MEETING INFORMATION
Wednesday, October 12, 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.
October 12, 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: Santee United Methodist Church – Pastor Jaime Pangman
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
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 Meeting Minutes of the Santee City Council for the September 28, 2022, Regular City Council Meeting. (City Clerk – Ortiz) (3) Approval of Payment of Demands as Presented. (Finance – Jennings) (4) Adoption of a Resolution Rejecting a Non-Responsive Bid and Awarding of a Contract for Plumbing Repairs and Maintenance to Countywide Mechanical Systems, Inc. per RFB #22/23-20065. (Community Services – Chavez) (5) Adoption of a Resolution Proclaiming the Termination of the Existence of a Local Emergency Relating to Extreme Fire Risk in the San Diego River Corridor and the Completion of the Creation of Defensible Spaces to Mitigate Fire Risk. (City Manager – Best)
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.
October 12, 2022 | 6:30 p.m.
3 PUBLIC HEARING:
(6) Public Hearing on the Housing Element Rezone Program Implementation Project to Consider Certifying Program Environmental Impact Report AEIS2021-3 and Approving General Plan Amendment GPA2021-2, Town Center Specific Plan Amendment TCSPA2021-2, Rezone R2021-2 and Zoning Ordinance Amendment ZA2021-2. (Development Services – Planning) Recommendation:
1. Conduct and close the Public Hearing; and
2. Certify the Final Program Environmental Impact Report (AEIS2021-3; SCH# 2021100263) for the Housing Element Rezone Program Implementation Project; adopt Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program under CEQA per the Resolution; and
3. Approve General Plan Amendment GPA2021-2 per the Resolution; and
4. Approve Town Center Specific Plan Amendment TCSPA2021-2 per the Resolution: and
5. Introduce and approve Rezone Ordinance R2021-2 for First Reading and set the Second Reading for October 26, 2022; and
6. Introduce and approve Zoning Amendment Ordinance ZA2021-2 for First Reading and set the Second Reading for October 26, 2022.
NEW BUSINESS:
(7) Report on Current Actions and Responses Related to Reducing Homelessness in Santee and East County, and Possible Future Action Strategies. (City Manager – Best)
Recommendation:
Review the information provided on actions to date and provide direction to staff on possible future actions and strategies.
(8) Public Workshop on the Safety Element Update and Integrating Environmental Justice. (Development Services – Planning)
Recommendation:
Receive Report.
October 12, 2022 | 6:30 p.m.
4 (9) Resolution Accepting the Award of Transnet Smart Growth Incentive Program (SGIP) Grant Funds from the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Grant Agreement. (Development Services – Planning)
Recommendation:
Adopt the Resolution:
1. Accepting and appropriating the SGIP Funds from SANDAG; and
2. Authorizing the City Manager to execute documents on behalf of the City, related to the grant.
(10) Resolution Designating all Parking Spaces Connected to an Electric Vehicle Charging Device Located on Off-Street Parking Facilities Owned or Operated by the City and on Public Streets for the Exclusive Purpose of Parking and Charging an Electric Vehicle that is Connected for Electric Charging Purposes, and Establishing a Civil Penalty Amount for Violation of California Vehicle Code Section 22511.1(A)-(B) and Amending the Master Bail Schedule to Incorporate that Penalty Amount. (Development Services – Engineering) Recommendation:
Adopt the Resolution (1) designating all parking spaces that are connected to an electric vehicle charging device that is located on a City-owned or operated off-street parking facility and on public streets for the exclusive purpose of parking and charging an electric vehicle; (2) establishing a civil penalty amount for violation of California Vehicle Code section 22511.1(a)-(b), which prohibits a person from parking in a designated electric vehicle parking space while the vehicle is not connected for electric charging purposes; and (3) directing staff to amend the City’s Master Bail Schedule to incorporate that penalty amount. (11) Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with SDI Presence, Inc. for Land Management and Permitting System Implementation Consulting Services; and Authorizing the Appropriation of American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Lost Public Sector Revenue Funding and General Fund Reserves to Fund the Amendment. (City Manager – Best)
Recommendation:
Adopt the Resolution:
1. Authorizing the City Manager to execute an Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with SDI Presence, Inc. for Land Management and Permitting System implementation consulting services for a total increase not to exceed $98,400.00.
2. Authorizing the appropriation of $78,730.00 in ARPA Lost Public Sector Revenue funds.
3. Authorizing the appropriation of $19,670.00 from General Fund reserves.
October 12, 2022 | 6:30 p.m.
5 (12) Street Sweeping Contract Future Options Informational Item. (Community Services – Chavez)
Recommendation:
Receive street sweeping options information and provide direction to staff, if desired.
NON-AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENT (Continued):
All public comment not presented within the first Non-Agenda Public Comment period above will be heard at this time.
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS:
CITY MANAGER REPORTS:
CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS:
CLOSED SESSION:
(13) Conference with Legal Counsel—Existing Litigation
(Gov. Code §54956.9(d)(1))
Name of case: City of Santee v. Santee Trolley Square 991, LP; Target Corporation, et al.
Case Number: San Diego Superior Court Case No. 37-2022-00035836-CU-ORCTL (14) Conference with Real Property Negotiators
(Gov. Code §54956.8)
Property: Parcel 4 of Parcel Map 18857 located in Trolley Square City Negotiator: City Manager
Negotiating Parties: Excel Hotel Group
Under Negotiation: Price and terms of payment
ADJOURNMENT:
October 12, 2022 | 6:30 p.m.
6 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
Nov 03 SPARC Council Chamber
Nov 09 Council Meeting Council Chamber
Nov 14 Community Oriented Policing Committee 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
OCTOBER & NOVEMBER MEETINGS
Minutes DRAFT
Santee City Council
Council Chamber – Building 2
10601 Magnolia Avenue
Santee, California
September 28, 2022
This Regular Meeting of the Santee City Council was called to order by Vice Mayor Ronn Hall at 6:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Present: Vice Mayor Ronn Hall and Council Members Laura Koval and Rob McNelis – 3. Absent: Mayor John W. Minto and Dustin Trotter – 2 Officers present: City Manager Marlene Best, Assistant City Attorney Victoria Hester and City Clerk Annette Ortiz
INVOCATION was given by Rev. Andreas Walker Thode − Carlton Hills Evangelical Lutheran Church.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Heather Jennings, Director of Finance.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
(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 Meeting Minutes of the Santee City Council for the August 24, 2022, and the September 14, 2022, Regular Meetings. (City Clerk – Ortiz)
(3) Approval of Payment of Demands as Presented. (Finance – Jennings) (4) Approval of the Expenditure of $123,160.34 for August 2022 Legal Services and Reimbursable Costs. (Finance – Jennings)
(5) Authorizing the Acceptance and Appropriation of Fiscal Year 2021 Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) Grant Training Funds for UASI Training Backfill Overtime Reimbursement. (Fire – Garlow)
(6) Notice of Required Amendments to Conflict of Interest Code. (City Clerk – Ortiz)
(7) Adoption of a Resolution Accepting the Award of Regional Early Action Program Housing Acceleration Program Grant Funds from the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Grant Agreement. (Development Services – Planning) (Reso 122-2022)
Santee City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of September 28, 2022 Page 2 of 3 ACTION: Council Member Koval moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Vice Mayor Hall seconded the motion, which carried by the following vote: Vice Mayor Hall: Aye; and Council Members Koval: Aye; McNelis: Aye; Ayes: 3. Noes: 0 Absent :
Mayor Minto and Council Member Trotter − 2.
NON-AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENT (15 minutes):
(A) Kevin Prescott spoke regarding the need for a new skate park in the City of Santee.
NEW BUSINESS:
(8) Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Professional Services Agreement for Concession Services at Mast Park with The Dog Haus Disc Shop, LLC per RFP #22/23-40026. (Community Services – Chavez) The Director of Community Service provided a PowerPoint presentation and responded to Council questions.
ACTION: Council Member Koval moved approval of staff recommendation.
Vice Mayor Hall seconded the motion, which carried by the following vote: Vice Mayor Hall: Aye; and Council Members Koval: Aye; McNelis: Aye; Ayes: 3. Noes: 0 Absent:
Mayor Minto and Council Member Trotter − 2.
NON-AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENT: (Continued)
(A) Ibrahim Ahmed, Policy Advisor to the County Board of Supervisor Joel Anderson, spoke regarding the County’s Capital Emergency Housing Solutions Grant Program.
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS:
None
CITY MANAGER REPORTS:
The City Manager welcomed the new Finance Director, Heather Jennings, and acknowledged Captain McNeill for receiving the First Responder of the Month from the San Diego East County Chamber of Commerce.
CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS:
None
Santee City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of September 28, 2022 Page 3 of 3 ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:48 p.m.
Date Approved:
Annette Fagan Ortiz, CMC, City Clerk
vchlist
09/27/2022 12:17:07PM
Bank code: ubqen
Voucher
1170
Date Vendor
9/21/2022 14686 WILMINGTON TRUST
1 Vouchers for bank code : ubgen
1 Vouchers in this report
Date:
Pcepa,ed by,�g q_q--�-=z._ &
Approved by: ------�
Date: q/z7/z2...
Voucher List
CITY OF SANTEE
Invoice
AD#22-02 (01)
-PO# ------
Description/Account
UNSPENT PRE-PAID FEE REIMBUR
Total:
Bank total:
Total vouchers
Page: 1
Amount
165,444.84
165,444.84
165,444.84
165,444.84
Page: 1
vchlist
09/22/2022 12:26:48PM
Bank code : ubqen
Voucher
11876
11879
Date Vendor
9/21/2022 10955 DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
9/21/2022 10956 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD
2 Vouchers for bank code : ubgen
2 Vouchers in this report
Prnparnd by ---� '-� :Z ;:z__
Approved by:
Date: f/ ll, /loll.
Date
Voucher List
CITY OF SANTEE
Invoice
PPE 09/14/22
PPE 09/14/22
PO# Description/Account
FED WITHHOLD & MEDICARE
Total:
CA STATE TAX WITHHELD
Total:
Bank total:
Total vouchers
Page:
Amount
106,643.87
106,643.87
36,373.30
36,373.30
143,017.17
143,017.17
Page:
2 2
vchlist Voucher List Page:
09/22/2022 8:58:44AM CITY OF SANTEE
Bank code: ubqen
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount 131557 9/22/2022 14626 HC WEST, LLC SDS1223517-1 54010 ANNUAL BACKFLOW CERTIFICATIC 5,400.00 Total: 5,400.00
131558 9/22/2022 13456 AGRICULTURAL PEST CONTROL 654111 53971 PEST CONTROL SERVICES 654.67 656078 53971 PEST CONTROL SERVICES 135.25
656081 53971 PEST CONTROL SERVICES 270.50
656261 53971 PEST CONTROL SERVICES 135.25
656263 53971 PEST CONTROL SERVICES 135.25
656556 53971 PEST CONTROL SERVICES 225.00
656607 53971 PEST CONTROL SERVICES 135.25
656713 53971 PEST CONTROL SERVICES 135.25
Total: 1,826.42
131559 9/22/2022 14306 AZTEC LANDSCAPING, INC J1231 53940 CUSTODIAL SERVICES - PARKS 4,523.69 Total: 4,523.69
131560 9/22/2022 10020 BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP LEGAL SVCS AUG 2022 LEGAL SVCS AUGUST 2022 123,160.34 Total: 123,160.34
131561 9/22/2022 10008 BPI PLUMBING S-31754 53952 PLUMBING SERVICES 910.84 S-31755 53952 PLUMBING SERVICES 1,262.32
Total: 2,173.16
131562 9/22/2022 14624 CABRERA, ANTONIO P38958 PARAMEDIC LICENSE RENEWAL 250.00 Total: 250.00
131563 9/22/2022 10876 CANON SOLUTIONS AMERICA INC 4040540057 53987 SCANNER MAINTENANCE 106.46 4040540058 53987 PLOTIER MAINT. & USAGE 68.55
Total: 175.01
131564 9/22/2022 10032 CINTAS CORPORATION #694 4129881809 53959 MISC SHOP RENTAL SERVICE 79.71 Total: 79.71
131565 9/22/2022 12190 CONAN CONSTRUCTION INC EN22118S REFUNDABLE SECURITY 2,585.00 Total: 2,585.00
131566 9/22/2022 12153 CORODATA RECORDS RS4826109 53973 CORODATA RECORDS MANAGEME 567.17 Page: 3
3 vchlist Voucher List
09/22/2022 8:58:44AM CITY OF SANTEE
Bank code : ubqen
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
131566 9/22/2022 12153 12153 CORODATA RECORDS (Continued) 131567 9/22/2022 10039 COUNTY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY INC 557500CR 571785
572230
131568 9/22/2022 10171 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO AUDITOR & 08/2022 AGENCY REV 08/2022 OMV REVENUE
08/2022 PHOENIX REV
131569 9/22/2022 10333 COX COMMUNICATIONS 052335901- SEPT 22 052335901-AUG22
131570 9/22/2022 14347 DIAMOND EDUCATION 1034
131571 9/22/2022 12483 DISCOUNT SIGNS AND BANNERS 5578
131572 9/22/2022 14682 EARLS, ROBERT 31908
131573 9/22/2022 11196 HD SUPPLY FM 2022 02
131574 9/22/2022 11196 HD SUPPLY FACILITIES 9205316464
9205587794
9205642363
131575 9/22/2022 10600 HINDERLITER, DE LLAMAS & ASSOC SIN021062 SIN021498
131576 9/22/2022 10256 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 6152940 PO# Description/Account
Total:
53873 CREDIT - RETURNED AIR FILTER
53873 VEHICLE SUPPLIES
53873 VEHICLE SUPPLIES
Total:
08/2022 AGENCY PARK CITE REPT
08/2022 OMV PARK CITE REPT
08/2022 PHOENIX CITE REV REPT
Total:
8950 COTTONWOOD AVE
8950 COTTONWOOD AVE
Total:
53942 CONTINUING EDUCATION
Total:
53877 PPE IDENTIFICATION DECALS
Total:
PARKING CITATION REFUND
Total:
LOCATION AGMT PYMT 2022 02
Total:
53945 STATION SUPPLIES
53945 STATION SUPPLIES
53945 STATION SUPPLIES
Total:
AUDIT SERVICES - SALES TAX 01/:
53962 · FY 22/23 ORTLY SALES TAX PREP
Total:
