the proposed project would be provided by Waste Management, Inc., under a contractual franchise agreement with the City. Waste Management, Inc., would provide trash, recycling, and yard waste pickup services on a weekly basis for residential customers and up to seven times per week for business customers. Waste
Management Inc., identified in the solid waste service letter that they are capable of adequately serving the proposed project and would not need to provide additional services or expand existing facilities to do so.

Solid waste from the proposed project that is not recycled or diverted would be hauled to Sycamore Landfill, a 349-acre site at 8514 Mast Boulevard approximately 1.7 miles southwest of the project site.

Sycamore Landfill is fully permitted as a Class III landfill and accepts only routine household and commercial waste; thus, hazardous wastes are not collected. According to the Solid Waste Information System database maintained by CalRecycle, the landfill’s maximum permitted capacity is approximately 147,908,000 cubic yards with a current remaining capacity of approximately 113,972,637 cubic yards as of 2016. Based on the remaining capacity and disposal rates, the Sycamore Landfill is expected to close December 31, 2042 (CalRecycle 2019).

Based on CalRecycle’s 2017 waste disposal rate of approximately

6.2 pounds per day per resident and recycling rate of 42 percent, the residential portion of the proposed project would dispose of approximately 28,675 pounds per day of waste (7,974 residents x

6.2 pounds per day – 42 percent) under the preferred land use plan with school and 28,289 pounds per day (8,145 residents x 6.2 pounds per day – 42 percent) under the land use plan without school.

Based on CalRecycle’s employee disposal rate of 11.9 pounds per employee per day and an employee recycling rate of 62 percent, the commercial portion of the proposed project would generate RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
81 approximately 2,035 pounds per day (450 employees x 11.9 pounds per day – 62 percent) under the preferred land use plan with school and approximately 904 pounds per day (200 employees x 11.9 pounds per day – 62 percent) under the land use plan without school.

The total waste generated for the proposed project would be approximately 30,710 pounds of municipal solid waste per day under the preferred land use plan with school and approximately 29,193 pounds of municipal solid waste per day under the land use plan without school. Converting Sycamore Landfill’s remaining capacity to pounds, it has approximately 192 billion pound capacity as of 2016.

Thus, the landfill has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project. In addition, waste diversion rates are expected to continuously increase as more waste is diverted from the landfills as mandated by AB 1826 and SB 939. Therefore, the proposed project would not generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals and impacts would be less than significant.

4. Solid Waste Laws
Threshold: Will the Project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Finding: Less than significant. (EIR, § 4.17.5.5.)
Explanation: Development of the proposed project would result in an increase in domestic municipal solid waste generation. Solid waste generated by the proposed project would be hauled away by Waste
Management, Inc., to Sycamore Landfill in the City of San Diego. As California laws get more stringent, the amount of waste sent and managed at Sycamore Landfill would be expected to decrease.

Waste Management, Inc., is required to implement measures to divert 65 percent of waste generated during construction/demolition activities. Santee Municipal Code, Section 9.04.080, also requires that any covered project submit a completed C&D debris
management plan that identifies waste materials expected to be generated by the proposed project at the time of demolition or building permit application.

Standard solid waste practices identified in AB 939 and AB 1826 would be implemented throughout operation of the proposed project.

Example measures include waste characterization, source reduction, recycling, composting, education and public information, special waste, household hazardous waste, and programs for organic waste. Waste and recycling for project construction and operation would comply with CALGreen and current regulations, RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
82 such as SB 1374, designed to divert waste from landfills. Effective January 1, 2017, all jurisdictions are required to divert 65 percent of construction waste. The proposed project would also comply with the City’s Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance (Santee Municipal Code, Chapter 9.04) requiring the diversion of 65 percent of construction waste as required under AB 939.

Non-residential development and attached residential development in the proposed project would comply with the trash enclosure requirements. Detached residential development and attached residential development where private garages are attached to individual units would participate in the residential curbside pickup program managed by Waste Management, Inc. Solid waste
containers for these units, which would be stored in private side or rear yards or in garages, would be picked up from the street curbside or alley edge on collection days. In addition, the proposed project would be required to institute recycling services to divert at least 90 percent of the waste generated and 70 percent of non-hazardous construction waste, and provide recycling and composting services (Mitigation Measure GHG-2), which includes providing recycling containers within multi-family residential communities and nonresidential buildings and providing composting containers and compost collection services within commercial and office facilities.

Proposed development on the project site would involve the reuse of on-site rock materials, such as large boulders, rock cobble, decomposed granite, and processed rock. There are large quantities of rock cobble existing on site. Rock cobble would be collected and used in the construction of water quality and landscape features. It is also anticipated that a temporary aggregate processing operation would be set up on site during construction. The aggregate processing plant would produce roadway sub-base and other aggregate materials for use on site. In addition to rock materials, there are large deposits of decomposed granite on site, which would be reused for trails and other landscape-related purposes. Use of onsite materials would eliminate the need for importing and exporting rough or finished materials, reducing the number of solid waste disposal truck trips and associated construction-related vehicle emissions in support of the Sustainable Santee Plan (2020).

The design of residences on the project site would be constructed of durable materials and simple design to minimize materials waste.

The Architectural Design Guidelines for the proposed project include recommendations for efficient residence designs that can potentially reduce the amount of lumber and other building materials needed.

Strategies include simple massing forms and efficient framing techniques, use of rapidly renewable resources, and installation of RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
83 durable material that require less frequent replacement. Therefore, the proposed project would comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Impacts would be less than significant.

R. WILDFIRE

1. Emergency Response Plan or Evacuation Plan
Threshold: Would the Project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Finding: Less than significant. (Recirculated Sections of Final Revised EIR, § 4.18.5.1.)
Explanation: The proposed project’s Wildland Fire Evacuation Plan (Appendix P2 of the Recirculated Sections of Final Revised EIR) was prepared based on the 2018 Unified San Diego County Emergency Services Organization and County of San Diego Operational Area (OA) Emergency Operations Plan (County EOP), its Evacuation Annex Q (Evacuation Annex Q), and the 2020 City of Santee Emergency Operations Plan (City EOP), which references the County EOP for purposes of evacuation planning. These plans provide a framework for implementing well-coordinated emergency response and evacuations between many agencies, organizations, and
jurisdictions. In the event of a wildfire or other emergency, the agencies follow these pre-plans and utilize experience, situational awareness, and available resources to move people from areas of higher, to areas of lower, potential risk.

The proposed project would provide supplemental project-specific information to these plans and inform area residents of what they can anticipate during an evacuation event. In the event of an actual wildfire emergency, law enforcement and fire agencies charged with managing evacuations likely would not refer to a project-specific evacuation plan but would rely on the protocols established by these pre-plans (EOPs and Evacuation Annex Q) as a “playbook” to use for guiding anticipated evacuation timeframes under the most probable scenarios. In an actual wildfire emergency, unified command would take into account numerous factors including wind speeds and direction, humidity, topography, fuel loading, emergency access routes, evacuation routes, shelter-in-place options, time needed to evacuate, fire-hardening of structures (or lack thereof), and other variables, and issue specific evacuation or shelter-in-place directives consistent with the process and protocols outlined in the City and County’s EOPs.

RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
84 However, the proposed project’s Wildland Fire Evacuation Plan acts as a site-specific supplement to the EOPs, describing the “playbook” for evacuation of the project site based on and consistent with the County and City EOPs.

During the project’s construction phase, appropriate actions would be implemented to maintain evacuation routes so that they are available if needed. Temporary road closures or detours during construction would be coordinated with SFD and others, as necessary, and an alternate route provided so that evacuations and emergency responses would not be significantly impacted.

The project site is located within the SFD’s jurisdiction with the closest existing station (Fire Station 5) located at 9130 Carlton Hills Drive in the City of Santee. Fire department response from Fire Station 5 to the furthest lot in the northeast corner of Orchard Village was calculated at 9 minutes and 49 seconds, according to the Insurance Service Office travel time formula. The City of Santee’s Quality of Life Standard encourages all new development to be located within the response time of 6 minutes or less 90 percent of the time from the closest fire station responsible for serving the parcel. Accordingly, the Fanita Ranch project proposes to include a new fire station, which is analyzed in the EIR (Fire Station 20). The new fire station would be fully staffed and equipped to operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The new fire station would be able to respond to all of the proposed project’s buildable lots within a 4- minute travel time, compliant with the City’s goal of 6 minutes or less.