53923 VEHICLE SUPPLIES
Page: 4
Amount
567.17
-131.30
188.36
238.14
295.20
116.25
300.00
1,258.50
1,674.75
187.32
187.32
374.64
1,850.00
1,850.00
5.39 5.39
5.50 5.50
387,699.50
387,699.50
425.63
126.13
22.60 574.36
800.71
2,300.00
3,100.71
31.03 Page: 4
vchlist Voucher List Page: 5
09/22/2022 8:58:44AM CITY OF SANTEE
Bank code: ubqen
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount 131576 9/22/2022 10256 10256 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES (Continued) Total: 31.03 131577 9/22/2022 11724 ICF JONES & STOKES INC INV-00000036026 53609 MSCP SUBAREA PLAN 5,197.50 INV-00000036289 53609 MSCP SUBAREA PLAN 6,000.00
Total: 11,197.50
131578 9/22/2022 14681 KEFFER, DONALD 32131 PARKING CITATION REFUND 5.00 Total: 5.00
131579 9/22/2022 13558 KIFER HYDRAULICS CO, INC 72648 53887 EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS 25.93 Total: 25.93
131580 9/22/2022 10204 LIFE ASSIST INC 1244839 53891 EMS SUPPLIES 1.410.80 1244840 53891 EMS SUPPLIES 15.09
1245488 53891 EMS SUPPLIES 838.62
1245567 53891 EMS SUPPLIES 435.85
1246124 53891 EMS SUPPLIES 217.58
Total: 2,917.94
131581 9/22/2022 13155 LIFETIME DOG TRAINING, LLC 3001 INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT 2,331.00 Total: 2,331.00
131582 9/22/2022 14208 MINUTEMAN PRESS EL CAJON 64068 54015 BUSINESS CARDS 78.68 Total: 78.68
131583 9/22/2022 10083 MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES IN1758218 53805 STRUCTURAL TURNOUTS 15,046.86 53805
Total: 15,046.86
131584 9/22/2022 10344 PADRE DAM MUNICIPAL WATER DIST 29700015-AUG22 CONSTRUCTION METER 272.88 29700015-SEPT22 CONSTRUCTION METER 323.30
90000366-AUG22 GROUP BILL 69,137.04
Total: 69,733.22
131585 9/22/2022 11888 PENSKE FORD 10410736 53930 VEHICLE REPAIR PART 15.72 Total: 15.72
131586 9/22/2022 10161 PRIZM JANITORIAL SERVICES INC 34392 53931 CUSTODIAL SERVICES - OFFICES 4,588.24 Page: 5
vchlist Voucher List Page: 6
09/22/2022 8:58:44AM CITY OF SANTEE
Bank code: ubqen
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount 131586 9/22/2022 10161 PRIZM JANITORIAL SERVICES INC (Continued) 34414 53931 CUSTODIAL SERVICES - OFFICES 4,588.24
34415 53931 CUSTODIAL SERVICES - OFFICES 400.00
Total: 9,576.48
131587 9/22/2022 10101 PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL SUPPLY B020379 53958 OXYGEN CYLINDERS & REFILLS 122.40 B020380 53958 OXYGEN CYLINDERS & REFILLS 218.30
B020381 53958 OXYGER CYLINDERS & REFILLS 275.00
B020382 53958 OXYGEN CYLINDERS & REFILLS 19.20
Total: 634.90
131588 9/22/2022 13592 QUADIENT LEASING USA, INC N9562179 53932 MAIL MACHINE LEASE 1,057.27 Total: 1,057.27
131589 9/22/2022 10791 RECON ENVIRONMENTAL INC 66078 53341 SANTEE GP AMEND & ZONE CHAN 1,046.86 Total: 1,046.86
131590 9/22/2022 13171 SC COMMERCIAL, LLC 2189606-IN 53902 DELIVERED FUEL 860.99 2209613-IN 53902 DELIVERED FUEL 1,158.13
2212308-IN . 53902 DELIVERED FUEL 891.53
Total: 2,910.65
131591 9/22/2022 13554 SC FUELS 0588944-F 53947 FLEET CARD FUELING 2,670.96 0594485-F 53947 FLEET CARD FUELING 2,872.72
0595447-DEF 54029 VEHICLE SUPPLIES 13.17
0595447-F 53947 FLEET CARD FUELING 2,808.68
0599489-DEF 54029 VEHICLE SUPPLIES 3.72
0599489-F 53947 FLEET CARD FUELING 1,469.07
Total: 9,838.32
131592 9/22/2022 14523 SCA OF CA, LLC 155729PS 53948 STREET SWEEPING SVCS 28,220.15 Total: 28,220.15
131593 9/22/2022 13206 SHARP BUSINESS SYSTEMS 9003983949 54016 SHARP COPIES PSD & FS#5 232.47 Total: 232.47
131594 9/22/2022 10585 SHARP REES-STEALY MEDICAL 371712810 DMV EXAM 118.00 371768239 DMV EXAM 118.00
Page: 6
vchlist Voucher List
09/22/2022 8:58:44AM CITY OF SANTEE
Bank code: ubqen
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
131594 9/22/2022 10585 SHARP REES-STEALY MEDICAL (Continued) 371863371
131595 9/22/2022 11072 SHOW STOPPER WAX PRODUCTS 6169
131596 9/22/2022 14630 SNAP-ON INDUSTRIAL ARV/54158174
131597 9/22/2022 14240 SPICER CONSULTING GROUP 1119
131598 9/22/2022 10217 STAPLES ADVANTAGE 3516733040
131599 9/22/2022 10119 STEVEN SMITH LANDSCAPE INC 50335 50344
131600 9/22/2022 11947 SWARCO MCCAIN, INC. INV0268018
131601 9/22/2022 10692 UNITED PARCEL SERVICE 000006150X352 131602 9/22/2022 12480 UNITED SITE SERVICES 114-13323409 131603 9/22/2022 10642 USPS-POC 09142022
131604 9/22/2022 13564 VALMONT INDUSTRIES, INC CD14118182 131605 9/22/2022 10475 VERIZON WIRELESS 9915517026
PO# Description/Account
MEDICAL SERVICES
Total:
53904 VEHICLE SUPPLIES
Total:
54030 FLEET SHOP EQUIPMENT
Total:
53572 SPECIAL DISTRICTS ADMIN - AUG :
Total:
54040 OFFICE SUPPLIES
Total:
53937 A 1 LANDSCAPE SERVICES
53985 A 3 LANDSCAPE SERVICES
Total:
54049 TRAFFIC CONTROLLER SOFTWAR
Total:
SHIPPING CHARGE
Total:
53950 PORTABLE TOILET RENTAL
Total:
POSTAGE REIMBURSEMENT
Total:
53806 WALKWAY LIGHT REPLACEMENTS
Total:
CELL PHONE SERVICE
Total:
Page: 7
Amount
47.00 283.00
92.12 92.12
3,431.01
3,431.01
2,656.25
2,656.25
85.01 85.01
3,455.72
2,129.36
5,585.08
3,526.66
3,526.66
218.06
218.06
141.08
141.08
2,584.55
2,584.55
13,156.28
13,156.28
1,266.49
1,266.49
Page: 7
vchlist
09/22/2022 8:58:44AM
Bank code : ubqen
Voucher
131606
131607
131608
Date Vendor
9/22/2022 10537 WETMORE'S
9/22/2022 10537 WETMORE'S
9/22/2022 10318 ZOLL MEDICAL CORPORATION
52 Vouchers for bank code : ubgen
52 Vouchers in this report
Prepared by.,_ \,{A
Date: q
J � ��
Apprn,ed by, �
Date: q / 2..l. I Zo 2.. 2.
Voucher List
CITY OF SANTEE
Invoice
06P42252
06P42555
3563671
PO# Description/Account
53916 VEHICLE REPAIR PARTS
Total:
53916 VEHICLE SUPPLIES
Total:
53917 EMS SUPPLIES
Total:
Bank total:
Total vouchers
Page: 8
Amount
876.00
876.00
227.22
227.22
918.67
918.67
726,268.01
726,268.01
Page: 8
PyBatch
09/20/2022 10:53:SSAM
EARNINGS SECTION
Type
tech
tiller
tillot
tup
unif
unifp
vacp
vtkn
wcbf
wcdf
went
wellne
Grand
Totals
Hours/units
264.00
72.00 98.73
137.58
42.93 88.00
15,838.68
--
Rate Amount --
Src
350.00
253.66
3,632.40
255.32
700.00
500.00
4,053.88
5,300.12
-2,368.17
2,368.17
�
2,763.40 Q?i,2�
680,189.58
--Plan
rhsabc
roth
sb-1
sb-3
sffa
sffapc
st1cs3
st2cs3
texlif
vaccpr
vaccpt
vcanpr
vcanpt
vgcipt
vision
voladd
voldis
vollif
vollpb
Payroll Processing Report
CITY OF SANTEE
9/1/2022 to 9/14/2022-2 Cycle b
DEDUCTIONS SECTION
Base Wages
20,477.89
35,124.94
Deduction BenefiUCont LvPlan
93,942.13
13,421.90
409.56
5,004.72
72.54 48.36
2,583.45
410.40
2,818.29
402.66
55.16 558.35
261.03
421.05
151.80
88.81 482.69
37.21 234.94
250.57
246,205.28
-2,818.29
-402.66
-250.57
72,152.08
--r���
�s- � \ \'-\ 1��
�� �� D..\d� w
Page: 9
LEAVE SECTION
Accrued
Gross:
Net:
Taken
680,189.58
433,984.30
Banked Lost
<< No Errors I 26 Warnings >>
�
Page: 9
vchlist Voucher List
09/22/2022 11:53:07AM CITY OF SANTEE
Bank code: ubQen
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
131609 9/22/2022 12724 AMERICAN FIDELITY ASSURANCE 0503493 131610 9/22/2022 12722 FIDELITY SECURITY LIFE 165424933 131611 9/22/2022 10508 LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF September 2022 131612 9/22/2022 14452 MEDICAL AIR SERVICES ASSC, MASA 1337982 131613 9/22/2022 14458 METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE 73521318 131614 9/22/2022 10784 NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE September 2022 131615 9/22/2022 10335 SAN DIEGO FIREFIGHTERS FEDERAL September 2022 131616 9/22/2022 10424 SANTEE FIREFIGHTERS PPE 09/14/22 131617 9/22/2022 12892 SELMAN & COMPANY, LLC September 22 131618 9/22/2022 10776 STATE OF CALIFORNIA PPE 09/14/22 131619 9/22/2022 14467 TEXAS LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY SMOFOU20220913001 131620 9/22/2022 10001 US BANK PPE 09/14/22
131621 9/22/2022 14600 WASHINGTON STATE SUPPORT PPE 09/14/22 PO# Description/Account
VOLUNTARY LIFE INS-AM FIDELITY
Total:
EYEMED - VOLUNTARY VISION
Total:
LIFE/LTD INSURANCE
Total:
MEDICAL AIR TRANSPORT SVCS
Total:
VOLUNTARY LEGAL
Total:
VOLUNTARY AD&D
Total:
LONG TERM DISABILITY-SFFA:
Total:
DUES/PEG/BENEVOLENT/BC EXP
Total:
ID THEFT PROTECTION
Total:
WITHHOLDING ORDER
Total:
VOLUNTARY INS RIDERS
Total:
PARS RETIREMENT
Total:
WITHHOLDING ORDER
Page: 10
Amount
4,617.16
4,617.16
988.24
988.24
2,735.51
2,735.51
98.00 98.00
210.00
210.00
74.50 74.50
1,386.50
1,386.50
3,122.79
3,122.79
160.00
160.00
449.53
449.53
110.35
110.35
778.06
778.06
751.84
Page: 10
vchlist
09/22/2022 11 :53:07 AM
Bank code:
Voucher
ubqen
Date Vendor
Voucher List
CITY OF SANTEE
Invoice
131621 9/22/2022 14600 14600 WASHINGTON STATE SUPPORT (Continued) 13 Vouchers for bank code : ubgen
13 Vouchers in this report
)�
Appco,ed by �
Date: c,f /22. / ?o U.
Prepared bY\.
Date:
------- PO# Description/Account
Total:
Bank total:
Total vouchers :
Page: 11
Amount
751.84
15,482.48
15,482.48
Page: 11
vchlist
09/23/2022 11 :12:44AM
Voucher List
CITY OF SANTEE
Bank code:
Voucher
818697
818740
ubqen
Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account
9/23/2022 10959 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENT/457 PPE 09/14/22 ICMA-457 9/23/2022 10782 VANTAGEPOINT TRNSFR AGT/801801 PPE 09/14/22 RETIREE HSA Total:
Total:
2 Vouchers for bank code : ubgen Bank total:
2 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers :
Date.
Pmpacedby �Jn--�?::'7-- Approved by:
2-
Date: - .oq f 3, / 1 O 2 '
Page:
Amount
35,681.13
35,681.13
4,041.69
4,041.69
39,722.82
39,722.82
Page:
12 12
vchlist
09/27/2022 10:30:35AM
Bank code: ubqen
Voucher List
CITY OF SANTEE
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account
1178 9/23/2022 10482 TRI STAR RISK MANAGEMENT
1 Vouchers for bank code : ubgen
1 Vouchers in this report
���:�
red by.,�;� tApproved by: � Date: cf !z? '2 "2..-
116313 WORKERS COMPENSATION LOSS!
Total:
Bank total:
Total vouchers
Page:
Amount
20,507.26
20,507.26
20,507.26
20,507.26
Page:
13 13
vchlist
09/27/2022 2:23:42PM
Voucher List
CITY OF SANTEE
Bank code:
Voucher
9223
ubqen
Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account
9/27/2022 10353 PERS 09 22 3 RETIREMENT PAYMENT
Total:
1 Vouchers for bank code: ubgen Bank total:
1 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers
Prepared by: ��--: ,..,. , --:::
Date: ��
Approved by: __ ___c__====="----------
Date: q/n (z.z__.
Page:
Amount
121,915.48
121,915.48
121,915.48
121,915.48
Page:
14 14
vchlist Voucher List
09/28/2022 11:01:23AM CITY OF SANTEE
Bank code: ubqen
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
131622 9/28/2022 13198 3-D ENTERPRISES, INC 4 - CIP2022-40 4R -CIP2022-4
131623 9/28/2022 14691 AMBULANCE ASSOCIATION OF 10132022 131624 9/28/2022 11445 AMERICAN MESSAGING L1072898WI
131625 9/28/2022 10412 AT&T 000018813401
131626 9/28/2022 12951 BERRY, BONNIE F. October 1 . 2022 131627 9/28/2022 11513 BOND, ELLEN 10012022-263
131628 9/28/2022 10299 CAR QUEST AUTO PARTS 11102-567554 131629 9/28/2022 11402 CARROLL, JUDI 10012022-96
131630 9/28/2022 14693 CHICK-FIL-A INC. Ref000082000
131631 9/28/2022 10032 CINTAS CORPORATION #694 4130625563 131632 9/28/2022 12328 CINTAS CORP. #2 5123522896
131633 9/28/2022 11409 CLAYTON, SYLVIA 10012022-340
PO# Description/Account
53769 TCCP FIELD UPGRADES CIP2022-4
RETENTION
Total:
SEMINAR REGISTRATION
Total:
FD PAGER SERVICE
Total:
TELEPHONE
Total:
RETIREE HEALTH PAYMENT
Total:
MEADOWBROOK HARDSHIP PRO(
Total:
53869 VEHICLE REPAIR PARTS
Total:
MEADOWBROOK HARDSHIP PRO(
Total:
DUPLICATE PAYMENT REFUND
Total:
53959 MISC SHOP RENTAL SERVICE
Total:
53989 FIRST-AID KIT SERVICE
Total:
MEADOWBROOK HARDSHIP PRO(
Total:
Page: 15
Amount
558,100.00
-27,905.00
530,195.00
200.00
200.00
166.52
166.52
841.39
841.39
91.00 91.00
77.47 77.47
31.42 31.42
77.66 77.66
99.00 99.00
65.10 65.10
148.35
148.35
81.27 81.27
Page: 15
vchlist Voucher List
09/28/2022 11:01:23AM CITY OF SANTEE
Bank code: ubqen
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO#
131634 9/28/2022 10268 COOPER, JACKIE October 1, 2022
131635 9/28/2022 11862 CORODATA SHREDDING INC DN1376319 53974 131636 9/28/2022 10358 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 23CTOFSAN02 54019 23CTOFSASN02 53941
131637 9/28/2022 10333 COX COMMUNICATIONS 063453006-SEP22 064114701-SEPT22
112256001-SEP22
131638 9/28/2022 10608 CRISIS HOUSE 708 53991
131639 9/28/2022 11168 CTE INC CLARK TELECOM AND 3152 53954 3152R
131640 9/28/2022 14679 DAYNIGHT POWER, INC. EN22147S
131641 9/28/2022 12655 DELL MARKETING LP 10605431951 53992 131642 9/28/2022 12483 DISCOUNT SIGNS AND BANNERS 5613 53877 5614 53877
131643 9/28/2022 12593 ELLISON WILSON ADVOCACY, LLC 2022-09-07 53976 131644 9/28/2022 14390 ESCRIBE SOFTWARE LTD US-1166
Description/Account
RETIREE HEALTH PAYMENT
Total:
SECURE DESTRUCTION SERVICE�
Total:
SHERIFF RADIOS
800 MHZ RADIO ACCESS
Total:
9534 VIA ZAPADOR
8115 ARLETTE ST
9130 CARLTON OAKS DR
Total:
CDBG SUBRECIPIENT
Total:
MAGNOLIA SIGNAL UPGRADE PRO
RETENTION
Total:
REFUNDABLE SECURITY
Total:
COMPUTER WORKSTATIONS
Total:
PPE IDENTIFICATION DECALS
PPE IDENTIFICATION DECALS
Total:
LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICE
Total:
AGENDA MGMT SOFTWARE
Total:
Page: 16
Amount
91.00 91.00
49.82 49.82
2,565.00
1,824.00
4,389.00
94.54 196.08
93.72 384.34
377.61
377.61
105,800.00
-5,290.00
100,510.00
1,500.00
1,500.00
10,863.99
10,863.99
98.66 28.02
126.68
1,500.00
1,500.00
8,837.40
8,837.40
Page: 16
vchlist Voucher List
09/28/2022 11:01:23AM CITY OF SANTEE
Bank code: ubqen
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
131645 9/28/2022 12120 GEOCON INCORPORATED 122080283
131646 9/28/2022 12638 GEORGE HILLS COMPANY, INC. INV1023798 INV1023816
131647 9/28/2022 10490 HARRIS & ASSOCIATES INC 54194
131648 9/28/2022 12810 HENRY, PATRICK 09232022
131649 9/28/2022 10204 LIFE ASSIST INC 1246786
131650 9/28/2022 14536 LIZA LUYUN 09162022
131651 9/28/2022 14499 MARSHALL, NANCY J October 1 , 2022 131652 9/28/2022 13346 MAXEY, NICK 57247
131653 9/28/2022 14688 MAXIM CONSTRUCTION COMPANY INC Ref000081892 131654 9/28/2022 14208 MINUTEMAN PRESS EL CAJON 64081
131655 9/28/2022 13369 NATIONWIDE MEDICAL 20048
131656 9/28/2022 14667 NELSON, JAMIE 09162022-1
131657 9/28/2022 10344 PADRE DAM MUNICIPAL WATER DIST 90000367-SEP22 PO# Description/Account
53284 GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW - SLOPE
Total:
54012 CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION FEES
LIABILITY CLAIMS MEDICARE REP<
Total:
53763 IS/MND - CANNABIS ORDINANCE
Total:
EMPLOYEE REIMBURSEMENT
Total:
53891 EMS SUPPLIES
Total:
PER DIEM NEOGOV 2022 CONFER!