Additionally, an off-site fire force (3 engines, 14 firefighters, and battalion chief) would be able to be on site within 8 minutes to assist the initial response. Providing a new fire station would assist in, not impair, emergency response.

The project would meet or exceed the Code requirements for access roads, including the 2019 California Fire Code, Appendix D and Santee’s local amendments to the California Fire Code. The proposed project would provide internal roads for emergency access and evacuation access throughout the site. Internal streets would provide residents the option to evacuate from at least two points in two different directions from each neighborhood. The roadways are designed to meet or exceed Fire Code requirements, including unobstructed travel lane widths consistent with the Fanita Ranch Development Plan standards, unobstructed travel lanes, adequate parking, 28-foot inside radius, grade maximums, and signals at intersections. Two external points of ingress/egress are provided to/from the project – Fanita Parkway and Cuyamaca Street – which RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
85 can be used for a combination of evacuation and emergency access.

These two routes would lead to three main arteries traveling south off site (Fanita Parkway, Cuyamaca Street, and Magnolia Avenue) and numerous east/west connections off site during an emergency evacuation event. The project would not cut off or impair existing evacuation routes. It would also provide roadway improvements to improve existing evacuation conditions.

The internal roadways from the residences to existing and planned off-site travel routes would be fuel-modified passageways. Project access roads that traverse areas of natural vegetation (consistent with current fuels) would provide a minimum of 50 feet of modified fuel areas along both sides of the road. These 50-foot buffers would reduce ignitions from vehicle-related causes (catalytic converter, brake-related, tossed cigarette, etc.) and provide a set back from wildland fuels.

The project’s Wildland Fire Evacuation Plan (Appendix P1 of the Recirculated Sections of Final Revised EIR) is consistent with the County EOP and City EOP, which serve as the roadmap for emergency response, including wildfire emergencies in Santee. In response to the trial court’s ruling, the Fanita Ranch Wildland Fire Evacuation Plan provides important population, education and preparedness information and a sophisticated evacuation modeling approach. The modeling and analysis portion of the Wildland Fire Evacuation Plan focus on ensuring the project and surrounding community can be evacuated within a reasonable time frame and that contingency plans are available to emergency managers.

Wildfire evacuations from the site would be focused on early relocation from the project site long before a fire would threaten the project or its access routes.

Evacuations would follow the “Ready, Set, Go!” model, which is the model adopted by most emergency agencies in California. Fanita Ranch would provide emergency decision makers with the
contingency option of temporarily refuging people on site, in their homes, at the designated Village core areas, or other protected spaces that would be available in the project’s developed areas.

These areas may be determined to be safer than evacuating in some fire scenarios.

A condensed version of the Wildland Fire Evacuation Plan would be provided to homeowner’s, renters, business owners and employees, and other persons regularly at the project site. In addition, the Wildland Fire Evacuation Plan would be posted on the community’s website with regular reminders so that all residents are aware of the RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
86 evacuation routes, of the fluidity of wildfire events, and of the options (including evacuation routes, temporarily sheltering on site) that may be presented to them by responding law enforcement and/or fire personnel, Reverse 911, or other officials. An annual evacuation awareness program would be conducted as well as on-line access to fire awareness educational material on the communities’ website.

In addition to these emergency response and evacuation-specific actions, the project would incorporate redundant measures to improve fire prevention and defensibility at the project site and adjacent properties, which would improve the Fire Department’s ability to respond to and extinguish fires promptly in order to keep them from spreading. While these measures do not directly address emergency response and evacuation, they show the numerous features that would reduce the need for emergency response and evacuation in the first place.

Based on the reasons described above, the proposed project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
.

2. Pollutant Concentrations
Threshold: Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, would the Project exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of wildfire?
Finding: Less than significant. (Recirculated Sections of Final Revised EIR, § 4.18.5.2.)
Explanation: The wildland fire risk in the vicinity of the proposed project site has been analyzed according to a standard used throughout the County (San Diego County Guidelines for Determining Significance – Wildland Fire and Fire Protection [2010]). It has been determined that wildfires may occur in wildland areas on and surrounding the project site as they have historically. Additionally, increased vehicle traffic and human presence on the project site could increase the potential for wildfire ignitions during operation.

Construction. The proposed project is located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) and heat or sparks from
construction equipment, vehicles, and the use of flammable hazardous materials have the potential to ignite adjacent vegetation and start a fire, especially during weather events that include low humidity and high wind speeds. The proposed project would RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
87 implement the FPP (Appendix P1 of the Recirculated Sections of Final Revised EIR), prepared in compliance with the requirements of the Santee Municipal Code and Ordinances, the 2019 California Fire and Building Codes, and the County’s 2010 FPP Guidelines for Determining Significance. The potential risk of wildfire ignition and spread associated with construction of the proposed project can be managed so that the potential for vegetation ignition is substantially reduced. In addition, pre-planning and construction personnel training for fire awareness, reporting, and suppression not only results in lower probability of ignition but also in higher probability of fire control and extinguishment in its early stages. Data indicate that 95 percent of all wildfire ignitions are controlled during initial attack (Smalley 2008). Further, the project’s Construction Fire Prevention Plan (CFPP) provides guidance for such management and preplanning for Fanita Ranch to increase the probability that any construction-cause fires are prevented or extinguished promptly.

Additionally, the proposed project would use construction measures as identified in the FPP to avoid construction-related wildfire impacts.

These measures include having adequate water available to service construction activities, implementing the CFPP and the FPP provisions, providing proper wildfire awareness, reporting, and suppression training to construction personnel, and requiring that all construction-phase components of the fuel modification are complete prior to delivery of combustible materials/lumber to the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not exacerbate wildfire risks or expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or uncontrolled spread of wildfire during construction, and impacts would be less than significant.

Operation. The proposed project would implement the FPP that has been prepared in compliance with the requirements of the Santee Municipal Code and Ordinances, the 2019 California Fire and Building Codes, and the County’s 2010 FPP Guidelines for Determining Significance. Slopes at the project site and in the region are variable, but do include steep topography that can facilitate fire spread. Conversely, prevailing winds, which are from the west and southwest and typically include higher humidity and lower wind speeds, would not tend to facilitate aggressive fire spread. However, the occurrence of the Santa Ana winds, which are dry and much higher velocity, could facilitate fire spread. The project’s FPP contemplated these conditions and designed fire protection features that are site specific and focused on protecting the project’s buildings and residents while simultaneously minimizing the likelihood for onsite fire to burn off site into open space.

The proposed project would include a variety of fire protection RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
88 features that form a redundant system of protection to minimize the likelihood of wildfire exposing people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. The proposed project would provide a fire hardened landscape, ignition-resistant residences and other buildings, and conversion of fuels to maintained developed areas with designated review of all landscaping and fuel modification areas and highly ignition-resistant structures. The project site would implement the Wildland Fire Evacuation Plan compliant with City and County requirements, and if evacuation is not considered the preferred approach, such as during a short-notice evacuation, the proposed project offers a contingency option of temporarily sheltering on site.

Ignition-Resistant Structures. The Santee City Council adopted a wildland-urban interface (WUI) development standard in November 2004 and then amended the Fire Code with adoption in June 2006.

Measures were also adopted into the 2007 California Building Code and have been retained and enhanced in code updates since then, including the 2019 California Building and Fire Codes. The following project features are required for new development in WUI areas and form the basis of the system of protection necessary to minimize structural ignitions and facilitate access by emergency responders as identified in the FPP (Appendix P1 of the Recirculated Sections of Final Revised EIR): Application of the latest adopted ignitionresistant building codes; Non-combustible or ignition-resistant exterior wall coverings; Multi-pane glazing with a minimum of one tempered pane; Ember resistant vents; Interior, automatic fire sprinklers for all structures; Modern infrastructure, access roads, and water delivery system; Maintained fuel modification areas; and Fire apparatus access roads throughout the proposed project.

Effective Fuel Modification Zones. The proposed fuel modification zones (FMZs) are designed to minimize wildfire encroaching upon the community and minimize the likelihood that an on-site ignition would spread into the Habitat Preserve areas. The proposed FMZs would provide separation from the unmaintained vegetation occurring outside the FMZs. The FMZs would include low-fuel, maintained vegetation, including 65 feet of irrigated zone, resulting in high vegetation moisture, which is ignition resistant. The FMZs would provide a buffer of reduced fuel densities, lack of fuel continuity, and a reduction in the receptiveness of the landscape to ignition and fire spread.

Ignition Sources. The types of potential ignition sources that currently exist in the project area include overhead power lines, vehicles, roadways (SR-67), and off-site residential neighborhoods. The proposed project would introduce potential ignition sources, RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
89 particularly more people in the area. While it is true that humans are the cause of most fires in California, equipment and powerlines are the predominant human fire causes in San Diego County, followed by roadway ignitions (Romero-Calcerrada et al. 2008). There is no data available that links increases in wildfires with the development of ignition-resistant communities such as the proposed project. The proposed project would include a robust fire protection system, as described previously and detailed further in the FPP (Appendix P1).

This same robust fire protection system would provide protections from onsite fire spreading to off-site vegetation. The landscape throughout the project and on its perimeter would be highly maintained and much of it irrigated (all zone 1 setback areas, common areas throughout the community and private yards), which would further reduce its ignition potential (Appendix P1). Structures would be highly ignition resistant on the exterior and the interiors would be protected with automatic sprinkler systems, which have a very high success rate for confining fires or extinguishing them.

Therefore, accidental fires within the proposed project’s landscape areas or on-site structures would have limited ability to spread.

The proposed project would be fire adapted with a strong resident outreach program that raises fire awareness among its residents, as defined further in the Wildland Fire Evacuation Plan (Appendix P2 of Recirculated Sections of Final Revised EIR). The project population would provide a heightened early wildfire detection network for the City and surrounding areas.

The proposed project would convert nearly 986 acres of ignitable fuels to lower flammability landscape and hardscape, include better access throughout the site, provide managed and maintained landscapes, and place more fire aware individuals on the ground that would reduce the likelihood of arson, off-road vehicles, shooting, or other non-authorized recreational-based activities that cause fires, some of which is currently occurring on the undeveloped project site.

In addition, the project would include a fire station equipped with trained firefighters that would be able to respond quickly to reported fires.

Fires originating off site would not have continuous fuels across the development footprint. Once fires reach the FMZs, they would be expected to progressively reduce in intensity until starved of fuels, which would occur well away from the site’s structures. Burning vegetation embers may land on project structures, but are not likely to result in ignition based on ember decay rates and the types of noncombustible and ignition-resistant construction materials that would comprise project buildings. Ember-resistant venting would be used on all structures within the proposed project, addressing one of the RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
90 biggest causes of wildfire structure losses. Ongoing inspections and maintenance that would occur in the proposed project’s landscape and fuel modification areas would assure that the FMZs continually meet the requirements of the SFD and the proposed project’s FPP (Appendix P1 of the Recirculated Sections of Final Revised EIR).

Fire Protection Features that Lower Wildfire Ignition Risk. The ignition-resistant landscapes and structures and the numerous specific requirements would minimize the ability for an on-site fire to spread to off-site fuels, as follows:

Ignition-resistant, planned, and maintained landscape. Site landscaping of common areas and FMZs would be subject to strict plant types that are lower-ignition plants, with those closest to structures requiring irrigation to maintain high plant moistures that equate to difficult ignition. These areas would be closest to structures, where ignitions would be expected to be highest, but would be prevented through these ongoing maintenance efforts.

Wide FMZ around perimeter of proposed project. The wide FMZ, between 115 and 165 feet wide, includes specifically selected plant species, very low fuel densities (only 30 percent retention of native plants in outer zones and irrigated inner zones), and ongoing HOAfunded and applied maintenance, resulting in a wide buffer between the developed areas and the off-site native fuels.

Twice-annual FMZ inspections. The HOA would have a contracted, third-party, SFD-approved FMZ inspector perform two inspections per year to ensure that FMZs are maintained in a condition that is consistent with the City’s and FPP’s requirements and would provide a benefit of a wide barrier separating wildland fuels from on-site ignitions.

Ignition-resistant structures. Structures would be built to the California Building Code, Chapter 7A, ignition-resistant requirements that have been developed and codified as a direct result of after-fire save and loss assessments. These measures would result in homes that are designed, built, and maintained to withstand fire and embers associated with wildfires. The wide FMZs would not result in wildfire directly next to these structures. Homes and buildings can be built in the VHFHSZs and WUI areas when they are part of an overall approach that considers wildfire and provides design features that address the related risks. A structure in a VHFHSZ that is built to these specifications can be at lower risk than an older structure in a non-FHSZ. The ignition resistance of on-site structures would result in a low incidence of structural fires, further minimizing the potential for project-related wildfires.

RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
91 Interior fire sprinklers. Sprinklers in residences would be designed to provide additional time for occupants to escape the residence.

Sprinklers in multi-family and commercial structures would be designed to provide structural protection. The common benefit of fire sprinklers is that they are successful at assisting responding firefighters by either extinguishing a structural fire or containing the fire to the room of origin and delaying flash over. This benefit also reduces the potential for an open space vegetation ignition by minimizing the possibility for structure fires to grow large and uncontrollable, resulting in embers that are blown into wildland areas.

Fire access roads. Streets provide access for firefighting apparatus.

Proposed project streets would provide code-consistent access throughout the community, including access from existing dead-end streets south of the proposed project. Better access to wildland areas may result in faster wildfire response and continuation of the fire agencies’ successful control of wildfires at small sizes.

On-site fire station. The on-site fire station would result in fast response and additional resources for the SFD. Fires, whether on site or in the open space, would receive fast response, which is important for successful containment and, in the case of fires occurring during extreme fire weather, for fast size up and additional resource requests.

Water. Providing firefighting water throughout the proposed project with hundreds of fire hydrants accessible by fire engines is a critical component of both structural and vegetation fires. The proposed project would provide firefighting water volume, availability, and sustained pressures to the satisfaction of the SFD. Water accessibility helps firefighters control structural fires and helps protect structures from and extinguish wildfires.

The proposed project would comply with and, in some cases, exceed the applicable fire and building codes (2019 California Fire and Building Codes and Santee Municipal Code and Ordinances) and would include a layered fire protection system inclusive of sitespecific measures that would result in a community that is less susceptible to wildfire than surrounding landscapes and that would facilitate firefighter and medical aid response. Tables within the FPP (Appendix P1 of the Recirculated Sections of Final Revised EIR) summarize the Code-required safety measures as well as proposed measures that exceed Code requirements. These project features, combined with the proposed ignition-resistant construction materials, would be consistent with the adopted the SFD Fire and Building Codes and would not exacerbate or expose project occupants to RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
92 unacceptable wildfire risk.

Occupant Exposure. The proposed project has identified a population of approximately 7,974 residents under the preferred land use plan with school and 8,145 residents under the land use plan without school. Given the proposed project site’s location in a VHFHSZ, several fire protection systems have been included in the proposed project design, or are otherwise required by relevant codes and standards. Fire protection systems for the proposed project that serve to minimize occupant exposure to wildfire impacts are described below and detailed further in Section 6 of the FPP (Appendix P1 of Recirculated Sections of Final Revised EIR).

A public water system would be installed with a redundant or looped water supply for fire protection and system reliability in the event of a large-water-demand fire. The public water system would provide a minimum fire flow of 2,500 gallons per minute for 3 hours of fire flow for single-family and multi-family residential and 3,500 gallons per minute for 4 hours of fire flow for commercial areas with 300-foot spacing between hydrants, a dedicated fire water pipeline system, and appropriate hose connections.

Construction of proposed project structures would comply with the latest ignition-resistant building codes found in Chapter 7A of the California Building Code, as adopted by City, and any additional restrictions or requirements adopted locally by the SFD.

Sprinklers designed by a licensed fire protection engineer or fire sprinkler contractor would be installed in all structures for each occupancy type. A private booster pump and secondary power source would be installed for approximately 21 single-family residences in Vineyard Village where the area experiences residual pressures of less than 40 pounds per square inch during peakhour demand conditions.

Defensible space areas (FMZs) would be installed and maintained along the southern edge of the project site and interior open space areas of 115 feet wide. The proposed project’s FMZs on the northern and eastern edges of the project site would be extended to 165 feet in width because these areas are adjacent to native landscapes in the Habitat Preserve that produce higher flame lengths. Both FMZs would reduce the potential for extreme fire behavior adjacent to developed areas and provide a working area for firefighters to conduct suppression activities.