Total:
RETIREE HEALTH PAYMENT
Total:
EMPLOYEE REIMBURSEMENT
Total:
REFUND - DUPLICATE APPLICATIO
Total:
54015 BUSINESS CARDS
Total:
53927 PHARMACEUTICALS
Total:
PER DIEM NEOGOV 2022 CONFER!
Total:
GROUP BILL
Page: 17
Amount
495.00
495.00
1,416.66
250.00
1,666.66
7,689.95
7,689.95
408.32
408.32
127.17
127.17
211.50
211.50
91.00 91.00
194.84
194.84
99.00 99.00
45.63 45.63
2,450.00
2,450.00
211.50
211.50
64,049.54
Page: 17
vchlist Voucher List
09/28/2022 11:01:23AM CITY OF SANTEE
Bank code: ubqen
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO#
131657 9/28/2022 10344 10344 PADRE DAM MUNICIPAL WATER DISl (Continued) 131658 9/28/2022 12904 PAT DAVIS DESIGN GROUP, INC 7001 53956 131659 9/28/2022 11442 PATTERSON, EDWARD 10012022-225
131660 9/28/2022 12237 RAYON, KYLE October 1, 2022
131661 9/28/2022 10606 S.D. COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT. SHERIFF JULY 2022 131662 9/28/2022 10407 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC 85097421694-SEP22 131663 9/28/2022 13061 SAN DIEGO HUMANE SOCIETY & SEP-22 54002 131664 9/28/2022 10424 SANTEE FIREFIGHTERS 032122.EWING 032122.SALCEDO
131665 9/28/2022 13171 SC COMMERCIAL, LLC 2215491-IN 53902 2216486-IN 53902
131666 9/28/2022 13554 SC FUELS 0602028-DEF 54029
0602028-F 53947
131667 9/28/2022 14284 SDI PRESENCE LLC 10316 53800
131668 9/28/2022 10110 SECTRAN SECURITY INC 22090513 54004 Description/ Account
Total:
GRAPHIC DESIGN WORK
Total:
MEADOWBROOK HARDSHIP PROC
Total:
RETIREE HEALTH PAYMENT
Total:
LAW ENFORCEMENT
Total:
CITY HALL GROUP BILL
Total:
ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES
Total:
WEARING APPAREL
WEARING APPAREL
Total:
DELIVERED FUEL
DELIVERED FUEL
Total:
VEHICLE SUPPLIES
FLEET CARD FUELING
Total:
SANTEE LMS PROCUREMENT
Total:
ARMORED CAR TRANSPORT SVC
Total:
Page: 18
Amount
64,049.54
3,300.00
3,300.00
74.92 74.92
91.00 91.00
1,410,910.32
1,410,910.32
15,371.09
15,371.09
36,794.00
36,794.00
129.00
129.00
258.00
922.79
1,092.35
2,015.14
4.90 2,050.05
2,054.95
10,062.50
10,062.50
141.67
141.67
Page: 18
vchlist Voucher List
09/28/2022 11:01:23AM CITY OF SANTEE
Bank code: ubqen
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO#
131669 9/28/2022 14038 SINGH GROUP INC 41348 53905
131670 9/28/2022 14630 SNAP-ON INDUSTRIAL ARV-54096109 54030 131671 9/28/2022 10314 SOUTH COAST EMERGENCY VEHICLE 509480 53907 131672 9/28/2022 10837 SOUTHWEST TRAFFIC SIGNAL 81790 54024 81791 54024
81792 54024
131673 9/28/2022 11403 ST. JOHN, LYNNE 10012022-78
131674 9/28/2022 10217 STAPLES ADVANTAGE 3517342992 54040 3517342993 53981
131675 9/28/2022 10027 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 602787
131676 9/28/2022 10119 STEVEN SMITH LANDSCAPE INC 49886 53937 50427 53937
50428 53938
50429 53985
131677 9/28/2022 11587 STRYKER SALES CORPORATON 3876619M 54054 131678 9/28/2022 10250 THE EAST COUNTY 00122610
131679 9/28/2022 10515 THE SAN DIEGO UNION - TRIBUNE 017490381 54041 Description/Account
DEAD ANIMAL REMOVAL SERVICE
Total:
PRO LINK SCAN TOOL
Total:
VEHICLE REPAIR PART
Total:
SPEED SIGN REPAIR
USA MARKOUTS
TRAFFIC SIGNAL SERVICE CALLS
Total:
MEADOWBROOK HARDSHIP PRO(
Total:
OFFICE SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
Total:
FINGERPRINTING SERVICES
Total:
A 1 LANDSCAPE SERVICES
A 1 LANDSCAPE SERVICES
A 2 LANDSCAPE SERVICES
A 3 LANDSCAPE SERVICES
Total:
EMS EQUIPMENT
Total:
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Total:
ELECTION PUBLICATION
Page: 19
Amount
1,443.71
1,443.71
1,830.93
1,830.93
307.98
307.98
692.74
555.30
1,850.48
3,098.52
77.79 77.79
41.75 209.02
250.77
224.00
224.00
2,517.13
54,517.92
20,182.33
12,208.54
89,425.92
2,470.22
2,470.22
682.50
682.50
481.90
Page: 19
vchlist
09/28/2022 11 :01 :23AM
Voucher List
CITY OF SANTEE
Bank code : ubqen
Voucher
131679
131680
131681
131682
131683
131684
131685
131686
Date Vendor Invoice
9/28/2022 10515 10515 THE SAN DIEGO UNION - TRIBUNE (Continued) 9/28/2022 10257 TYLER TECHNOLOGIES INC
9/28/2022 10133 UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT
9/28/2022 12480 UNITED SITE SERVICES
9/28/2022 11194 USAFACT INC
9/28/2022 10475 VERIZON WIRELESS
9/28/2022 12930 WILLIAMS, ROCHELLE M.
9/28/2022 12641 WITIORFF, VICKY DENISE
65 Vouchers for bank code : ubgen
65 Vouchers in this report
Prepared by:�b
Date: .. �'2=-
Approved by: �
Date: . q /2 0 / l L045-391180
045-391883
045-393451
22-2300817
820220706
114-13259903
2083430
9915517027
October 1, 2022
October 1 , 2022
PO#
53803
53803
53803
54013
54013
53950
Description/Account
Total:
PERMITIING SOFTWARE IMPLEME
PERMITIING SOFTWARE IMPLEME
CREDIT - PERMITIING SOFTWARE
Total:
DIG ALERT SERVICES - STATE FEE
DIG ALERT - MONTHLY TICKETS
Total:
SUMMER CONCERT PORTABLE TO
Total:
BACKGROUND CHECKS
Total:
WIFI SERVICE
Total:
RETIREE HEALTH PAYMENT
Total:
RETIREE HEALTH PAYMENT
Total:
Bank total:
Total vouchers :
Page: 20
Amount
481.90
2,960.00
11,100.00
-297.60
13,762.40
53.58 186.75
240.33
137.50
137.50
215.56
215.56
1,598.62
1,598.62
91.00 91.00
31.00 31.00
2,335,888.37
2,335,888.37
Page: 20
vchlist
09/29/2022 8:24:35AM
Bank code : ubqen
Voucher Date Vendor
1179 9/29/2022 10429 CALPERS
1180 9/29/2022 10429 CALPERS
2 Vouchers for bank code : ubgen
2 Vouchers in this report
Prnparndby, �
Date � Apprn,ed by
Date: q 2..
Voucher List
CITY OF SANTEE
Invoice
092622M P
092622SP
PO# Description/Account
UAL PAYMENT FOR MISC PLAN
Total:
UAL PAYMENT FOR SAFETY PLAN
Total:
Bank total:
Total vouchers
Page:
Amount
250,000.00
250,000.00
350,000.00
350,000.00
600,000.00
600,000.00
Page:
21 21
CITY OF SANTEE
COUNCIL AGENDASTATEMENT
CALIFORNIA
2. Awarding the contract for Plumbing Repairs and Maintenance to Countywide Mechanical Systems, Inc. for an amount not to exceed $43,640.00 for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2022- 23; and
3. Authorizing the City Manager to approve up to three (3) additional twelve (1 2)-month options to renew and one (1 ) ninety (90)-day extension along with the corresponding purchase orders; and
4. Authorizing the City Manager to approve annual change orders up to ten percent (1 0%) of the then-current contract amount; and
5. Authorizing the Director of Community Services to execute a Notice of Completion and the City Clerk to file said Notice of Completion upon satisfactory completion of work for each contract term.
ATT ACHMENTS
1. Resolution
RESOLUTION NO. __________
RESOLUTION REJECTING A NON-RESPONSIVE BID AND AWARDING A CONTRACT
FOR PLUMBING REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE TO COUNTYWIDE MECHANICAL SYSTEMS, INC. PER RFB #22/23-20065
WHEREAS, in compliance with the City’s purchasing ordinance, Santee Municipal Code 3.24.100, the Finance Department administered a formal bid process for a new contract for Plumbing Repairs and Maintenance in September 2022; and WHEREAS, on the 29th day of September 2022, two bids were received for Plumbing Repairs and Maintenance per RFB #22/23-20065; and
WHEREAS, the bid submitted by AGBW Corp DBA BPI Plumbing was determined to be non-responsive because it was not submitted in conformance with the requirements set forth in the notice inviting bids; and
WHEREAS, based on the requirements for lowest responsive responsible bid, staff recommends awarding the contract for Plumbing Repair and Maintenance to Countywide Mechanical Systems, Inc. for an amount not to exceed $43,640.00 for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2022-23; and
WHEREAS, staff recommends authorizing the City Manager to execute a Plumbing Repair and Maintenance contract with Countywide Mechanical Systems, Inc. for an amount not to exceed $43,640.00 for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2022-23; and WHEREAS, the term of the initial contract will be November 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023; and
WHEREAS, staff recommends authorizing the City Manager to approve three (3) additional 12-month options to renew and one (1) 90-day extension; and WHEREAS, annual increases for the contract, if any, will be at the sole discretion of the City and will not exceed the change in the San Diego All-Urban Consumers Price Index (“CPI”) for the preceding 12-month period, with limited exceptions as provided by the contract documents; and
WHEREAS, if the contract is extended, the Fiscal Year 2023-24 not-to-exceed amount would be $57,080.00, plus the CPI adjustment, if any; and WHEREAS, staff recommends authorizing the City Manager to approve change orders up to 10% of the then-current contract amount; and WHEREAS, staff recommends authorizing the Director of Community Services to execute annual Notices of Completion and authorizing the City Clerk to file said notices upon satisfactory completion of work; and
WHEREAS, this item is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to section 15301 (maintenance of existing structures, facilities or mechanical equipment).
RESOLUTION NO. __________
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santee, California, that it hereby:
SECTION 1. Rejects the bid submitted by AGBW Corp DPA BPI Plumbing as nonresponsive.
SECTION 2. Awards the Contract for Plumbing Repairs and Maintenance to Countywide Mechanical Systems, Inc. for an amount not to exceed $43,640.00 for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2022-23.
SECTION 3. Authorizes the City Manager to approve up to three (3) additional 12-month options to renew and one (1) 90-day extension.
SECTION 3. Authorizes the City Manager to execute the Plumbing Repairs and Maintenance contract on behalf of the City and approve change orders up to ten percent (10%) of the then-current contract amount.
SECTION 4. Authorizes the Director of Community Services to execute annual Notices of Completion and authorizes the City Clerk to file said notices upon satisfactory completion of work.
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Santee, California, at a Regular Meeting thereof held this 12th of October 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 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTEE PROCLAIMING
THE TERMINATION OF THE EXISTENCE OF A LOCAL EMERGENCY RELATING
TO EXTREME FIRE RISK IN THE SAN DIEGO RIVER CORRIDOR AND THE
COMPLETION OF CREATION OF DEFENSIBLE SPACES TO MITIGATE FIRE RISK WHEREAS, California Government Code sections 8558(c) and 8630 authorize the proclamation of a local emergency when conditions of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property within the territorial limits of a city exist; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code section 8630, such an emergency may be proclaimed by the governing body or by an official designated by ordinance adopted by the governing body; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.32.060 of the Santee Municipal Code empowers the City Manager to request that the City Council proclaim a local emergency when the City is affected or likely to be affected by an actual incident or the threatened existence of conditions or incidents of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property within the City caused by conditions which may be or are beyond control of the services, personnel, equipment, and facilities of the City; and
WHEREAS, on February 9, 2022, the City Council proclaimed an emergency due to extreme fire risk in the San Diego River Corridor and authorized the construction of defensible space to mitigate the fire risk; and
WHEREAS, the City Council continued the existing emergency on March 23, 2022, as the defensible space that was created pursuant to the February 9, 2022 emergency proclamation was only 20% complete; and
WHEREAS, the City Council continued the existing emergency on May 25, 2022, as the defensible space that was created pursuant to the the February 9, 2022 emergency proclamation was 85% complete; and
WHEREAS, now the creation of the defensible spaces is 100% complete and the City Council has reviewed the need to continue the existence of a local emergency; and WHEREAS, the situation resulting from conditions of extreme peril in the San Diego River Corridor is now deemed to be less extreme and within the ability of protective services, personnel, equipment, and facilities within the City of Santee to respond, such that the local emergency no longer exists.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Santee, California does hereby proclaim that the local emergency relating to extreme fire risk in the San Diego River Corridor, is hereby terminated.
RESOLUTION NO.
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Santee, California, at a Regular meeting thereof held this 12th day of October, 2022, by the following roll call vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
APPROVED:
JOHN W. MINTO, MAYOR
ATTEST:
ANNETTE ORTIZ, CMC, CITY CLERK
PUBLIC HEARING ON THE HOUSING ELEMENT REZONE PROGRAM
IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT TO CONSIDER CERTIFYING
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AEIS2021-3 AND
APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GPA2021-2, TOWN
CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT TCSPA2021-2, REZONE
R2021-2 AND ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ZA2021-2
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
October 12, 2022
STAFF REPORT
BACKGROUND
Housing Element
The City’s current Housing Element was adopted by the City Council on May 11, 2022 and covers the Sixth Cycle planning period from April 15, 2021 to April 15, 2029. The Housing Element is the City’s main housing policy and planning document that identifies housing needs and constraints, sets forth goals, policies and programs that address these needs and constraints, and plans for projected housing needs for all income levels over an eightyear planning period that coincides with a Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) from the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). The Housing Element consists of five sections and five supporting appendices that cover the following main topics:
• A detailed analysis of the City’s demographic, economic and housing characteristics;
• Identification of governmental and nongovernmental constraints to housing production;
• A summary of resources available for the development, rehabilitation, and preservation of housing;
• Development of objectives, policies, and programs (Housing Plan) that address housing needs and constraints;
• Public participation in the development of the Housing Plan; • A review of the City’s progress in implementing current housing policies and programs;
• Identification of candidate sites within the City (Sites Inventory) that would be able to accommodate new housing to meet the City’s RHNA.
• An analysis of barriers that restrict access to opportunity and identification of measures to counter these barriers (Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing).
The Housing Element is a mandatory element of the City’s General Plan and must be certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) as meeting strict statutory requirements. The Housing Element was transmitted to HCD for review and approval on May 12, 2022. After review by HCD, the adopted Housing Element was determined to be substantially compliant with State Housing Law. However, as Housing Element Rezone Program
Implementation Project
outlined in HCD’s review letter dated July 12, 2022 (attached), full certification of the Housing Element is contingent upon implementation of the Housing Element Rezone Program, which would result in the rezoning of 25 properties identified in the Housing Element Sites Inventory.
Public Notification
The public and affected property owners had numerous opportunities to provide input on the draft Sites Inventory as part of the update to the Housing Element, with the first City Council workshop evaluating potential housing sites being held on March 11, 2020. Early in the update process potentially affected property owners were mailed letters apprising them of the City’s interest in their properties as housing sites, with the first set of letters sent via certified mail on July 17, 2019. A total of 61 hearing notices for tonight’s public hearing on the Housing Element Rezone Program Implementation Project (the “Project”) have been mailed to interested parties and all affected property owners have been mailed hearing notices via certified mail. A hearing notice for the Project was also published in the East County Californian on Friday, September 30, 2022.
Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA)
The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is responsible for determining the regional housing need for each region in the State. HCD and the regional planning body, which for the San Diego Region is represented by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), consult and compare data related to demographic trends and housing conditions in the region. After this consultation, HCD issues the final regional housing need for the region, which for the current (6th cycle) housing element planning period for the San Diego Region is 171,685 units. The 6th cycle planning period for the San Diego Region is an eight-year period that runs from April 15, 2021 through April 15, 2029. SANDAG is then responsible for developing a methodology for distributing a share of the Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA), for each income category, to every local government, including the City of Santee. The RHNA methodology employed by SANDAG meets the following required objectives: 1) increases the housing supply and the mix of housing types, tenure, and affordability in all jurisdictions within the region in an equitable manner, with all jurisdictions receiving an allocation of units for low and very lowincome households; 2) promotes infill development and socioeconomic equity, the protection of environmental and agricultural resources, and efficient development patterns; 3) promotes an improved intraregional relationship between jobs and housing; and 4) allocates a lower proportion of housing need to an income category when a jurisdiction already has a disproportionately high share of households in that income category. Based on this methodology, the City of Santee’s RHNA for this period is 1,219 housing units, of which 203 are extremely low income, 203 very low income, 200 low income, 188 moderate income, and 425 above-moderate income. A City’s RHNA is not a development quota, but rather a goal which the City must plan for by identifying suitable properties throughout the City with the proper zoning resulting in adequate development capacity that can achieve this goal.
Housing Element Rezone Program
Implementation Project
Housing Element Sites Inventory Requirement
The City’s Housing Element is to required include a Sites Inventory that demonstrates that the City has adequately planned for its housing needs for all income levels by identifying suitable properties with adequate housing capacity to meet its RHNA. California Government Code Section 65583.2 prescribes the criteria for determining whether a site is adequate for residential development including that a site:
• Have infrastructure available or planned to support a housing development. • Be available to be developed in the planning period. For non-vacant sites, this means that the existing use is not an impediment to new residential development. • Be appropriately sized (larger than half an acre and smaller than 10 acres) if identified to accommodate lower income housing.
• Have zoning that allows for 30 dwelling units per acre if identified for lower income housing.
The City must then identify the number of units (capacity) that can be realistically accommodated on the site.
To demonstrate how the City has adequately planned for future housing growth pursuant to the RHNA, a Housing Element must contain a substantial review of undeveloped or underutilized properties and provide evidence that such properties can accommodate all income levels. California Government Code Section 65583.2(c) establishes the default densities for accommodating the very low and low income categories of RHNA, which in jurisdictions located in metropolitan counties, such as San Diego County, is 30 dwelling units per acre. This default density for low-income housing corresponds to the City’s High Density Residential (R-22) Zone (which allows 22 to 30 dwelling units per acre) and Urban Residential (R-30) Zone. In addition, HCD has established default densities for moderate and above moderate income housing. For the City of Santee, the R-14 zone corresponds to the default density for moderate income housing and the R-7, R-2, R-1 and R-1A zones correspond to the default density for above moderate income housing (for descriptions of residential zones and their corresponding density ranges, please see Exhibit B).
Senate Bill 166
In order to ensure that a jurisdiction maintains a sufficient supply of adequate sites in the Housing Element Sites Inventory throughout the RHNA planning period, the State enacted Senate Bill 166 or the “No Net Loss Law.” This law requires sufficient adequate sites to be available at all times to meet a jurisdiction’s remaining unmet housing needs for each income category. To comply with the No Net Loss Law, as jurisdictions make decisions regarding zoning and land use, or development occurs, jurisdictions must assess their ability to accommodate new housing on the remaining sites in their Housing Element site inventories. Under this law, a jurisdiction may not take any action to reduce a parcel’s residential density unless it makes findings that the remaining sites identified in its Housing Housing Element Rezone Program
Implementation Project
Element Sites Inventory can accommodate the jurisdiction’s remaining unmet RHNA by each income category, or if it identifies additional sites to accommodate the remaining unmet RHNA so that there is no net loss of residential unit capacity. If a jurisdiction approves the development of a parcel identified in its Housing Element Sites Inventory with fewer units than shown in the Housing Element, it must either make findings that the Housing Element’s remaining sites have sufficient capacity to accommodate the remaining unmet RHNA by each income level, or identify and make available sufficient sites to accommodate the remaining unmet RHNA for each income category. For example, if a site is identified in the Sites Inventory for 100 low income units, but is developed with 100 market-rate (above moderate income) units, then a replacement site with a capacity for 100 low income units needs to be identified (and potentially rezoned) to make up the low income units lost due to the market-rate housing development. Furthermore, SB 166 requires any required rezoning for replacement sites to be completed within 180 days of approval of the project. SB 166 was an important factor in formulating a Sites Inventory for the current 6th Cycle Housing Element, with an attempt to avoid no net loss issues during this RHNA planning period.
Housing Capacity vs. Housing Production
An important distinction in the City’s RHNA obligation is that of housing capacity vs. housing production. The City’s assigned RHNA does not mean that the City must produce 1,219 units at the various target income levels during the 6th Cycle Housing Element period.
Rather, it means that the City must identify capacity through its Sites Inventory that could produce these number of units at each target income level. As sites from the Sites Inventory become developed the City starts losing its capacity to produce these housing units, especially at lower and moderate income targets if the only type of housing being constructed is market-rate housing. Nothing, other than an Inclusionary Housing Program, which the City has opted not to pursue, precludes a site identified for low income housing capacity from being developed with market-rate housing. This results in unmet RHNA capacity for moderate and low income housing, which in light of SB 166 requires the City to identify other suitable or replacement sites within the City that can make up this loss in capacity.
Creating a No Net Loss Buffer in Sites Inventory
Under SB 166, the City is required to maintain its unmet RHNA capacity throughout the Housing Element planning period. If a site is identified as a site for low income housing capacity in the Housing Element Sites Inventory, but is proposed for development of market-rate housing, another “replacement” site within the City with like density and housing capacity must be identified in order for the market-rate housing development to proceed. In the 5th Cycle Housing Element planning period this became an issue with the proposed development of market-rate housing on sites identified in the Sites Inventory for low income capacity, which resulted in a workshop before the City Council to discuss the matter as detailed later in this report. The No Net Loss requirement prevented development on these low income sites from being able to move forward. In order to Housing Element Rezone Program
Implementation Project
mitigate potential issues with No Net Loss, the 6th Cycle Sites Inventory includes a significant housing unit buffer, particularly in the low income category. This buffer consists of 891 dwelling units beyond the City’s RHNA requirement for a total capacity of 2,110 dwelling units, and anticipates the potential for market-rate housing development on some sites identified for low and moderate income housing. This buffer would allow such developments to proceed, while maintaining the City’s compliance in meeting its RHNA obligation.
Although the City cannot require the development of affordable housing on these sites, Housing Element programs and policies, namely the By-Right Housing Program (Housing Element Program 10), incentivize the development of affordable housing on these sites. In addition, this additional RHNA capacity or buffer would better position the City in accommodating the future RHNA assignment anticipated for the subsequent 7th Cycle Housing Element planning period. Nevertheless, absent a City mandate for residential developers to provide affordable units, a similar scenario as occurred in the 5th Cycle Housing Element could play out, where low and moderate income sites are developed with market-rate housing and the threshold is reached where the City no longer has replacement capacity to meet its low and moderate income RHNA requirements. This scenario would essentially result in a “first-come, first-served” treatment of residential development, with those market-rate housing developments that come forth early in the 6th Cycle planning period being able to move forward without providing any affordable housing.
Those residential developments proposed toward the end of the 6th Cycle would be burdened with providing all of the unmet affordable housing units for the City under its RHNA obligation and SB 166.
Formulating 6th Cycle Housing Element Sites Inventory
In formulating the Sites Inventory for the 6th Cycle Housing Element, the City evaluated vacant or underdeveloped sites throughout the City that could accommodate residential development in accordance with the City’s RHNA of 1,219 dwelling units. The City also used this opportunity to evaluate undeveloped sites from the 5th Cycle Housing Element Sites Inventory and to plan for laws that affect residential development such as the No Net Loss Law. After several workshops with the City Council, housing developers, and property owners and in consultation with HCD, a total of 34 sites were selected to comprise the Sites Inventory for the 6th Cycle Housing Element, as shown in Appendix C of the Housing Element and attached as Exhibit A to this Staff Report.
Summary of Sites Inventory
Exhibit B summarizes the Housing Element Sites Assessment, providing a discussion on how sites were selected for incorporation into the Housing Element Sites Inventory. The Sites Inventory provides the capacity for up to 2,110 units, which exceeds the City’s RHNA obligation to identify housing capacity for 1,219 units during the 6th Cycle Housing Element planning period. Broken down by income category, the Sites Inventory provides capacity for 1,228 low income units, exceeding the minimum RHNA requirement for this income Housing Element Rezone Program
Implementation Project
category of 606 low income units; 587 moderate income units, exceeding the minimum RHNA requirement of 188 moderate income units; and 295 above moderate units which is under the RHNA requirement of 425 above moderate income units. The City is allowed to identify less than the required RHNA capacity for above moderate income units in its Sites Inventory, because at the time the 6th Cycle Housing Element was being update the City had recently entitled 128 above moderate income units, had 435 proposed above moderate income units under review, and anticipated 2,514 above moderate income units with the Fanita Ranch project. In addition, the City has not had difficulties in producing above moderate income units during previous Housing Element cycles.
This excess capacity at the low and moderate income levels allows for the City to have a significant No Net Loss buffer to mitigate potential issues under SB 166 during the planning period and also would better position the City in identifying adequate housing sites for the subsequent 7th Cycle Housing Element.
With the adoption of the 6th Cycle Housing Element, the City adopted two separate programs related to the Sites Inventory: Program 9, which requires the City to complete the rezones of the 25 sites identified for rezoning in Sites Inventory within 12 months of adoption of the Housing Element; and Program 10, which requires the City to update the Zoning Ordinance to allow by-right approval of housing development on qualifying sites where the project proponent voluntarily includes 20 percent of the units as affordable to lower income households. Certification of the 6th Cycle Housing Element by HCD is contingent upon implementation of these programs as outline in a letter received from HCD on July 11, 2022 (see attached Exhibit C).
THE PROJECT
The subject Project would implement Housing Element Programs 9 and 10, collectively referred to as the Housing Element Rezone Program Implementation (the “Project”). The adopted Housing Element Sites Inventory includes a total of 34 sites throughout the City, of which 25 require rezones in order to accommodate the City’s mandated RHNA and allow for a No Net Loss buffer, as detailed in the Discussion section of this Staff Report, above.
In addition to reclassifying the 25 sites identified for rezoning in the Housing Element, several supplemental actions are included as part of the subject project, including the rezoning of two sites along Graves Avenue. Hence, the Project would include a total of 27 rezone sites.
The Project would also implement Housing Element Program 10 by creating a new ByRight Housing Chapter of the Santee Municipal Code (SMC), setting forth a procedure for processing by-right housing projects and establishing objective design standards for byright housing. The Mixed Use Overlay District (SMC Section 13.22.060) would be modified to require vertical integration of ground-floor commercial and civic uses within multifamily developments on strategic sites within the Town Center. The R-30 (Urban Residential) Zoning District would be modified to include a density range of 30 to 36 dwelling units per acre. The R-22 designation in the Town Center Specific Plan as applied to properties along Housing Element Rezone Program
Implementation Project
Park Avenue, would also be modified to include a density range of 22-30 dwelling units per acre, making the land use designation for these sites consistent with the R-22 designation for the remainder of the Town Center, the R-22 Zone as described in the Zoning Ordinance, and the R-22 land use designation of the General Plan. Currently, this R-22 designation along Park Avenue has a flat density requirement of 22 dwelling units per gross acre, which makes the design and development of multifamily at exactly 22 dwelling units per gross acre difficult to achieve. The addition of a density range on these R-22 properties will facilitate the development of multifamily housing, as intended in the Town Center Specific Plan.
The Project also includes the rezoning of two vacant residential sites along Graves Avenue from the R- 7 (Medium Density Residential) Zone to the CG (General Commercial) Zone to remove them from consideration as housing sites due to airport land use constraints and a supplemental amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to conditionally allow recreational vehicle storage in the CG Zone. All of the properties from the Sites Inventory requiring rezones and the two Graves Avenue properties mentioned above are listed in Table 1:
Rezone Sites and mapped in the corresponding Figure 1: Rezone Sites Location Map (attached). The sites in Table 1 have the same numbering corresponding to the Housing Element Sites Inventory. Since not all of the sites in the Sites Inventory require rezoning, some of the site numbers are omitted in Table 1. Sites located within the Town Center Specific Plan are designated with the “TC” abbreviation.
Discretionary Actions
The Project requires several discretionary actions, including General Plan, Specific Plan, and Zoning Amendments for 27 sites. The term “rezone” expressed in the Housing Element Rezone Program Implementation Project reflects the collective action to modify the land use designation of the 27 identified sites throughout the City. For the 19 properties listed in Table 1 outside of the Town Center Specific Plan, a General Plan Map and Text amendment are required to redesignate land uses and adjust the density range of the R30 land use designation (attached as General Plan Amendment GPA2021-2 Resolution).