Unobstructed travel lanes to the SFD’s satisfaction would be installed for on-site access roads and vehicle turnarounds, meeting RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
93 appropriate loading standards per the Fanita Ranch Development Plan. Roadways adjacent to natural areas would provide 50 feet of fuel modification area on each side of the street. The proposed project would further provide at least two routes that lead to at least three main arteries for evacuation. If evacuation is not considered the preferred approach, such as during a short-notice evacuation, the proposed project would offer a contingency option of temporarily sheltering on site.

As described throughout this section, the proposed project has been designed to adhere to the most recent ignition-resistant building codes applicable to developments in VHFHSZs, including
defensibility features, and would not result in the exposure of project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or uncontrolled spread of wildfire due to slope, prevailing winds, or other factors.

Therefore, impacts from operation of the proposed project would be less than significant
Risk from Adding New Residents. In addition, the FPP for the proposed project (Appendix P1 of Recirculated Sections of Final Revised EIR) analyzed the wildfire risk associated with adding new residents to a previously undeveloped area. Human-related activities are responsible for the majority of California wildfires (Appendix P1 of Recirculated Sections of Final Revised EIR). Certain human activities can result in sparks, flames, or heat that may ignite vegetative fuels without proper prevention measures in place. These ignitions predominantly occur as accidents but may also be purposeful, such as arson. Roadways are a particularly high source for wildfire ignitions due to high usage and vehicle-caused fires (catalytic converter failure, overheated brakes, dragging chains, tossed cigarette, and others). In Southern California and the County, the population living at, working in, or traveling through the WUI is vast and provides a significant opportunity for ignitions every day.

However, it is a relatively rare event when a wildfire occurs and an even rarer event when a wildfire escapes initial containment efforts.

Approximately 90 to 95 percent of wildfires are controlled below 10 acres.

Research indicates that the type of dense, master planned developments, like the proposed project, are not associated with increased vegetation ignitions. During preparation of the FPP (Appendix P1 of Recirculated Sections of Final Revised EIR), a summary of the wildfire ignitions included in the CAL FIRE FRAP database was reviewed, dating back over 100 years. It found that, in the County, equipment-caused fires were the most numerous, and these also accounted for most of the area burned, followed closely by the area burned by power line fires. Ignitions classified as RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
94 equipment-caused frequently resulted from exhaust or sparks from power saws or other equipment with gas or electrical motors, such as lawn mowers, trimmers, or tractors and associated with lower density housing. In the County, ignitions were more likely to occur close to streets and structures and at intermediate structure densities.

Housing density directly influences susceptibility to fire because, in higher density developments, there is one interface (the community perimeter) with the wildlands. Lower density development creates more structural exposure to wildlands, less or no ongoing landscape maintenance (an intermix rather than interface), and consequently, more difficulty for limited fire resources to protect well-spaced homes. The intermix includes housing amidst the unmaintained fuels, whereas the proposed project would convert fuels within the footprint and provide a wide, managed fuel modification zone separating homes from unmaintained fuel areas and creating a condition that makes defense easier.

The research reviewed during preparation of the FPP concludes that lower density housing poses a higher ignition risk than higher density communities. A vast WUI already exists in the area adjacent to the project site, dominated by older, more fire-vulnerable structures, constructed before stringent Fire Code requirements were imposed on residential development, with varying levels of maintained fuel modification buffers. As discussed in detail throughout the FPP, the proposed project is an ignition-resistant community designed to include professionally managed and maintained fire protection components, modern Fire Code-compliant safety features, and specific measures provided where ignitions are most likely to occur (such as roadways). Therefore, the development of the proposed project would not be expected to materially increase the risk of vegetation ignitions.

Moreover, frequent fires and lower density housing growth may lead to the expansion of highly flammable exotic grasses that can further increase the probability of ignitions. This is not the case with the proposed project because the landscapes would be managed and maintained to remove exotic fuels that may establish over time. As discussed previously, research indicates that it is less likely for higher density developments to be impacted by wildfires than lower density developments. The same protections that starve wildfires of fuels and minimize or prevent wildfires from transitioning into a higher density community such as the proposed project also serve to minimize or prevent on-site fires from transitioning into wildlands.

Further, the proposed project’s requirement that structures include interior fire sprinklers would significantly reduce the likelihood that a RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
95 building fire would spread to the point of flashover, where a structure burns beyond control and produces embers. Interior sprinklers are very efficient, keeping fires to the room of origin or extinguishing the fire before the responding firefighters arrive. Similarly, the irrigated FMZs are positioned throughout the development areas and the first zones on the perimeter of the proposed project. Irrigated zones include plants with high internal moisture and spacing between plants and plant groups that make it difficult to ignite and spread from plant to plant. Lastly, the proposed on-site fire station and additional humans on the site would result in fast detection of fires and firefighter response, a key in limiting the growth of fires beyond the incipient stage. Currently, trails exist in and around the proposed project’s development footprint and are frequented by a myriad of locals for hiking, mountain biking, horseback riding, and motorcycle and all-terrain vehicle use. If a wildfire were to ignite from human activity on these trails today, fire detection and response could be delayed due to the remoteness of the area, which is not directly visible from populated areas. Delayed detection would contribute to delayed response to the scene due to the lack of site access. Fire size up (determining the needed firefighting resources) and requests for additional resources, including aerial support, would also be delayed in comparison to post-construction of the proposed project.

With the proposed project, motorized activities on the trails would be prohibited and enforced. If a hiker or mountain biker were to start a fire, detection and response would be anticipated on a fast timeline due to the residents living in the proposed community who would have the ability to detect fires throughout the property. The quick detection and call to 911 would result in a fast response from the onsite fire station, which would be located, staffed, and equipped to reach anywhere on the project site in 6 minutes or less travel time. If a fire is detected and cannot be accessed by a responding fire engine, it would be sized up, and additional aerial and other support would be requested quickly.

Therefore, based on the factors discussed previously, the addition of new residents on the previously undeveloped project site would not exacerbate the spread of wildfire. Impacts would be less than significant.

3. Infrastructure Risks
Threshold: Would the Project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
96 Finding: Less than significant. (Recirculated Sections of Final Revised EIR, § 4.18.5.3.)
Explanation: Potable Water Supply. The proposed project would be provided water by Padre Dam Municipal Water District (PDMWD) and sufficient water supplies would be available to serve the proposed project. The potable water system for the proposed project would include transmission and distribution pipelines, two storage reservoirs, and two pump stations. The proposed water system would be designed to provide a minimum of 2,500 gallons per minute for 3 hours of fire flow for single-family and multi-family residential and 3,500 gallons per minute for 4 hours of fire flow for commercial areas with fire hydrants spaced on average every 300 feet, consistent with the SFD hydrant spacing requirements (City of Santee 1991). The proposed water system would be a public water system throughout the project site, designed and installed per PDMWD and SFD requirements. PDMWD provided a water
availability/will serve form to the proposed project (Appendix P1 of Recirculated Sections of Final Revised EIR).

The proposed project would implement construction measures outlined in the CFPP to avoid construction-related wildfire impacts from installation of potable water supply infrastructure. These measures would include but not be limited to having adequate water available to serve construction activities and providing proper wildfire awareness, reporting, and suppression training to construction personnel. Maintenance of potable water supply infrastructure would adhere to policies proposed in the FPP, including implementation of fuel treatment areas along project streets and fire-safe maintenance practices. In addition, water storage reservoirs and access roads would have minimum 3-foot-wide FMZs on either side. The potable water storage reservoirs would also serve as emergency water storage facilities. Fire hydrants would be spaced along Fanita Parkway, Cuyamaca Street, and Magnolia Avenue per the SFD design standards. Fire hydrant spacing on neighborhood street would be 300 feet apart. Therefore, installation and maintenance of the proposed potable water supply system would not exacerbate wildfire risk. Impacts would be less than significant.