These 19 properties also require a corresponding Zoning Map amendment (Rezone R2021-2) to reflect the new zoning classifications and a Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZA2021-2) to adjust the density range of the R-30 Zone (respectively attached as Rezone R2021-2 Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance Amendment ZA2021-2 Ordinance). For the eight properties listed in Table 1 within the Town Center Specific Plan, an amendment to the Town Center Specific Plan (TCSPA2021-2) is required to redesignate land uses and adjust the density ranges of the R-22 and R-30 land use designations (attached as Town Center Specific Plan Amendment TCSPA2021-2 Resolution).
The Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZA2021-2) also includes a new By-Right Housing Chapter within the Zoning Ordinance (Title 13 of the Santee Municipal Code) to implement Housing Element Program 10, modifications to the Mixed Use Overlay District section of the Zoning Ordinance to require ground-floor commercial on selected rezone sites within Housing Element Rezone Program
Implementation Project
Town Center, as further described below, and modifications to the Commercial Use Regulations of the Zoning Ordinance to conditionally allow recreational vehicle storage within the General Commercial Zone (ZA2021-2).
Rezone Sites
The Rezone Sites listed in Table 1 and mapped in corresponding Figure 1 are described in greater detail below in ascending numerical order, with a description provided for existing site conditions, parcel size, current zoning, proposed zoning, and anticipated housing capacity with the proposed rezone. The housing capacity was established as part of the Housing Element Sites Assessment, as reflected in Exhibit A and Table 1, with factors such as realistic density and developable area used in calculating the projected capacity.
The proposed General Plan Land Use Map, Zoning Map, and Town Center Specific Plan Land Use Map changes are shown in the exhibits corresponding to the attached General Plan Amendment GPA2021-2 Resolution, Town Center Specific Plan Amendment TCSPA2021-2 Resolution, and Rezone R2021-2 Ordinance. For an explanation on how these sites were selected as part of the Housing Element Sites Inventory, refer to Exhibit B: Housing Element Sites Assessment.
Sites 1-10 (Summit Avenue Sites)
Sites 1 through 10 are each developed with a single-family home and are located along Summit Avenue and Summit Crest Avenue, on the northern urbanized edge of the City, just south of the Fanita Ranch property. The sites are located on a private road and surrounded by both residential and undeveloped land. The sites are in the R-1 and R-1A Zones and collectively comprise a total of 13.87 acres. A zoning classification of R-7 is proposed for these sites, with an anticipated housing capacity in the above moderate income category of 124 dwelling units.
Sites 11 and 12 (Conejo Road Sites)
Sites 11 and 12 are accessed from Conejo Road from the south and Carefree Drive from the east, and are located within an urbanized area north of Mast Boulevard and west of Magnolia Avenue. The sites are surrounded by single-family homes to the north, south and west and by multifamily homes to the east. Both sites are within the R-2 Zone and developed with a single-family home on each site. Site 11 is 1.19 acres and Site 12 is 0.86 acres and each site is proposed for an R-7 zoning classification, which collectively have anticipated housing capacity in the above moderate income category of 14 dwelling units.
Site 15 (Walmart Site)
Site 15 is a 5.26-acre vacant site adjoining Walmart, located north of Mission Gorge Road and west of Town Center Parkway. The site is located within the Santee Town Center, which is primarily developed with large shopping centers and surface parking. North of the site is the Walmart store and associated parking. To the south of the site is a post office.
Housing Element Rezone Program
Implementation Project
A home improvement store (Lowe’s) is located to the west along with residential land uses.
To the east are additional commercial buildings. The site has a Town Center land use designation of Commercial and is proposed for the R-22 Town Center designation, with an anticipated housing capacity in the low income category of 115 dwelling units. This site is also identified in the Housing Element as a by-right housing site.
Sites 16A and 16B (Civic Center Site)
Sites 16A and 16B are located just north of Mission Gorge Road and east of Riverview Parkway in the Santee Town Center. The sites are 11.11 acres and 8.61 acres, respectively, and are undeveloped with a history of disturbance. The entire Civic Center Site, which includes these two sites, is comprised of a total of 30.61 acres, all within the Town Center – Commercial land use designation. The site includes an existing unimproved channel with natural vegetation that empties into the San Diego River and covers approximately 3.72 acres of the Civic Center Site. The area surrounding the sites is developed with the Santee Trolley Square immediately west of the site, the Las Colinas Detention Facility to the east, and open space associated with the San Diego River to the north. A portion of Site 16A is located within the Airport Safety Zone 4 as designated in the Gillespie Field Land Use Compatibility Plan. Site 16A has a Town Center land use designation of commercial and is proposed for the R-30 Town Center designation, with an anticipated housing capacity in the low income category of 333 dwelling units. Site 16A is also identified in the Housing Element as a by-right housing site. Site 16B has a Town Center land use designation of Commercial and is proposed for the R-14 Town Center designation, with an anticipated housing capacity in the moderate income category of 120 dwelling units. The Project also proposes to redesignate the 3.72-acre channel area of the Civic Center Site from Town Center – Commercial to Town Center – Park/Open Space.
The Town Center Specific Plan calls for channel improvements and public trails within this channel area. In addition, the Mixed Use District Overlay would be applied to Sites 16A and 16B requiring at least 25% of future building square footages to be dedicated to ground-floor commercial uses with an allowance of up to 33% of building square footages to be dedicated to ground-floor commercial uses. Density Bonus incentives would allow for a reduction in the percentage of required ground-floor commercial square footage, as detailed in the Zoning Ordinance Amendment discussion of this Staff Report, below.
Sites 17 and 18 (County Property 1 & 2)
Sites 17 and 18 are located just west of Cottonwood Avenue, east of Park Center Drive, and north of the San Diego River in the Santee Town Center. The sites are 22.15 acres and 11.71 acres in size, respectively, and are under the ownership of the County of San Diego. Both sites are undeveloped, with some evidence of disturbance. They are surrounded by multiple land uses. To the northwest of Site 17 is open space comprised of a Town Center Community Park including sports fields and parking areas. The San Diego River is located immediately south of Site 17. Just north of Site 18 is the Edgemoor Hospital, to the east is a multifamily residential area, and to the west is Park Center Drive and a natural drainage area that is tributary to the San Diego River. Site 17 has a Town Housing Element Rezone Program
Implementation Project
Center land use designation of R-30 and is proposed for the R-14 Town Center designation, with an anticipated housing capacity in the moderate income category of 279 dwelling units. Site 18 has a Town Center land use designation of R-22 and is proposed for the R-14 Town Center designation, with an anticipated housing capacity in the moderate income category of 98 dwelling units. Both sites are identified in the Housing Element as by-right housing sites.
Site 19 (Park Center Drive)
Site 19 is a 2.35-acre vacant site located along Park Center Drive, south of Mast Boulevard and west of North Magnolia Avenue in the Santee Town Center. The site is undeveloped with scattered vegetation. Directly south of the site is the Edgemoor Hospital, land to the north is developed with commercial uses, and to the east are multifamily and single-family homes. Land immediately west of the site is undeveloped with a tributary to the San Diego River and further west is a single-family residential subdivision. Site 19 has a Town Center land use designation of R-22 and is proposed for the R-14 Town Center designation, with an anticipated housing capacity in the moderate income category of 32 dwelling units.
Sites 20A and 20B (Edgemoor Dairy Barn Site)
Sites 20A and 20B are part of the historic Edgemoor Dairy Barn property, a 21.23-acre property owned by the County of San Diego, located on the southwest corner of Magnolia Avenue and RiverView Parkway within the Santee Town Center. The historic Edgemoor Dairy Barn, where the Santee Historical Society is housed, is located on a 3.5-acre portion of the property. Sites 20A and 20B are 7.75 acres and 10 acres, respectively, and are largely undeveloped, only containing a small accessory building and scattered trees and vegetation. To the west of the sites is the Las Colinas Detention Facility, to the east is a gated manufactured senior home community, to the north is open space along the San Diego River, and to the south are a church, commercial buildings, and single-family homes.
A portion of the property is located within the Gillespie Field Airport Safety Zone 4. Site 20A has a Town Center land use designation of Office-Institutional and is proposed for the R-22 Town Center designation, with an anticipated housing capacity in the low income category of 170 dwelling units. Site 20B has a Town Center land use designation of OfficeInstitutional and is proposed for the R-30 Town Center designation, with an anticipated housing capacity in the low income category of 300 dwelling units. Site 20B is identified as a by-right housing site in the Housing Element. The 3.5-acre Dairy Barn portion of the property also has a Town Center land use designation of Office-Institutional and is proposed for the Park/Open Space designation with the subject Project.
Site 24 (Buena Vista Avenue)
Site 24 is a 4.80-acre site located at 9953 Buena Vista Avenue, immediately north of SR52, south of Buena Vista Avenue and east of Cuyamaca Street. The site is largely open land with one single-family home. The areas to the west and the east are developed with single-family residential land uses. Immediately to the north is the Hawaiian Village Mobile Housing Element Rezone Program
Implementation Project
Home Park. Site 24 has a zoning classification of R-2 and is proposed for the R-22 Zone with an anticipated housing capacity in the low income category of 105 dwelling units. The site is also identified in the Housing Element as a by-right housing site.
Site 25 (Harrison Trucking Site)
Site 25 is a 2.93-acre site located at 8801 Olive Lane, north of SR-52 and west of Cuyamaca Street. The site is used as a trucking facility with miscellaneous storage buildings and an unimproved surface. West of the site is Olive Lane and multifamily housing. To the east is a self-storage facility. To the north are single-family residences. To the south are buildings housing light industrial land uses. The site is in Airport Safety Zone
3. Site 25 has a zoning classification of Light Industrial (IL) and is proposed for the R-14 Zone with an anticipated housing capacity in the low income category of 41 dwelling units.
Sites 29 and 30 (Pure Flo Site)
Site 29 is a 3.25-acre commercial site located at 7737 Mission Gorge Road, just south of Mission Gorge Road in the western portion of the City. Site 29 fronts Mission Gorge Road to the north and Aubrey Glen Drive to the west. It is developed with surface parking and miscellaneous commercial buildings associated with the Pure Flo water bottling business that ceased operations in December 2018. Adjoining Site 29 to the east is Site 30 which is a smaller 1.3-acre site comprised of two parcels each developed with a single-family home and several accessory structures, located at 8714 and 8746 Starpine Drive. Just west of Site 29 is multifamily housing and a mobile home park. South of Sites 29 and 30 is the Laurel Heights 80-unit condominium project currently under construction. North of site 29 is the Shell gas station redevelopment project currently under construction. Site 29 has a zoning classification of General Commercial (CG) and is proposed for the R-22 Zone with an anticipated housing capacity in the low income category of 64 dwelling units. Site 30 has a zoning classification of CG and R-7 and is proposed for the R-22 Zone with an anticipated housing capacity in the low income category of 28 dwelling units.
Site 35 (Mast Boulevard Terminus Site)
Site 35 is a 47.45-acre parcel located just south of the terminus of Mast Boulevard. The developable portion of the site consists of 14.6 acres in the Light Industrial (IL) Zone, with the remainder of the site in the R-2 Zone and Park Open Space Zone. The site borders unincorporated County lands in the community of Lakeside. The site is vacant with some disturbance and trails. Lands to the west of the site are protected open space including a water tank site under the ownership of the Padre Dam Municipal Water District. To the northwest are single-family residential neighborhoods and to the northeast are undeveloped lands. East of the site in Lakeside is vacant land, industrial land, and baseball fields. The San Diego River is directly south of the site. The 14.6-acre Light Industrial portion of the site is proposed for the R-7 Zone with an anticipated housing capacity in the above moderate income category of 122 dwelling units. The remainder of the site would be in the Park Open Space (POS) Zone.
Housing Element Rezone Program
Implementation Project
Site X1 & X2 (Graves Avenue Sites)
The two Graves Avenue sites are 3.69 and 2.26 acres in size located just east of SR-67 and Graves Avenue, in the southern portion of the City. The sites are completely vacant with evidence of disturbance from mowing and grass management. To the east, both sites are bounded by single-family residential land uses. Directly to the north and south are multifamily residential developments. Gillespie Field is located to the west of the sites across SR-67 and the sites are located in the Gillespie Field ALCUP Airport Safety Zone
4. Both sites are currently in the R-14 zone and were identified in the 5th Cycle Housing Element Sites Inventory, but due to difficulty in developing homes on the sites due to airport land use constraints, remain undeveloped and, as such, the sites are proposed for rezoning to the more appropriate General Commercial Zone which would allow uses more compatible with the Gillespie Field ALCUP.
Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZA2021-2)
By-Right Housing Ordinance
Several new housing laws, including Senate Bill 35 and Assembly Bill 1397, attempt to streamline housing development by allowing qualifying developments that have affordability components to be approved by-right. By-right means without discretionary action, where a development can simply move forward to the grading and building permit stage in the development process without entitlement actions from the land use authority (e.g. City Council). A by-right development would only be reviewed administratively for consistency with zoning and objective development standards and would not be subject to additional environmental assessment under the California Environmental Quality Act. In order to properly process potential by-right housing projects, the Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZA2021-2) includes the establishment of a new By-Right Housing Chapter of the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 13.11). The new chapter establishes criteria consistent with State Housing Law and the City’s Housing Element for qualifying proposed projects as a by-right housing projects. The chapter also establishes a procedure for processing by-right housing proposals and includes objective design standards beyond existing objective development standards that would be applicable to by-right multifamily and mixed use housing projects.
Six sites are currently identified as by-right housing sites in the Housing Element. Two sites (Sites 17 & 18) are by-right because they are reuse housing sites that were previously identified in the last two Housing Element cycles (the 4th and 5th cycles). HCD also required the City to revise Program 9 of the Housing Element with a commitment by the City to identify a minimum of 25 acres of land zoned for multiple-family residential development available for development by right where:
• The sites have a minimum density of 20 dwelling units per acre; • Each site is able to accommodate a minimum of 16 dwelling units; and Housing Element Rezone Program
Implementation Project
• Proposed development includes at least 20% of the units as affordable to lower income households.
This requirement was in response to the proposed downzone of sites 17 and 18 in the Sites Inventory, from the higher density R-22 and R-30 Zones to the lower density R-14 zone.
Due to the proposed downzone, these two sites, which add up to approximately 30.75 acres, would no longer have the potential to yield as many by-right housing units. HCD required the City to identify at least 25 acres of land zoned for multifamily residential development with R-22 and R-30 densities to offset this loss in potential by-right housing units on Sites 17 and 18. Due to this requirement, the City identified four additional sites as by-right housing sites (Sites 15, 16A, 20B, and 24). The City Council has the discretion, upon proper environmental assessment, to identify additional by-right housing sites beyond those currently identified in the Housing Element.
Mixed Use Overlay District
In order to complement multifamily residential development on the Civic Center Site (Sites 16A & 16B), the Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZA2021-2) includes proposed revisions to the Mixed Use Overlay District as established in Section 13.22.060 of the Zoning Ordinance. The revisions would remove the provision that the Mixed Use Overlay District only apply to the R-30 Zone to allow for mixed use development on Sites 16A & 16B, respectively proposed for the R-30 and R-14 Zones. This revision would also allow the City flexibility in applying the overlay to other sites throughout the City upon further study at a future date. The revisions also include a requirement that a minimum of 25% of a mixed use development’s gross square footage be dedicated as commercial space, with a voluntary maximum of 33%. The maximum commercial square footage for a mixed use development is set at 33% under State law; in order for a mixed use property to qualify as a Housing Element RHNA site, a minimum of two-thirds of a development must be dedicated to residential use. The revisions would also provide an incentive for the provision of affordable housing on the applicable mixed use sites, with a reduction of the required commercial square footage provided with the dedication of units affordable to low income households, as shown in the following table:
Affordability Percentage (Low Income) Commercial Requirement 0% 25%
20% 20%
40% 15%
60% 10%
80% 5%
100% 0%
The amendment requires the dedication of lower income units in 20% increments to qualify for a corresponding commercial square footage reduction, as shown in the table above.
This would provide additional flexibility on the future development of the Civic Center Site as more detailed design and development standards are developed with the Arts & Housing Element Rezone Program
Implementation Project
Entertainment District-related updates to the Town Center Specific Plan, currently underway. This amendment would also allow the City to maintain its commercial land use inventory in the Town Center, especially if market-rate units are proposed on the designated low-income portion of the Civic Center Site (Site 16A), because as highlighted in the No Net Loss discussion provided above, absent an inclusionary housing program, the City cannot mandate the construction of low income units on those sites identified for low income housing capacity. The revisions to the Mixed Use District Overlay also include a refinement in the allowed uses to better align with the Arts & Entertainment District.
These uses may be further refined with the updates to the Arts & Entertainment District currently underway.
Miscellaneous Zoning Ordinance Revisions
The Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZA2021-2) component of the subject Project also includes revisions to Section 13.10.020 of the Zoning Ordinance. Currently the R-30 Zone does not have a density range, which makes development difficult to achieve as it is challenging to design a project based on site conditions and development requirements exactly at 30 dwelling units per acre. The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment would provide a density range of 30 to 36 dwelling units per acre in the R-30 Zone in order to provide greater flexibility in the design and development of high density multifamily residential projects on applicable sites.
The Zoning Ordinance Amendment also includes revisions to the Commercial Use Regulations (Section 13.12.030 of the Zoning Ordinance). The revisions would list recreational vehicle storage as a conditionally allowable use in the General Commercial Zone. The use would remain prohibited in the Neighborhood Commercial and Office Professional Zones. This change was negotiated as part of the rezone of the Graves Avenue (Sites X1 and X2) to potentially allow a use suitable on a site constrained by the Gillespie Field Airport. Any future recreational vehicle storage proposal on a property in the General Commercial Zone would require a Conditional Use Permit, a corresponding site assessment to determine the suitability of the use on the site, and final review and approval by the City Council.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Summary
The subject project was assessed for potential environmental impacts on a programmatic level and a Program Environmental Impact Report (AEIS2021-3; State Clearinghouse Number SCH# 2021100263) has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and is recommended for certification. The Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) evaluated certain sites that are eligible for a by-right, or ministerial review, in a more site-specific manner to the extent feasible. However, the analysis provided in the Program EIR remains an overall programmatic approach, as there are no site-specific development proposals available for review. Therefore, the Program Housing Element Rezone Program
Implementation Project
EIR establishes a mitigation framework for both by-right and discretionary rezone sites that would be applied either during a discretionary review process or during the ministerial review process for the by-right development sites as part of the City’s objective design and performance standards. The Draft Program EIR was circulated for a 45-day public review and comment period from June 17, 2022 to August 1, 2022. One comment letter was received from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and none of the comments provided identified new environmental issues requiring substantial revisions to the Program EIR or further environmental review. A Final Program EIR has been prepared with responses to comments received on the Draft Program EIR, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Areas of impact that require a Statement of Overriding Considerations include Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Land Use & Planning, Noise, and Transportation.
Program Environmental Impact Report
The following sections will discuss the Program Environmental Impact Report that has been prepared for the Project in more detail including outlining the purpose, procedural steps, and content of the document. A discussion of impacts that cannot be mitigated and project alternatives is also provided.
Purpose
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report prior to approving any project that may have a significant effect on the environment. City staff determined that the scope of the Project was such that significant environmental impacts due to the Project could occur, and combined with the Citywide nature of the project and lack of a specific development proposal, determined that the Project required the preparation of a Program EIR.
Notice of Preparation and Scoping Meeting
To determine the scope of the Program EIR, the City prepared and distributed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) available for a 30-day review and comment period between October 15, 2021 and November 15, 2021. A Public Scoping Meeting was held on November 3, 2021. All potentially affected property owners, public agencies, and interested parties received the Notice of Preparation via certified mail. The purpose of the NOP was to solicit comments from property owners, public agencies and interested parties on specific environmental issues that should be considered in the Program EIR.
Draft Program EIR
After the Public Scoping Meeting and review period for the NOP, a Draft Program EIR was prepared for the project. The Draft Program EIR analyzes all potential environmental impacts of the Project by environmental issue as required under CEQA and as a result of the NOP and Scoping Meeting. For each environmental issue, the Draft Program EIR Housing Element Rezone Program
Implementation Project
describes the environmental setting (existing conditions), then discusses and analyzes the potential related impacts that could be caused by Project implementation. As specific development proposals are not proposed with the Project and the build-out horizon is 20 years, sites were broadly assessed under maximum buildouts and worst-case scenarios.
The six housing sites that may be eligible for a by-right, or ministerial review, were evaluated in a more site-specific manner to the extent feasible. Site visits to the ministerial sites were completed to verify the potential for biological and archaeological resource impacts and site-specific air quality, greenhouse gas, and noise modeling was completed for these sites. Accordingly, the analysis sections report on the findings from these general surveys and site-specific analyses of the eligible ministerial sites, as applicable. For each potentially significant impact that has been identified, the Program EIR specifies ways to mitigate the impact, including implementation of one or more mitigation measures as provided in the Program EIR’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP).
Future development, including on by-right housing sites, must implement all applicable mitigation measures identified in the MMRP. The proposed By-Right Housing Ordinance includes a reference to the MMRP to ensure that as these sites are developed through a ministerial review process, they adhere to these mitigation measures.
Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
The analysis in the Draft Program EIR determined that implementation of the proposed Project would result in the following significant and unavoidable impacts even with the implementation of all feasible mitigation measures:
1. Air Quality, Section 4.2.5: The Project would be inconsistent with the San Diego Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQs) because buildout of the Rezone Sites would exceed the population estimates assumed for the RAQs. This impact is based on plan inconsistency only. The inconsistency with the RAQS would remain until the RAQs are revised and incorporate the growth projections with the Project.
2. Air Quality, Section 4.2.6: The Project could result in multiple development projects being constructed at one time, resulting in significant construction-related emissions of criteria air pollutants.
3. Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG), Section 4.6: The Project would result in an increase in GHG emissions that would exceed the assumption used in development of the Sustainable Santee Plan. While the City’s Consistency Checklist and implementation of mitigation would minimize GHG impacts associated with future development at the Rezone Sites, impacts would not be fully mitigated. The planned update to the Sustainable Santee Plan may fully mitigate these impacts, however, they presently remain significant and unavoidable.
4. Land Use and Planning, Section 4.9: Impacts associated with policy consistency for future development at the Rezone Sites would be less than significant, except with respect to compatible density. The potential for future development within the Rezone Sites to exceed the density limits for the corresponding airport safety zone Housing Element Rezone Program
Implementation Project
is a potentially significant impact. No feasible mitigation is available to reduce the potential conflict between the compatible density within the airport safety zones and the proposed Rezone Sites.
5. Noise, Section 4.10: Impacts to existing sensitive land uses due to the increase in ambient noise levels associated with buildout of the Rezone Sites would remain significant and unavoidable.
6. Transportation, Impact 4.12: Projected Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) per capita with the project would exceed the City’s 85 percent threshold representing a significant impact. While implementation of the mitigation framework would reduce VMT impacts associated with future development at the Rezone Sites, impacts would not be fully mitigated.
Project Alternatives
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15126.6 requires that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) compare the effects of a “reasonable range of alternatives” to the project. As part of this requirement, a No Project Alternative and a Reduced Project Alternative were assessed in the Program EIR for the subject Project. As the name implies, the No Project Alternative would not result in the rezone of any Housing Element site and therefore not result in Project-related environmental impacts. However, this alternative would not help the City achieve its RHNA requirement and subsequent certification of the Housing Element by HCD, therefore it is undesirable. The Reduced Project Alternative would remove Rezone Sites 1 through 10 (the Summit Avenue Sites) from consideration for future rezone actions and associated residential development.
Rezone Sites 1 through 10 would retain the existing Low Density Residential (R-1 & R-1A) zoning designation. However, removal of these sites would still result in significant and unavoidable impacts and is, therefore, also not desirable.
Final Program EIR
The Draft Program EIR, consisting of the components mentioned above, was circulated for a 45-day public review and comment period. The City received one comment letter from the Caltrans for which comments have been prepared. No new significant environmental impacts or issues, beyond those already covered in the Draft Program EIR for the project, were raised during the public review period for the Draft Program EIR. A Final Program Impact Report consisting of the following has been prepared for the Project and are attached to the Resolution certifying the Program EIR: responses to the comments received during public review, Draft Program EIR, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Findings of Fact, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations.
Housing Element Rezone Program
Implementation Project
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council take the following actions to approve the Project, which would implement Housing Element Programs 9 and 10, collectively referred to as the Housing Element Rezone Program Implementation.
1. Conduct and close the public hearing; and
2. Certify the Final Program Environmental Impact Report (AEIS2021-3; SCH# 2021100263) for the Housing Element Rezone Program Implementation Project; adopt Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program under CEQA per the attached Resolution; and
3. Approve General Plan Amendment GPA2021-2 per the attached Resolution; and
4. Approve Town Center Specific Plan Amendment TCSPA2021-2 per the attached Resolution: and
5. Introduce and approve Rezone Ordinance R2021-2 for First Reading and set the Second Reading for October 26, 2022; and
6. Introduce and approve Zoning Amendment Ordinance ZA2021-2 for First Reading and set the Second Reading for October 26, 2022.
Page C-2
Table C-1: Sites Inventory
Map ID
#
APN / Address LU
Designation
Zone
District
Density
Factor
(du/ac)
Lot Size
(Acres) Capacity Rezoned From Existing Use/Reason for Selection Status Lower Income Sites
151,2 38104036
Walmart TC-R-22 TC-R-22 22 5.26 115 TC-C
Vacant site in town center (opportunity site
due to high density allowed and near
transit). To be rezoned from commercial
(TC-C) to residential use (TC-R-22).
Maximum allowable density to be 30 du/ac.
Privately owned. Half mile to park, town
center, Sprouts across street, in high
resource area in TCAC/HCD (California
Tax Credit Allocation Committee/Housing
and Community Development Dept.)
opportunity map.
Vacant
16A1,2
38105082
Civic Center Site
I
TC-R-30 TC-R-30 30 11.11 333 TC-O/C
Vacant site consisting of three lots (2.89
acres, 3.66 acres, and 4.56 acres,
respectively) in town center (opportunity
site due to high density allowed and near
transit). To be rezoned from commercial
(TC-O/C) to residential use (TC-R-30).
Minimum allowable density to be 30 du/ac
and maximum at 36 du/ac. Privately owned.
In Airport Safety Zone 4. Across the street
from park, half mile to town center services,
128 unit (Cornerstone) built across street on
northern end, in high resource area in
TCAC/HCD opportunity map.
Vacant
20A1
38105081
9200 Magnolia
Ave
TC-R-22 TC-R-22 22 7.75 170 TC-O/I
Underutilized site in town center
(opportunity site due to high density allowed
and near transit). To be rezoned from TCO/I Theme Commercial to residential use (TC-R-22). Maximum allowable density to
be 30 du/ac. Portion in Airport Safety Zone
4. County owned3. Half mile to park, <1
mile to town center services, in high
resource area in TCAC/HCD opportunity
map.
Nonvacant
EXHIBIT A: HOUSING ELEMENT SITES INVENTORY
Page C-3
Table C-1: Sites Inventory
Map ID
#
APN / Address LU
Designation
Zone
District
Density
Factor
(du/ac)
Lot Size
(Acres) Capacity Rezoned From Existing Use/Reason for Selection Status 20B1,2
38105081
9200 Magnolia
Ave
TC-R-30 TC-R-30 30 10.00 300 TC-O/I
Underutilized site in town center
(opportunity site due to high density allowed
and near transit). To be rezoned from TCO/I to residential use (TC-R-30). Minimum allowable density to be 30 du/ac and
maximum at 36 du/ac. Portion in Airport
Safety Zone 4. County owned3). Half mile to
park, <1 mile to town center services, in
high resource area in TCAC/HCD
opportunity map.
Nonvacant
214
38410616
8942 1st St TC-R-22 TC-R-22 22 0.60 13 N/A
Underutilized site with single-family home
in town center (opportunity site due to high
density allowed and near transit). Maximum
allowable density is 22 du/ac. Privately
owned. Half mile to park, <1 mile to town
center services, in high resource area in
TCAC/HCD opportunity map. Owner
expressed interest in MF housing, City in
discussion with Habitat for Humanity for
development of an affordable housing
project on the site.
Nonvacant
241,2
38416204
9953 Buena Vista
Ave
R-22 R-22 22 4.80 105 R-2
Underutilized site with one single-family
home. To be rezoned from R-2 to R-22.
Maximum allowable density to be 30 du/ac.
Privately owned. Less than half mile from
town center, ~half mile to park, moderate
resource area TCAC/HCD opportunity
map.
Nonvacant
291
38630031
7737 Mission
Gorge Rd
R-22 R-22 22 3.25 64 GC
Underutilized commercial lot to be rezoned
from GC to R-22. Maximum allowable
density to be 30 du/ac. Privately owned.
Less than half mile from trails, <1 mile from
elementary school and park, in high
resource area TCAC/HCD opportunity
map.
Nonvacant
Page C-4
Table C-1: Sites Inventory
Map ID
#
APN / Address LU
Designation
Zone
District
Density
Factor
(du/ac)
Lot Size
(Acres) Capacity Rezoned From Existing Use/Reason for Selection Status 301,4
38630009 & -10
8714 & 8746
Starpine Dr
R-22 R-22 22 1.30 28 R-7/GC
Underutilized site with one single-family
home. To be rezoned from R-7/GC to R22. Maximum allowable density to be 30 du/ac. Privately owned. Less than half mile
from trails, less than one mile from
elementary school/park, in high resource
area TCAC/HCD opportunity map
Nonvacant
314
38306103
7980 Mission
Gorge Rd R-22 R-22 22 5.23 80 N/A
Underutilized site with one single-family
home. Maximum allowable density is 30
du/ac. Privately owned. Half mile from trail,
park, and elementary school, high resource
area TCAC/HCD opportunity map.
Nonvacant
324
38306101
7950 Mission
Gorge Rd
R-22 R-22 22 0.95 20 N/A
Underutilized site with one single-family
home. Maximum allowable density is 30
du/ac. Privately owned. Half mile from trail,
park, and elementary school, high resource
area TCAC/HCD opportunity map.
Nonvacant
Lower Income Sites Subtotal 50.25 1,228
Moderate Income
16B1
38105082
Civic Center Site
II
TC-R-14 TC-R-14 14 8.61 120 TC-O/C
Vacant site to be rezoned from TC-O/C to
TC-R-14. Privately owned. Zoning
would be consistent with adjacent
residential development.
Vacant
171,2,4
38105118
Cottonwood Ave TC-R-14 TC-R-14 14 22.15 279 TC-R-30
Vacant site to be rezoned from TC-R-30 to
TC-R-14. County owned3. New zoning
more realistic for area (reduce
parking/traffic issues), new density
consistent with density allowed north of San
Diego River.
Vacant
181,2,4 38105117
Cottonwood Ave TC-R-14 TC-R-14 14 11.71 98 TC-R-22
Vacant site to be rezoned from TC-R-22 to
TC-R-14. County owned3.New zoning more
realistic for area (reduce parking/traffic
issues), new density consistent with density
allowed north of San Diego River.