Sanitary Sewer System Management. PDMWD would provide
sanitary sewer service for the proposed project. A new gravity sewer system, consisting of 8-inch, 10-inch, and 12-inch pipes, would be constructed on the site to collect and convey wastewater to a 15-inch trunk sewer. Ultimately, the wastewater would be conveyed by a gravity system west of Orchard Village on PDMWD property through a 15-inch diameter pipe to a headworks facility that would provide screening and grit removal for the proposed project’s sanitary flows RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
97 or would be conveyed by gravity to the existing 18-inch and 24-inch City of San Diego Metropolitan Wastewater Interceptor. The new gravity sewer system would be installed to existing code standards and PDMWD requirements. The proposed project would implement construction measures outlined in the CFPP to avoid constructionrelated wildfire impacts from installation of sanitary sewer system infrastructure. These measures would include having adequate water available to serve construction activities and providing proper wildfire awareness, reporting, and suppression training to construction personnel. Maintenance of sanitary sewer system infrastructure would adhere to policies proposed in the FPP, including implementation of fuel treatment areas along project streets and fire-safe maintenance practices. Therefore, with implementation of the measures described previously, the installation and maintenance of the proposed sanitary sewer system would not exacerbate wildfire risk. Impacts would be less than significant.

Stormwater Management. The proposed project would install a series of swales, catch basins and culverts that direct stormwater to hydromodification/water quality basins. Operation of these stormwater features are static, do not generate heat/sparks, and would not impede site access or otherwise hinder evacuation or emergency response efforts. The proposed project would implement construction measures outlined in the CFPP to avoid constructionrelated wildfire impacts from installation of stormwater management infrastructure. These measures would include but not be limited to having adequate water available to serve construction activities and providing proper wildfire awareness, reporting, and suppression training to construction personnel. Maintenance of stormwater management infrastructure would adhere to policies proposed in the FPP, including implementation of fuel treatment areas along project streets and fire-safe maintenance practices. Therefore, with implementation of the measures listed above, installation and maintenance of the proposed stormwater management features would not exacerbate wildfire risk. Impacts would be less than significant.

Electrical Power and Natural Gas Infrastructure. The proposed project powerlines and natural gas lines would be installed below ground. During construction activities associated with electrical power and natural gas line undergrounding, the proposed project would implement construction measures outlined in the CFPP to avoid construction-related wildfire impacts from installation of underground power and natural gas line infrastructure. These measures would include having adequate water available to serve construction activities and providing proper wildfire awareness, RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
98 reporting, and suppression training to construction personnel.

Maintenance of underground power and natural gas line
infrastructure would adhere to policies proposed in the FPP, including implementation of fuel treatment areas along project streets and fire-safe maintenance practices. Because the proposed project power and natural gas lines would be below ground, operation of the power lines would not exacerbate wildfire risk.

Therefore, with implementation of the mitigation measures listed previously, the installation and maintenance of the proposed electrical and natural gas infrastructure would not exacerbate wildfire risk. Impacts would be less than significant.

Fire Protection Infrastructure. The proposed project would designate a 1.5-acre site for a new fire station, apparatus, and trained firefighters in Fanita Commons to serve the project site and ensure adequate emergency response times. A temporary or permanent onsite fire station would be operational prior to the first residential occupancy, and a permanent station would be operational in accordance with City conditions. Additional fire protection infrastructure would include installation of a fire hydrant network, a dedicated fire water pipeline system to provide adequate fire flow to the project site, and Fire Department hose connections throughout the project site. Water reservoirs would also serve as emergency water storage. These features are static, do not generate heat or sparks, and would not impede site access or otherwise hinder evacuation or emergency response efforts. The availability of the onsite fire suppression network and water supply would reduce potential wildfire impacts.

The proposed project would implement construction measures outlined in the CFPP to avoid construction-related wildfire impacts from installation of fire protection infrastructure. These measures would include having adequate water available to service construction activities and providing proper wildfire awareness, reporting, and suppression training to construction personnel.

Maintenance of fire protection infrastructure would adhere to policies proposed in the FPP, including implementation of fuel treatment areas along project streets and fire-safe maintenance practices.

Therefore, installation and maintenance of the proposed fire protection infrastructure would not exacerbate wildfire risk. Impacts would be less than significant.

Fuel Modification Zones. Fuel modification for the proposed project would be implemented along the entire exterior perimeter, roadways, and interior landscaped areas adjacent to natural open space. FMZs are passive measures and would not impede site access or otherwise hinder evacuation or emergency response efforts.

RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
99 Presence of FMZs would reduce fuel volumes, moderate fire behavior near structures, and reduce potential wildfire impacts. Fuel modification in the proposed project would be governed by the FPP.

FMZs would be designated depending on location. Vegetation management would be completed twice per year. Property owners and private lot owners would be responsible for vegetation management on their lots. Open Space would be owned, maintained and managed by the HOA in compliance with the FPP.

Installation of FMZs would not result in additional temporary or permanent impacts beyond those identified in this EIR. Vegetation management requirements during construction would be
implemented at commencement and throughout each construction phase. Vegetation management would be performed pursuant to the FPP and the SFD requirements on building locations prior to the start of work and prior to any import of combustible construction materials.

Adequate fuel breaks, as approved by the SFD, would be created around grading, site work, and other construction activities in areas where there is flammable vegetation. Fuel breaks would range between 50 and 150 feet around grading activities, depending on available space.

Maintenance of FMZs may require heat- or spark-generating equipment; however, the proposed project would implement fire-safe maintenance practices and fuel treatment areas detailed in the CFPP and FPP to avoid wildfire impacts. These measures would include but not be limited to having adequate water available to service construction activities and providing proper wildfire awareness, reporting, and suppression training to construction personnel.

Additionally, the proposed project would exceed fire prevention regulations by providing a CFPP, code-exceeding FMZs, FMZ inspections, fire-resistant landscaping plan, and HOA wildfire education and outreach. Refer to tables within the FPP for a full list of project fire safety features (Appendix P1 of Recirculated Sections of Final Revised EIR). Therefore, installation and maintenance of the proposed FMZs would not exacerbate wildfire risk. Impacts would be less than significant.

On- and Off-Site Roadway Improvements. The proposed project would improve and construct new segments of three of the Santee General Plan Mobility Element streets: Fanita Parkway, Cuyamaca Street, and Magnolia Avenue.

Improvements would also occur at the terminus of Carlton Hills Boulevard and at existing dead-end streets that terminate at the project site boundary. Roadway improvements would also include construction of new internal systems of public and private streets.

RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
100
Residential collector streets of various types would connect the three villages. East of Cuyamaca Street, two residential collectors (Street “V” and Street “W”) would provide access to Vineyard Village.

Residential streets would include conventional two-way streets with parallel parking and 5-foot-wide sidewalks on both sides. In certain areas of the proposed development, split residential streets would occur. Split residential streets would be one-way streets separated by a median or park with parallel parking and 5-foot-wide sidewalks on both sides. Private streets would be composed of local two-way streets with parallel parking and a 5-foot-wide sidewalk on one side and a 5-foot-wide street tree easement on the other side. Private driveways are anticipated in Orchard Village.

All on- and off-site roadway improvements would adhere to the construction measures outlined in the CFPP and FPP to reduce risk of ignition from construction activities. These measures would include having adequate water available to service construction activities and providing proper wildfire awareness, reporting, and suppression training to construction personnel. Maintenance of onand off-site roadways would adhere to policies proposed in the FPP, including implementation of fuel treatment areas along project streets and fire-safe maintenance practices. Therefore, installation and maintenance of proposed on- and off-site roadway
improvements would not exacerbate wildfire risk. Impacts would be less than significant.
.

4. Runoff Risks
Threshold: Would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Finding: Less than significant. (Recirculated Sections of Final Revised EIR, § 4.18.5.4.)
Explanation: The proposed project’s hillsides are moderately steep in many areas and may be susceptible to erosion, landslides, and debris flow, particularly following wildfire. However, CAL FIRE mapping data indicates low to moderate erosion potential on the proposed project’s hillside areas. Areas of low erosion potential on the proposed project site are associated with lower elevations where proposed development is concentrated. Erosion potential increases on the slopes surrounding the proposed development area.

However, the irrigated and maintained landscaping in the proposed RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
101
project would be ignition resistant and not expected to be burned or removed entirely should a fire occur on the project site, unlike postfire conditions in native vegetation where complete removal is common. Considering these project site features and characteristics, post-fire conditions are not expected to increase risks associated with runoff and erosion. The proposed project would conform to design requirements associated with proper site preparation and grading practices and would implement surface drainage
improvements and erosion-control measures and construction best management practices (BMPs). During construction, BMPs would be implemented throughout work areas in quantities and design as necessitated by grade and conditions. Areas of non-native vegetation and unvegetated areas within the construction footprint would receive erosion-control BMPs. Construction BMPs (e.g., fiber rolls, gravel bags) would be used on and around the grading operations as specified in the stormwater pollution prevention plan to stabilize graded slopes. In addition, the proposed project does not propose development in areas adjacent to existing structures or people. The proposed development would not occur below slopes that are not stabilized or manufactured; therefore, the risk of a landslide would be low.