Vacant
Page C-5
Table C-1: Sites Inventory
Map ID
#
APN / Address LU
Designation
Zone
District
Density
Factor
(du/ac)
Lot Size
(Acres) Capacity Rezoned From Existing Use/Reason for Selection Status 191,4 38103207 & -08
Park Center Dr TC-R-14 TC-R-14 14 2.35 32 TC-R-22 Vacant site to be rezoned from TC-R-22 to TC-R-14. Privately owned. Vacant 234
38414211
10952 Sunset Trl R-14 R-14 14 1.24 17 N/A
Underutilized site with 2 single family
homes built in 1942. Privately owned. In
Airport Safety Zone 4.
Nonvacant
251
38402007 & -12
8801 Olive Ln R-14 R-14 14 2.93 41 IL
Underutilized site to be rezoned from IL to
R-14. Privately owned. Adjacent to
residential zone; development across the
street approved at 16 du/ac. In Airport
Safety Zone 3.
Nonvacant
Moderate Income Sites Subtotal 48.99 587
Above Moderate
1 1
37819001
10939 Summit
Ave
R-7 R-7 7 4.65 29 R-1A
Underutilized site with single-family home
built in 1974. Summit Ave sites is an
opportunity site: larger, relatively flat parcels
suitable for small lot subdivisions in the 7 to
14 du/ac range. Lot size consistent with
past development (Santee made up 6,000 sq
ft lots). Lots on Summit would be about
4,000 sq ft. To be rezoned from R-1A to R7. Privately owned. On Private road, would require right-of-way dedication.
Nonvacant
2 1
37818010 & -12
11009 Summit
Ave
R-7 R-7 7 2.32 14 R-1A
Underutilized site with single-family home
built in 1968. Summit Ave sites is an
opportunity site: larger, relatively flat parcels
suitable for small lot subdivisions in the 7 to
14 du/ac range. Lot size consistent with
past development (Santee made up 6,000 sq
ft lots). Lots on Summit would be about
4,000 sq ft. To be rezoned from R-1A to R7. Privately owned. On Private road, would require right-of-way dedication.
Nonvacant
Page C-6
Table C-1: Sites Inventory
Map ID
#
APN / Address LU
Designation
Zone
District
Density
Factor
(du/ac)
Lot Size
(Acres) Capacity Rezoned From Existing Use/Reason for Selection Status 3 1
37818009
11025 Summit
Ave
R-7 R-7 7 2.32 14 R-1A
Underutilized site with single-family home
built in 1948. Summit Ave sites is an
opportunity site: larger, relatively flat parcels
suitable for small lot subdivisions in the 7 to
14 du/ac range. Lot size consistent with past
development (Santee made up 6,000 sq ft
lots). Lots on Summit would be about 4,000
sq ft. To be rezoned from R-1A to R-7.
Privately owned. On Private road, would
require right-of-way dedication.
Nonvacant
4 1
37818008
11041 Summit
Ave
R-7 R-7 7 2.32 14 R-1A
Underutilized site with single-family home
built in 1963. Summit Ave sites is an
opportunity site: larger, relatively flat parcels
suitable for small lot subdivisions in the 7 to
14 du/ac range. Lot size consistent with past
development (Santee made up 6,000 sq ft
lots). Lots on Summit would be about 4,000
sq ft. To be rezoned from R-1A to R-7.
Privately owned. On Private road, would
require right-o-way dedication.
Nonvacant
5 1
37818007
11059 Summit
Ave
R-7 R-7 7 2.32 11 R-1A
Underutilized site with single-family home
built in 1940. Summit Ave sites is an
opportunity site: larger, relatively flat parcels
suitable for small lot subdivisions in the 7 to
14 du/ac range. Lot size consistent with past
development (Santee made up 6,000 sq ft
lots). Lots on Summit would be about 4,000
sq ft. To be rezoned from R-1A to R-7.
Privately owned. On Private road, would
require right-of-way dedication.
Nonvacant
Page C-7
Table C-1: Sites Inventory
Map ID
#
APN / Address LU
Designation
Zone
District
Density
Factor
(du/ac)
Lot Size
(Acres) Capacity Rezoned From Existing Use/Reason for Selection Status 6 1
37818029
10215 Summit
Crest Dr
R-7 R-7 7 1.16 8 R-1
Underutilized site with single-family home
built in 1989. Summit Ave sites is an
opportunity site: larger, relatively flat parcels
suitable for small lot subdivisions in the 7 to
14 du/ac range. Lot size consistent with past
development (Santee made up 6,000 sq ft
lots). Lots on Summit would be about
4,000 sq ft. To be rezoned from R-1 to
R-7. Privately owned. On Private road,
would require right-of-way dedication.
Nonvacant
7 1
37821021
11010 Summit
Ave
R-7 R-7 7 1.15 8 R-1
Underutilized site with single-family home
built in 1980. Summit Ave sites is an
opportunity site: larger, relatively flat parcels
suitable for small lot subdivisions in the 7 to
14 du/ac range. Lot size consistent with
past development (Santee made up 6,000 sq
ft lots). Lots on Summit would be about
4,000 sq ft. To be rezoned from R-1 to R-7.
Privately owned. On Private road, would
require right-of-way dedication.
Nonvacant
8 1
37821020
11020 Summit
Ave
R-7 R-7 7 1.02 7 R-1
Underutilized site with single-family home
built in 1975. Summit Ave sites is an
opportunity site: larger, relatively flat parcels
suitable for small lot subdivisions in the 7 to
14 du/ac range. Lot size consistent with past
development (Santee made up 6,000 sq ft
lots). Lots on Summit would be about
4,000 sq ft. To be rezoned from R-1 to
R-7. Privately owned. On Private road,
would require right-of-way dedication.
Nonvacant
Page C-8
Table C-1: Sites Inventory
Map ID
#
APN / Address LU
Designation
Zone
District
Density
Factor
(du/ac)
Lot Size
(Acres) Capacity Rezoned From Existing Use/Reason for Selection Status 9 1
37818028
11115 Summit
Ave
R-7 R-7 7 1.16 8 R-1
Underutilized site with single-family home
built in 1970. Summit Ave sites is an
opportunity site: larger, relatively flat parcels
suitable for small lot subdivisions in the 7 to
14 du/ac range. Lot size consistent with past
development (Santee made up 6,000 sq ft
lots). Lots on Summit would be about
4,000 sq ft. To be rezoned from R-1 to
R-7. Privately owned. On Private road,
would require right-of-way dedication.
Nonvacant
101
37818020
11129 Summit
Ave
R-7 R-7 7 2.32 11 R-1
Underutilized site with single-family home
built in 1950. Summit Ave sites is an
opportunity site: larger, relatively flat parcels
suitable for small lot subdivisions in the 7 to
14 du/ac range. Lot size consistent with past
development (Santee made up 6,000 sq ft
lots). Lots on Summit would be about
4,000 sq ft. To be rezoned from R-1 to
R-7. Privately owned. On Private road,
would require right-of-way dedication.
Nonvacant
111
38103107
9945 Conejo Rd R-7 R-7 7 1.19 8 R-2
Underutilized site with single-family home
built in 1958. To be rezoned from R-2 to R7. Privately owned. Upzone would be consistent with surrounding development.
Nonvacant
121
38169028
9960 Conejo Rd R-7 R-7 7 0.86 6 R-2
Underutilized site with single-family home
built in 1953. To be rezoned from R-2 to R7. Privately owned. Upzone would be consistent with surrounding development.
Property owner interested in developing in
the past and has restricted due to zoning.
Nonvacant
264
38349056
Prospect Ave R-7 R-7 7 0.72 4 N/A Vacant site. Privately owned. In Airport Safety Zone 4. Properly zoned. Vacant Page C-9
Table C-1: Sites Inventory
Map ID
#
APN / Address LU
Designation
Zone
District
Density
Factor
(du/ac)
Lot Size
(Acres) Capacity Rezoned From Existing Use/Reason for Selection Status 274
38619217
8572 Fanita Dr R-7 R-7 7 1.73 12 N/A
Underutilized site with single-family home
built in 1950. Has dilapidated
street/incomplete sidewalk. Privately
owned. Properly zoned.
Nonvacant
28 38669038
8504 Fanita Dr R-7 R-7 7 0.68 4 N/A
Vacant site along dilapidated
street/incomplete sidewalk. Privately
owned. Properly zoned.
Vacant
334
38401115
8750 Atlas View
Dr
R-7 R-7 7 1.85 9 N/A
Underutilized site with single family home
built on 1958. Privately owned. In Airport
Safety Zone 4/. Properly zoned.
Nonvacant
344
38401255
8742 Atlas View
Dr
R-7 R-7 7 0.91 6 N/A
Underutilized site with single family home
built on 1954. Privately owned. In Airpot
Safety Zone 4. Properly zoned.
Nonvacant
35 37903031
Mast Blvd POS/R-7 POS/R-7 7 47.45 122 POS/IL
Vacant site to be rezoned from POS/R-2/
IL to POS/R-7. Site has never been used
for light industrial uses (IL – Light
Industrial Zone); City has received preapplication from owner for MFR project in IL zoned portion of property.
Vacant
Above Moderate Sites Subtotal 76.13 295
Sites Inventory Total 175.37 2,110
1. Sites that will be rezoned.
2. By-right housing sites for qualifying affordable housing projects.
3. County-owned properties have been identified as surplus properties. The County will follow the required procedure for disposition which will make the properties available to affordable developers.
4. Sites that appeared in the Previous Housing Element Cycle (5th Cycle).
Page C-10
Figure C-1: Residential Sites Inventory
EXHIBIT B: Housing Element Sites Assessment
The following discussion summarizes the Housing Element Sites Assessment as a companion to the Staff Report and Exhibit A: Housing Element Sites Inventory.
Residential Zone Abbreviations
Throughout this Staff Report references are made to the various residential zone abbreviations, which are described as follows:
• R-1: Low Density Residential with a density range of one to two dwelling units per gross acre.
• R-1A: Low-Density Residential with a density range of two to four dwelling units per gross acre.
• R-2: Low-Medium Density Residential with a density range of two to five dwelling units per gross acre.
• R-7: Medium Density Residential with a density range of seven to 14 dwelling units per gross acre.
• R-14: Medium High Density Residential with a density range of 14 to 22 dwelling units per gross acre.
• R-22: High Density Residential with a density range of 22 to 30 dwelling units per gross acre.
• R-30: Urban Residential with a density range of 30 dwelling units per gross acre.
Town Center Sites North of the San Diego River (Sites 17, 18 & 19) The Town Center housing sites north of the San Diego River comprised all of the low income RHNA housing capacity for the City during the 5th Cycle Housing Element planning period. After consulting with residential developers, it was determined that the existing R-22 and R-30 sites north of the San Diego River within the Town Center were too high of a density for the Santee market and due to their distance from mass transit and commercial services, were impractical to develop as low and very low income housing. In addition, many of these sites have environmental constraints such as floodplain and riparian issues that made the prescribed R-22 and R-30 residential densities difficult to achieve. The development of these sites also would have resulted in No Net Loss issues, which would have required their replacement with other sites in the City with comparable densities and housing capacities, as presented at a City Council workshop on October 9, 2019. These factors were determined to play a strong role in maintaining the sites undeveloped throughout the 5th Cycle Housing Element period from 2013 to 2021. In order to improve the feasibility of residential development on these sites the City worked with their property owners, including the County of San Diego, and prospective developers in identifying a more realistic residential density for these sites and it was determined that the residential density corresponding to the R-14 Zone would better support residential development on these sites. Furthermore, the R-14 Zone would allow for residential development at these sites at a density more compatible with the existing low-rise residential development in the immediately surrounding area of these sites. Existing development in the vicinity of these sites consists of one- and two-story single-family homes and two- and three-story townhomes and condominium units. The proposed zoning classification of R-14 and corresponding reduction in residential density for these sites would require them to rezoned or “downzoned.” As they would no longer meet the default density of 30 dwelling units per acre for low income housing, these sites would no longer meet the City’s required RHNA capacity for low income housing. However, at an R-14 density of 14 to 22 dwelling units per acre, these sites would meet the City’s required RHNA capacity for moderate income housing.
Town Center Sites South of the San Diego River (Sites 15, 16A, 16B, 20A & 20B) Due to the proposed downzoning of the Town Center sites north of the San Diego River, the City was required to identify replacement sites with a default density of 30 units per acre and the capacity to yield at least 606 low income units during the 6th Cycle Housing Element planning period. In negotiating with the County to downzone County-owned properties north of the river, to increase viability of development on these sites, the County has agreed to an upzone (rezone to a higher density residential zoning classification) of County-owned property south of the river (Sites 16A & 16B, commonly referred to as the Edgemoor Dairy Barn Site). The upzoning of these sites would aid the City in meeting its low income RHNA housing capacity and facilitate the sale of County-owned property north of the San Diego River to private market-rate residential developers. In addition, these sites would be more suitable for lower income housing as they are in what HCD classifies as a High Resource Area, which is an area that is jobs and transit rich, with proximity to retail services, parks and schools. As part of the negotiations with the County to exchange zoning densities on County-owned properties, the City has also carved out a 5-acre portion of the Edgemoor Dairy Barn site with a proposed land use designation of Park/Open Space, which would allow the City to preserve the Edgemoor Dairy Barn at the site with surrounding parkland. The potential introduction of themed uses compatible with the Edgemoor Dairy Barn, similar to what has been achieved at Old Poway Park, which is parkland with Western-themed buildings occupied by restaurants, craft stores and specialty retail uses, will be evaluated with forthcoming updates to the Arts & Entertainment District.
The proposed rezoning of the Edgemoor Dairy Barn site alone would not satisfy the City’s required low income RHNA capacity, nor contribute to a housing unit buffer as described above. As such, the City assessed other sites within the Town Center to make up this unmet RHNA need and contribute to a unit buffer to mitigate potential No Net Loss issues under SB 166. Town Center sites were assessed for this low income housing need as they were all considered to be part of a High Resource Area, which is more suitable for the development of low income housing. The theory behind the placement of low income housing in high resource areas is that by placing low income households in areas with access to jobs, schools, parks, and transit, such households are better able to improve their economic conditions and break generational cycles of poverty. After an initial assessment, two undeveloped sites within the Town Center were identified as suitable to accommodate the City’s low income RHNA need -- the vacant Walmart site and the vacant Civic Center Site, respectively Sites 15 and 16A & B in the Sites Inventory (refer to Exhibit A: Housing Element Sites Inventory). Both properties are privately owned and, as part of the City’s due diligence, City staff engaged with the property owners and/or prospective developers in assigning a prospective residential zone acceptable to the property owner, but which would also meet the City’s RHNA obligation. For the vacant Walmart site, the City negotiated on a density range directly with a prospective residential developer of the site, currently in escrow with Walmart for purchase of the property, and agreed on an R-22 designation for the site which would foster residential development at the site at a density and height acceptable to the City. For the larger Civic Center Site, the City engaged with the property’s broker and in exchange for a higher residential density of R-30 on a portion of the site with a commitment to development of affordable housing on said portion (Site 16A), the City agreed to rezoning another portion of the site to R-14 with a mixed use overlay, which would allow for market-rate development of this portion of the site (Site 16B). Both sites would have the Mixed Use Overlay District applied to them, with a requirement for ground-floor commercial uses to preserve most of the City’s commercial land use inventory within the Town Center.
Reuse Sites (Sites 21, 23, 26, 27, 31, 32, 33 and 34)
These sites were in the previous 5th Cycle Housing Element Sites Inventory and are already residentially zoned. They were not developed in the 5th Cycle planning period and have been retained as housing sites in the 6th Cycle Housing Element Sites Inventory. None of these sites are proposed for rezoning and based on their existing residential zoning contribute to the City’s RHNA requirement for low, moderate, and above moderate income housing. Since adoption of the Housing Element on May 11, 2022 the City has received an application from Habitat for Humanity to develop low income housing on Site 21 along Park Avenue, which is an R-22 property owned by the adjoining United Methodist Church. The 14 residential units would contribute to the City’s RHNA obligation for low income housing. It should be noted, that under Assembly Bill 1397, enacted in 2017, the re‐identifying or reuse of undeveloped sites identified in two previous elements would qualify residential development on these sites as by-right (i.e. no discretionary review) if 20% if the units would be affordable to lower income households as set forth in Program 10 of the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element.