The proposed project’s slopes would manage runoff through various required measures and BMPs designed specifically to shed water from slopes in a controlled manner. The proposed project would install interceptor drainage ditches on hillsides throughout the developed areas to deliver upland surface runoff around buildings, retaining walls, roadways, and other built structures. To manage potential debris flows and landslide impacts, water quality and detention basins are also proposed at locations adjacent to proposed development sites. The water quality and detention basins would be constructed adjacent to proposed roadways, parking lots, or maintenance paths to facilitate inspection and maintenance.

Implementation of these project features would minimize potential flooding, runoff, or slope instability impacts that may occur post-fire.

Therefore, potential impacts associated with post-fire flooding, runoff, or slope instability would be less than significant.

5. Emergency Response and Evacuation Plans
Threshold: Would implementation of the proposed project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Finding: Less than significant. (Recirculated Sections of Final Revised EIR, § 4.18.5.5.)
RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
102
Explanation: The proposed project would have a significant impact if it were to interfere with the City’s adopted EOP (2020). The City’s EOP addresses the planned response to extraordinary emergency situations associated with natural and human-caused disasters. The plan describes the overall responsibilities of government entities, as well as the Santee Emergency Management Organization for protecting life and property in the City. In addition, the Unified San Diego County Emergency Services Organization and County Operational Area EOP – Evacuation Annex was formed in the 1960s to assist the cities and the County in developing emergency plans by providing strategies, procedures, recommendations, and
organizational structures that can be used to implement a coordinated evacuation effort in the County Operational Area (County of San Diego 2018).

The project’s Wildland Fire Evacuation Plan (Appendix P2 of Recirculated Sections of Final Revised EIR) is based on the City’s EOP. According to the SFD, the project would not interfere with current evacuation and emergency plans. Additionally, the project has developed new project-specific evacuation and emergency responses plans, including the FPP and Wildland Fire Evacuation Plan.

The project’s interior street network and the existing regional street system that it connects with would provide multi-directional primary and secondary emergency evacuation routes consistent with, or exceeding, most communities in this area (Appendix P2, Wildland Fire Evacuation Plan, of the Recirculated Sections of Final Revised EIR). Further, the only proposed through routes on the project site would loop between Fanita Parkway and Cuyamaca Street on site and would not affect emergency response and evacuation plans elsewhere in Santee. Consistent with County Operational Area EOP – Evacuation Annex (County of San Diego 2018), major ground transportation corridors in the area would be used as primary evacuation routes during an evacuation effort. The street systems were evaluated to determine the best routes for fire response equipment and “probable” evacuation routes for relocating people to designated safety areas.

The primary roadways that would be used for evacuation from the project site are Fanita Parkway and Cuyamaca Street, the latter of which would connect to the proposed extension of Magnolia Avenue.

Note that the Magnolia Avenue extension would be constructed by the certificate of occupancy for the 1,500th equivalent dwelling unit.

The available evacuation routes prior to the Magnolia Avenue extension (Fanita Parkway and Cuyamaca Street) would meet the 2019 California Fire Code, Appendix D, and the Santee Municipal RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
103
Code and Ordinances for multiple access points; and, therefore, are considered adequate for emergency purposes for the interim period until the certificate of occupancy of the 1,500th equivalent dwelling unit. These streets provide access to major traffic corridors, including directly or indirectly to State Route (SR-) 52 to the south, SR-67 to the east, Interstate (I-) 8 to the south, I-125 to the south, and I-15 to the west (Appendix P2 of Recirculated Sections of Final Revised EIR).

During an emergency evacuation from the project site, the primary and secondary roadways may serve as egress for those leaving the project site and as ingress for responding emergency vehicles.

Because the roadways are designed to meet or exceed the County’s Consolidated Fire Code requirements, including unobstructed travel lane widths consistent with the Fanita Ranch Development Plan standards, unobstructed travel lanes, adequate parking, 28-foot inside radius, grade maximums, signals at intersections, and extremely wide roadside FMZs, potential conflicts that could reduce the roadway efficiency are minimized, allowing for smooth evacuations. Additionally, the streets would provide residents the option to evacuate from at least two points in two different directions from each neighborhood.

The project site’s primary evacuation routes would be accessed through a series of internal neighborhood roadways, which connect with the primary ingress/egress streets that intersect off-site primary and major evacuation routes. Based on the existing street network, the community would evacuate to the north (once off site), south, east, and west depending on the nature of the emergency.

There are at least two ingress/egress routes for the proposed project (see Figure 3-7, Vehicular Circulation Plan, in Chapter 3 of Recirculated Sections of Final Revised EIR):
• Southwest corner of the community: Fanita Parkway
provides access to Mast Boulevard and Carlton Oaks Road, both of which would offer travel options west and east in the City or onto the SR-52 or SR-67 on-ramps.
• South central portion of the community: Cuyamaca Street, the proposed project’s primary access, provides access to Mast Boulevard, Mission Gorge Road, and the SR-52 onramp. o East/southeastern portion of the community:

Magnolia Avenue provides access to Mast Boulevard,
Mission Gorge Road, SR-52 on-ramp, and SR-67 on-
RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
104
ramp. Both Mast Boulevard and Mission Gorge Road
connect to SR-52 to the west.

Depending on the nature of the emergency requiring evacuation, the majority of the community traffic would exit the proposed project via Cuyamaca Street or Magnolia Avenue via Cuyamaca Street. These are the most direct routes for the project site. Fanita Parkway may be used by the western portion of the project site, depending on the time available for evacuation and the need for additional movement via the southerly route. In a typical evacuation that allows several hours or more time (as experienced for most areas during the 2003, 2007, 2014, 2016, and 2017 wildfires), all traffic may be directed to the south and out Cuyamaca Street and/or Magnolia Avenue. If less time is available, fire and law enforcement officials may direct some neighborhoods to temporarily shelter in their residences. For further information, please refer to the project’s Wildland Fire Evacuation Plan (Appendix P2 of Recirculated Sections of Final Revised EIR).

An evacuation of any area requires significant coordination among numerous public, private, and community/nonprofit organizations.

Among the most important factors for successful evacuations in urban settings is control of intersections downstream of the evacuation area. If intersections are controlled by law enforcement, barricades, signal control, or other means, potential backups and slowed evacuations can be minimized. Another important aspect of successful evacuation is a managed and phased evacuation declaration. Evacuating in phases, based on vulnerability, location, or other factors, enables subsequent traffic surges on major roadways to be smoothed over a longer time frame and result in traffic levels that flow better than when mass evacuations include large evacuation areas at the same time (Appendix P2 of Recirculated Sections of Final Revised EIR).

The following emergency response operations could occur under an evacuation order:

Evacuation Points and Shelters. When the SDCSD implements an evacuation order, they coordinate with the responding fire agency, the Emergency Operation Center, and others to decide on a location to use as a temporary evacuation point. The SDCSD Office Dispatch Center would use the AlertSanDiego system to direct evacuees to the established temporary evacuation point or shelter. These evacuation points would serve as temporary safe zones for evacuees and would provide basic needs such as food, water, and restrooms. If residents are unable to evacuate and need transportation assistance to get to a temporary evacuation point or shelter, the SDCSD may establish transportation points to collect RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
105
and transport people without transportation resources to evacuation points. These points would be large, well known sites such as shopping centers, libraries, and schools. Transportation would be accessible to all populations, including people with disabilities and other access and functional needs.

Shelter-in-Place. Sheltering-in-place is the practice of going or remaining indoors during or following an emergency event. This procedure is recommended if there is little time for the public to react to an incident and it is safer for the public to stay indoors for a short time rather than travel outdoors. Sheltering-in-place also has many advantages because it can be implemented immediately, allowing people to remain in their familiar surroundings and providing individuals with everyday necessities such as telephones, radios, televisions, food, and clothing. However, the amount of time people can stay sheltered-in-place is dependent upon availability of food, water, medical care, utilities, and access to accurate and reliable information.

The decision on whether to evacuate or shelter-in-place is carefully considered with the timing and nature of the incident. Sheltering-inplace is the preferred method of protection for people who are not directly impacted or in the direct path of a hazard. This would reduce congestion and transportation demand on the major transportation routes for those who have been directed to evacuate by law enforcement or fire personnel. The proposed project would incorporate ignition-resistant construction and wide FMZs and provide defensibility throughout the site. Therefore, responding fire and law enforcement personnel would be able to direct project residents to temporarily refuge in their homes in the rare situation where that alternative is determined to be safer than evacuating.

As discussed, the proposed project would not impair the implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant.

6. Wildland Fires
Threshold: Would implementation of the proposed project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fire?
Finding: Less than significant. (Recirculated Sections of Final Revised EIR, § 4.18.5.6.)
Explanation: The wildland fire risk and features prescribed in the FPP (Appendix RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
106
P1 of the Recirculated Sections of Final Revised EIR) have been analyzed and developed to reduce risk to acceptable levels at Fanita Ranch by applying comprehensive guidelines developed by a technical panel of 17 professional fire prevention officers and fire protection specialists and planners. These guidelines are referred to as the San Diego County Guidelines for Determining Significance – Wildland Fire and Fire Protection (County of San Diego 2010). These guidelines have become a standard for FPPs in numerous fire agency jurisdictions because they use a holistic approach to understanding a site’s fire hazards, understanding how a project complies with safety requirements, and understanding where additional fire protection is needed, allowing the FPP to require more robust or equivalent alternative protections to Code requirements.

Wildfires may occur in undeveloped landscapes that surround the proposed project, but the number of fires would not be significantly increased in frequency, duration, or size with construction of the project due to implementation of many fire protection and prevention features. Construction activities can lead to increased potential for vegetation ignitions; however, the project addresses this potential risk through its focused CFPP (Appendix P1 of Recirculated Sections of Final Revised EIR). The CFPP’s fire prevention and safety measures, along with its limitations on work activities during fire weather, address the potential for ignitions and would not expose people to increased fire risk during the construction period. The project would include conversion of fuels from existing flammable fuels to highly ignition-resistant structures and maintained urbanized landscapes with designated SFD review. It would also include substantial FMZs, a funded entity to manage and maintain the FMZ, and third-party FMZ inspections twice per year to confirm the FMZ areas are maintained as designed and, therefore, would function as intended. As such, the development footprint would be largely converted from ignitable fuels to ignition-resistant landscape and structures that are provided with defensible space consistent with and exceeding the strictest Code standards. A 100-foot FMZ at the site perimeter adjacent to the existing neighborhood to the south would also be provided, monitored, and maintained as part of the proposed project to further reduce fire risk to those older homes. In addition, the project would provide for fast firefighter response on and off site (4-minute travel time to anywhere on site), would include an on-site fire station, and access for firefighters, early evacuations, water and fire flow to code, and other fire protection features described throughout this FPP.

In addition, as shown in the Wildland Fire Evacuation Plan (Appendix P2 of Recirculated Sections of Final Revised EIR), the project would provide two major routes for ingress and egress during an RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
107
emergency (Fanita Parkway and Cuyamaca Street), would not cut off or modify existing evacuation routes, and provide numerous roadway improvements in the City that would improve evacuation over existing conditions (including the Magnolia Avenue extension).

Evacuation modeling shows that, under the most likely wildfire evacuation scenario, it would take approximately 19 minutes to perform a surgical evacuation of the project and targeted, existing communities. Under a much less likely and conservative scenario, assuming all the project’s residences would be occupied and evacuated, it would take approximately 53 minutes to 1.5 hours. First responders would account for evacuation timing to adjust the lead time given in issuing evacuation orders, to better phase evacuation orders, and to adjust evacuation traffic control methods (such as controlling downstream traffic lights or officers directing traffic) to ensure project occupants and the surrounding community are able to safely evacuate.

In the event evacuation is not recommended as a result of the increased risk of evacuating, the project’s fire prevention features and shelter-in-place contingency would further mitigate risks to public safety. The project’s fire protection features would result in a redundant and layered fire protection system consistent with fire agency-designated shelter-in-place communities (e.g., Rancho Santa Fe shelter-in-place communities of (1) The Bridges, (2) The Crosby, (3) Cielo, (4) 4S Ranch, and (5) The Lakes; and the Santa Clarita Valley’s Stevenson Ranch community). Because of these fire protection features, maintenance, and enforcement requirements, it would be an option, and in some scenarios, the preferred option, for emergency managers to direct residents and visitors to temporarily shelter in their homes or designated shelter sites. This is based on the project’s ability to buffer wildfire and related heat away from the community’s structures and infrastructure, and protect against burning ember intrusion, while providing firefighters with safe areas and defensible space on site. The project’s redundant fire protection features, quick emergency response, evacuation routes and plans, and the contingency option of sheltering on site in protected spaces would ensure that people and structures would not be exposed to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.

Ignition-Resistant Structures The best mitigation to reduce a project’s potential to start on-site and off-site fires is to reduce the likelihood that the project’s structural elements would ignite (Gorte 2011; Maranghides & Mell 2012; Zhou 2013; Calkin et al. 2014; Mockrin et al. 2020). Incorporation of the latest structural ignitionresistant features and construction methods minimize the possibility that structures would ignite. Each facet of a building’s exterior construction and appendages are addressed within Chapter 7A of RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
108
the California Building Code, with a primary focus on requiring homes that can withstand heat, flame, and embers.

For example, the 2007 Witch Creek Fire was one of the most destructive fires in California’s history and destroyed thousands of homes in San Diego County. Years before the fire, Rancho Santa Fe was a community vulnerable to wildfire damage, as it was set into steep rolling hills covered in chaparral and at one point considered unsafe. However, in 1996, the community made strides to adapt to a very high fire hazard environment. The community implemented modern fire codes, developed defensible space rules, required home hardening measures, and imposed vegetation restrictions. Through this system-based approach, Rancho Santa Fe was able to transform into a fire-adapted community. As a result, when the Witch Creek fire spread to Rancho Santa Fe, no fire-hardened home was lost (Sommer 2019). San Diego County’s “after-action” investigation of the Witch Creek Fire concluded that “the fires demonstrated unequivocally that defensible space around homes works” and that “newer homes, built in accordance with new fire-safe building codes, withstood the fire better than older homes built to less stringent codes” (Appendix P1 of Recirculated Sections of Final Revised EIR).

These findings support the success of fire-hardening buildings and use of FMZs.

They also support the available option of hardened communities to offer temporary sheltering as a contingency plan when evacuation is considered undesirable, as discussed further below.

Newer master-planned communities constructed in accordance with modern fire-safe development standards also survived the 2003 Simi Fire, the 2008 Freeway Complex Fire, and the 2020 Silverado Fire, with no homes lost (Appendix P1 of Recirculated Sections of Final Revised EIR).

These recent examples demonstrate the protective value of ignitionresistant structures and modern fuel management techniques, both of which are discussed in greater detail below. Once a fire-hardened community is planned and built with fire- and ignition-resistant materials and infrastructure, long-term protection of the community and surrounding areas is dependent on ongoing maintenance (Sommer 2019). In addition to its numerous wildfire prevention measures, the project would include a homeowners association (HOA) responsible for long-term funding and maintenance of private roads and fire protection systems. This includes responsibility for fuel modification and vegetation management for all common areas of the project site, including roadside clearance areas and FMZs. HOAs are an effective fire protection feature as they can enforce defensible RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
109
space compliance and increase wildfire risk awareness through education. In comparison, many non-HOA communities have lower wildfire risk awareness and are less likely to implement defensible space and fire hazard reduction techniques on private properties or through the community (Steffey et al. 2020). The project’s HOA would also enforce homeowner compliance with the project’s fuel management plan on an ongoing basis. In addition, the HOA would provide project residents and occupants with ongoing education regarding wildfires so they may maintain an increased awareness of wildfire risk and the possibility that they may be directed to remain in their homes or moved to another on-site location during a wildfire.

These educational materials would include information on the need to timely maintain the landscape and structural components according to the applicable fire-safe standards. Moreover, the SFD would review and approve all HOA wildfire educational material and programs before printing and distribution. HOA oversight and community engagement were credited as one of the reasons why Rancho Santa Fe was able to survive the Witch Creek fire in 2007 (Sommer 2019).

Code-Required Fire Safety Features that Facilitate Sheltering in Place Most of the primary components of the proposed project’s layered fire protection system are required by Santee Fire and Building Codes, because they have been tested in the lab and in realtime wildfires and found to result in saved structures. They have been proven effective for minimizing structural vulnerability to wildfire. They also make shelter-in-place possible as an evacuation contingency option when evacuation is not possible.

Even though current Building and Fire Codes require these measures, at one time, many of them were used as mitigation measures for buildings in fire hazard areas, because they were known to reduce structure vulnerability to wildfire. These measures were adopted into the 2007 California Building Code and have been retained and enhanced in code updates since then. The following project features are required for new development in fire hazard areas and form the basis of the system to provide adequate access by emergency responders and provide the protection necessary to minimize structural ignitions:
• Application of the latest adopted ignition-resistant building codes.
• Nonflammable roofs, which would be Class “A” listed and firerated roof assembly, installed per manufacturer’s instructions, to approval of the City. Roofs would be made tight with no gaps or openings on ends or in valleys, or elsewhere between roof covering and decking, in order to prevent intrusion of RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
110
flame and embers. Any openings on ends of roof tiles would be enclosed to prevent intrusion of burning debris. When provided, roof valley flashings would not be less than 0.019 inch (No. 26 gage galvanized sheet) corrosion-resistant metal installed over a minimum 36-inch-wide underlayment
consisting of one layer of 72 pound ASTM 3909 cap sheet running the full length of the valley.
• Exterior wall coverings are to be non-combustible or ignition resistant.
• Multi-pane glazing with a minimum of one tempered pane. • Ember-resistant vents (recommend BrandGuard, O’Hagin, or similar vents).
o No vents in soffits, cornices, rakes, eaves, eave
overhangs or between rafters at eaves or in other
overhang areas. Gable end and dormer vents to be at
least 10 feet from property line or provided alternative design resistant to ember penetration. Vents in allowed locations to be protected with wire mesh having no
openings greater than 0.125 inch. Vent openings would
not exceed 144 square inches. Vents would be
designed to resist the intrusion of any burning embers
or debris.
o Vents would not be placed on roofs unless they are
approved for Class “A” roof assemblies (and contain an
approved baffle system (such as Brandguard or
O’Hagin vents) to stop intrusion of burning material) or are otherwise approved.
o Turbine vents would be prohibited.
• Interior, automatic fire sprinklers to code for occupancy type. • Eaves and soffits would meet the requirements of SFM 12- 7A-3 or be protected by ignition-resistant materials or noncombustible construction on the exposed underside, per City Building Code.
• There would be no use of paper-faced insulation or
combustible installation in attics or other ventilated areas. • There would be no use of plastic, vinyl (with the exception of vinyl windows with metal reinforcement and welded corners), or light wood on the exterior.
• Any vinyl frames to have welded corners and metal
reinforcement in the interlock area to maintain integrity of the frame certified to ANSI/AAMA/NWWDA 101/I.S 2 97
requirements.
• Skylights to be tempered glass.
• Rain gutters and downspouts to be non-combustible. They would be designed to prevent the accumulation of leaf litter or debris, which can ignite roof edges.

RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
111
• Doors to conform to SFM standard 12-7A-1, or would be of approved non-combustible construction or would be solid core wood having stiles and rails not less than 1 3/8 inches thick or have a 20-minute fire rating. Doors to comply with City Building Code, Chapter 7-A. Garage doors to be solid core

1.75-inch-thick wood or metal, to comply with code.
• Decks and their surfaces, stair treads, landings, risers, porches, balconies to comply with language in City Building Code, Chapter 7-A and be ignition-resistant construction, heavy timber, exterior approved fire retardant wood, or approved noncombustible materials.
• Decks or overhangs projecting over vegetated slopes are not permitted. Decks to be designed to resist failing due to the weight of a firefighter during fire conditions. There would be no plastic or vinyl decking or railings. The ends of decks to be enclosed with the same type of material as the remainder of the deck.
• There would be no combustible awnings, canopies, or similar combustible overhangs.
• No combustible fences to be allowed within 5 feet of structures on any lots. The first 5 feet from a structure would be noncombustible or meet the same fire-resistive standards as walls.
• All chimneys and other vents on heating appliances using solid or liquid fuel, including outdoor fireplaces and permanent barbeques and grills, to have spark arrestors that comply with the City Fire Code. The code requires that openings would not exceed 1/4- inch. Arrestors would be visible from the ground. • Any liquid propane gas (LPG) tanks (except small barbecue and outdoor heater tanks), firewood, hay storage, storage sheds, barns, and other combustibles would be located at least 30 feet from structures, and, within the FMZ, 30 feet from flammable vegetation. There would be no flammable
vegetation under or within 30 feet of LPG tanks, or tanks would be enclosed in an approved ignition-resistant enclosure with 10 feet clearance of flammable vegetation around it. In no case would a tank be closer than 10 feet from the structure.

City Fire Code requires 10 feet of clearance of native
vegetation, weeds, and brush from under and around LPG
tanks.
• Storage sheds, barns, and outbuildings to be constructed of approved non-combustible materials, including noncombustible Class A roofs and would be subject to the same restrictions as the main structure on lot.
• Modern infrastructure, access roads, and water delivery system.

RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
112
• Maintained FMZs.
• Fire apparatus access roads throughout the project’s
developed areas.

Notably, interior fire sprinklers, which would be provided in all structures (required by code since 2010), have an extremely high reliability track record (Appendix P1) of controlling fire in 96 percent of reported fires, and statistics indicate that fires in homes with sprinklers resulted in 82 percent lower property damage and 68 percent lower loss of life (Hall 2013). Although not designed for wildland fire defense, should embers succeed in entering a structure, sprinklers provide an additional layer of life safety and structure protection.

Effective Fuel Modification Zones Provisions for modified fuel areas of at least 100 feet separating wildland fuels from structures have reduced the number of fuel-related structure losses by providing separation between structures and radiant heat generated by wildland fuels. FMZs of 100 feet in width that are correctly designed, installed, and maintained over time have been shown to provide effective defensible space. The project’s FMZs have been customized dependent on the anticipated adjacent fire behavior to exceed this 100-foot standard. The project provides FMZs of a minimum of 115 feet and, in areas where the potential wildfire hazard was determined to be higher, the FMZs around the project have been extended to 165 feet wide. A 100-foot FMZ at the site perimeter adjacent to the existing neighborhood to the south would also be provided, monitored, and maintained as part of the project to further reduce fire risk to those older homes.

The FMZs are designed to minimize wildfire encroaching upon the community and minimize the likelihood that an ignition from the developed area spreads into the open space by separating the natural vegetation occurring outside the FMZs from the
development. FMZs include reduced fuel densities, lack of fuel continuity, and a reduction in the receptiveness of the landscape to ignition and fire spread. Vegetation within the FMZs would be maintained as required by SFD and Development Plan. Irrigated zones provide a high plant/fuel moisture, making it more difficult to ignite (USFS 2015). Positioning the low plant density, irrigated zone directly adjacent to structures provides a significant buffer between a house or other landscape fire and native vegetation. This type of green barrier can have the same benefit of buffering preserved open space areas (and adjacent communities) from accidental on-site ignitions, while also providing positive ecological impacts by preventing/blocking surface fire and crown fires, serving as green ember catchers, and reducing overall erosion impacts (Wang et al.

RESOLUTION NO. 112-2022
113
2021).

The entire project site would represent a large fire break. Fires from off site would not have continuous fuels across the development footprint and, therefore, would be expected to burn around and/or over the developed landscape via spotting. Burning vegetation embers may land on project structures but are not likely to result in ignition based on ember decay rates and the types of noncombustible and ignition-resistant materials and venting that would be used within the project, and the ongoing inspections and maintenance that would occur in the project’s landscaped areas and FMZs. Fuel treatments and landscape design protect homes and also serve as a buffer for natural areas and surrounding communities. FMZs were originally implemented by CAL FIRE to protect natural resources from urban area ignition sources. Over the years, FMZs have become essential to setting urban areas back from wildland areas serving the dual purpose of protecting structures and people while buffering natural areas from urban ignitions, thus reducing the potential for urban fires to spread into wildland areas.

Santee City CouncilSeptember 14, 2022

Santee City Council
September 14, 2022