If these sites remain undeveloped during the current 6th Cycle planning period and are reused in the 7th Cycle Housing Element, they would qualify as by-right housing sites.
New Sites South of Mission Gorge Road (Sites 24, 25, 28, 29 and 30) Several vacant or underdeveloped sites south of Mission Gorge Road which had not previously been used as Housing Element sites were identified as housing opportunity sites for inclusion in the 6th Cycle Housing Element Sites Inventory with the potential for meeting the City’s RHNA needs for low and moderate income housing. A large underdeveloped site along Buena Vista Avenue in the R-2 Zone with a single-family residence (Site 24) had been considered for inclusion in the sites inventory for the 5th Cycle Housing Element, but due to the lack of willingness from the property owner was previously excluded. With this Housing Element update, the City reached out to the current property owners (siblings that had inherited the property) and a majority of the property owners expressed their desire to have to property upzoned to a high density zone that would yield the greatest units possible. Although the R-30 Zone would yield the greatest number of units on the site, it was decided that the R-22 Zone would be more appropriate for the site as it would support residential development more compatible with the existing single-family and multifamily residential development surrounding the site. By default, due to its density, this site would contribute to the City’s low income RHNA capacity.
The owner of Site 25 along Olive Lane had expressed interest in redeveloping the site with a residential use similar to the recently constructed multifamily projects in the vicinity of the site. The site, which is in the Light Industrial Zone had been used for decades as a trucking yard and due to the unimproved surface of the site generated a lot of dust. The site is mainly unpaved with scattered storage buildings and due to these factors, the site was not considered a prime industrial development. The site was deemed suitable for multifamily residential development, as it would be compatible with adjacent multifamily residential development and would remedy longstanding issues with truck traffic on Olive Lane and particulate matter emanating from the site. An R-14 zone was considered to most suitable for the site in its integration into the Sites Inventory as it would be compatible with surrounding residential densities and Airport Safety Zone 3.
Site 28, along Fanita Drive, is already in the R-7 Zone and as a vacant site was considered suitable for the Sites Inventory in meeting the City’s above moderate RHNA needs. Sites 29 and 30, which adjoin one another, and are in the General Commercial and R-7 zones, were assessed for the Sites Inventory as part of a broader assessment of the area which has been vacant and underdeveloped for many years. Site 29 is commonly referred to as the Pure Flo site, a former bottling plant, which ceased operations for a number of years. The Pure Flo site included a larger underdeveloped landholding under the same ownership behind the bottling plant with two homes and several outbuildings. Originally, the City contemplated including the larger area comprising the Pure Flo site and adjoining properties along Starpine Drive in the sites inventory, but the land behind the abandoned Pure Flo bottling plant was sold to a housing developer and it is currently under development with 80 multifamily units (Laurel Heights) in accordance with its existing R-7 zoning. Nevertheless, at the behest of the property owner and potential future developer, the City moved forward in including the Pure Flo site in the General Commercial zone in the Sites Inventory as an R-22 site, contributing to the city’s low income RHNA capacity. The adjoining properties along Starpine Drive (Site 30) were also included in this prospective R-22 zone in order encourage a larger multifamily residential project through lot consolidation and to allow for consistency in the scale and density of development between the two sites.
Summit Avenue Sites
The area along Summit Ave, which is a private street, is developed with large lot “ranchette-style” homes in the R-1 and R-1A zones. Due to the relatively flat topography of the area, its proximity to more urbanized residential development, its exclusion from the preserve area in the City’s draft-Multiple Species Conservation Plan, and future planned roadway construction through the area (Magnolia Avenue extension), the sites were deemed to be underutilized with the 6th Cycle Housing Element sites assessment. In finding a suitable residential density for the area, the City looked at maximizing residential units to support private redevelopment of these sites, while also providing a density that would foster the development of a housing scale that would provide an appropriate transition between existing single-family residential development to the south and surrounding open space to the east, north and west. As such, the R-7 zoning classification was considered to be the most suitable for these sites, as it would support townhome-style projects or small lot single-family Planned Residential Developments similar to the Walker Trials project under construction along Magnolia Avenue.
Miscellaneous Sites (Sites 11, 12 and 35; Graves Avenue Sites) Several other vacant or underdeveloped sites have been included in the Sites Inventory for above moderate income RHNA capacity. Sites 11 and 12, which are adjacent to one another along Conejo Road, are each over ½ an acre in size and are respectively developed with single-family homes in the R-2 Zone. The larger size of the parcels and their infill nature within an urbanized area of Santee, lend themselves for potential redevelopment with an R-7 residential product. As such, they were included in the Sites Inventory for above moderate housing with proposed upzoning to the R-7 zone. The owner of Site 35 at the terminus of Mast Boulevard, adjoining the unincorporated community of Lakeside, had previously approached the City for consideration of a rezone of the Light Industrial portion of the site to residential. With a willing property owner, the City included this site in the Sites Inventory, helping meet the City’s RHNA requirement for above moderate housing.
Two sites along Graves Avenue in the R-14 zone had previously been identified as moderate-income housing sites in the 5th Cycle Housing Element. However, due to the difficulty in developing housing at these sites at the prescribed density due to airport compatibility issues it was determined best to remove these sites from the City’s residential inventory by rezoning them to the General Commercial zone and therefore, they were excluded from the 6th Cycle Housing Element Sites Inventory despite their existing R-14 zoning classification. These two sites along Graves Avenue are, therefore, not show in Exhibit A: Housing Element Sites Inventory.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
July 12, 2022
Marlene Best, City Manager
City of Santee
10601 Magnolia Avenue
Santee, CA, 92071
Dear Marlene Best
RE: City of Santee’s 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Adopted Housing Element Thank you for submitting the City of Santee’s (City) housing element adopted May 11, 2022 and received for review on May 13, 2022. Pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (h), the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is reporting the results of its review.
The adopted housing element meets most of the statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law (Gov. Code, Article 10.6). However, the housing element cannot be found in full compliance until the City has completed necessary rezones to address the shortfall of sites to accommodate the regional housing need allocation (RHNA).
Once the City completes the rezones, a copy of the resolution or ordinance should be transmitted to HCD. HCD will review the documentation and issue correspondence identifying the updated status of the City housing element compliance.
In addition, HCD understands recent actions resulted in pausing entitlement of the Fanita Ranch development. While capacity in the Specific Plan is not necessary to accommodate the RHNA promoting housing supply and choices is of the upmost importance and may be necessary to maintain adequate sites pursuant to Government Code section 65863 and Programs 9 (Available Sites and No Net Loss). HCD encourages the City to diligently pursue completion of entitlement of the Fanita Ranch development. As a reminder, HCD has authority to review any action or failure to act by a local government that it determines inconsistent with an adopted housing element or housing element law and other housing laws, including No Net Loss Law (Government Code section 65863).
Several federal, state, and regional funding programs consider housing element compliance as an eligibility or ranking criteria. For example, the CalTrans Senate Bill (SB) 1 Sustainable Communities grant; the Strategic Growth Council and HCD’s Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities programs; and HCD’s Permanent Local Housing Allocation consider housing element compliance and/or annual reporting EXHIBIT C: HCD LETTER
Marlene Best, City Manager
requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65400. With a compliant housing element, the City will meet housing element requirements for these and other funding sources.
For your information, some general plan element updates are triggered by housing element adoption. HCD reminds the City to consider timing provisions and welcomes the opportunity to provide assistance. For information, please see the Technical Advisories issued by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research at:
https://www.opr.ca.gov/planning/general-plan/guidelines.html.
HCD appreciates the hard work, cooperation, and assistance Chris Jacobs, Principal Planner; Michael Coyne, Associate Planner; and consultant Veronica Tam provided throughout the course of the housing element review. We are committed to assist the City in addressing all statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law. If you have any questions or need additional technical assistance, please contact Jose Ayala, of our staff, at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Paul McDougall
Senior Program Manager
Table 1: Rezone Sites List
Site
Map
ID#
APN Address Current
Zoning
Proposed
Zoning
Lot Size
(Acres)
Housing
Capacity
Income
Cateogry
1 378-190-01 10939 Summit Ave R-1A R-7 4.65 29 Above
2 378-180-10 11009 Summit Ave R-1A R-7 2.32 14 Above
3 378-180-09 11025 Summit Ave R-1A R-7 2.32 14 Above
4 378-180-08 11041 Summit Ave R-1A R-7 2.32 14 Above
5 378-180-07 11059 Summit Ave R-1A R-7 2.32 11 Above
6 378-180-29 10215 Summit Crest Dr R-1 R-7 1.16 8 Above 7 378-210-21 11010 Summit Ave R-1 R-7 1.15 8 Above
8 378-210-20 11020 Summit Ave R-1 R-7 1.02 7 Above
9 378-180-28 11115 Summit Ave R-1 R-7 1.16 8 Above
10 378-180-20 11129 Summit Ave R-1 R-7 2.32 11 Above
11 381-031-07 9945 Conejo Rd R-2 R-7 1.19 8 Above
12 381-690-28 9960 Conejo Rd R-2 R-7 0.86 6 Above
15* 381-040-36 Walmart TC-C TC-R-22 5.26 115 Low
16A* 381-050-82 Civic Center Site I TC-O/C TC-R-30 11.11 333 Low 16B 381-05-082 Civic Center Site II TC-O/C TC-R-14 8.61 120 Moderate 17* 381-051-18 Cottonwood Ave TC-R-30 TC-R-14 22.15 279 Moderate 18* 381-051-17 Cottonwood Ave TC-R-30 TC-R-14 11.71 98 Moderate 19 3810-32-07 & -08 Park Center Dr TC-R-22 TC-R-14 2.35 32 Moderate 20A 381-050-81 9200 Magnolia Ave TC-O/I TC-R-22 7.75 170 Low 20B* 381-050-81 9200 Magnolia Ave TC-O/I TC-R-30 10.00 300 Low 24* 384-162-04 9953 Buena Vista Ave R-2 R-22 4.80 105 Low 25 384-020-07 & -12 8801 Olive Ln IL R-14 2.93 41 Moderate 29 386-300-31 7737 Mission Gorge Rd GC R-22 3.25 64 Low 30 386-300-09 & -10 8714 Starpine Dr R-7/GC R-22 1.30 28 Low 35 379-030-31 Mast Blvd POS/R-2/IL POS/R-7 47.45 122 Above X1 387-061-11 8355 Graves Ave R-14 GC 3.69 N/A N/A
X2 387-061-12 Graves Ave R-14 GC 2.26 N/A N/A
*By-Right Housing Site
Figure 1: Rezone Sites Location Map
1 RESOLUTION NO. Click to enter NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTEE, CALIFORNIA
ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS AND A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT, CERTIFYING THE CITY OF SANTEE HOUSING ELEMENT REZONE
PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH #2021100263), ADOPTING THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM, AND APPROVING THE PROJECT
WHEREAS, on July 14, 2021, the City Council for the City of Santee (“City”) adopted the Sixth Cycle Housing Element, which covers the planning period from April 15, 2021 to April 15, 2029; and
WHEREAS, after adoption, the Housing Element was retransmitted to the Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”), which determined that additional information and programs related to Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (“AFFH”) were needed; and
WHEREAS, the City provided additional demographic analysis related to AFFH and expanded on AFFH programs with measurable action items; and WHEREAS, HCD issued a determination letter on April 14, 2022, finding that once adopted, revisions would result in the City’s Housing Element being fully compliant with State Housing Element Law; and
WHEREAS, on May 11, 2022, the City Council adopted the revised Sixth Cycle Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, an essential component of the Housing Element is the Sites Inventory, which identifies suitable sites throughout the City that can adequately accommodate the required housing capacity set forth by the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation, which for the 2021-2029 Sixth Cycle planning period is 1,219 housing units; and WHEREAS, the Sixth Cycle Housing Element includes Program 9, which commits the City to evaluate candidate housing sites and rezone as appropriate to achieve adequate housing capacity; and
WHEREAS, the City is rezoning selected sites throughout the City, to permit byright (without discretionary action) multi-family development that provides qualifying lowincome units, as part of the implementation of the Sixth Cycle Housing Element (“Project”); and
WHEREAS, the Project would require General Plan Amendment GPA2021-2, Town Center Specific Plan Amendment TCSPA2021-2, Rezone R2021-2, and Zoning Amendment ZA2021-2; and
Findings
WHEREAS, pursuant to section 21067 of the Public Resources Code, and section 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.), the City is the lead agency for the proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines section 15082, on November 15, 2021, the City sent to the Office of Planning and Research and each responsible and trustee agency a Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) stating that an Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse Number #2021100263 would be prepared; and
WHEREAS, one comment letter was received in response to the NOP; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.9 and State CEQA Guidelines sections 15082(c) and 15083, the City held a duly noticed Scoping Meeting on November 3, 2021, to solicit comments on the scope of the environmental review of the proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report (“Draft EIR”) was prepared, incorporating the comment received in response to the NOP; and WHEREAS, the Draft EIR determined that mitigation measures were required to mitigate impacts to a less than significant level for the following resource areas: biological resources, cultural and tribal cultural resources, geology/soils, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, utilities and service systems; and
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR further concluded that despite the incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures, the proposed Project would nonetheless result in significant and unavoidable impacts relating to air quality, land use and planning, noise, and transportation; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines section 15085, a Notice of Completion was prepared and filed with the Office of Planning and Research on June 17, 2022; and
WHEREAS, as required by State CEQA Guidelines section 15087(a), the City provided Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR to the public at the same time that the City sent Notice of Completion to the Office of Planning and Research, on June 17, 2022; and WHEREAS, during the public comment period, copies of the Draft EIR and technical appendices were available for review and inspection at Department of Development Services (Building 4), City Clerk’s Office (Building 3), the City’s website, and at the Santee County Library; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15087(e), the Draft EIR was circulated for at least a 45-day public review and comment period from June 17, 2022 to August 1, 2022; and
Findings
WHEREAS, during the public review and comment period, the City consulted with and requested comments from all responsible and trustee agencies, other regulatory agencies, and others pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15086; and WHEREAS, the City received one written comment letter on the Draft EIR; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.5, the City provided copies of its responses to the commenting public agency at least ten (10) days prior to the City’s consideration of the Final EIR on October 12, 2022; and WHEREAS, on October 7, 2022, the City released the Final EIR (“Final EIR”), which consists of the Draft EIR, all technical appendices prepared in support of the Draft EIR, all written comment letters received on the Draft EIR, written responses to all written comment letters received on the Draft EIR) and errata to the Draft EIR and technical appendices; and
WHEREAS, the “EIR” consists of the Final EIR and its attachments and appendices, as well as the Draft EIR and its attachments and appendices (as modified by the Final EIR); and
WHEREAS, all potentially significant adverse environmental impacts were sufficiently analyzed in the EIR; 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, all of the requirements of the Public Resources Code and the State CEQA Guidelines have been satisfied by the City in connection with the preparation of the EIR) which is sufficiently detailed so that all of the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project have been adequately evaluated; and WHEREAS, the EIR prepared in connection with the Project sufficiently analyzes the Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts and, although no significant and unavoidable impacts were identified, the EIR analyzes a range of feasible alternatives capable of reducing these effects to an even lesser level of significance; and WHEREAS, the City has made certain findings of fact, as set forth in Exhibit A to this Resolution, attached hereto and incorporated herein, based upon the oral and written evidence presented to it as a whole and the entirety of the administrative record for the Project, which are incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, the City finds that environmental impacts that are identified in the EIR as less than significant and do not require mitigation are described in Section II of Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the City finds that environmental impacts that are identified in the EIR that are less than significant with incorporation of mitigation measures are described in Section III of Exhibit A; and
Findings
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 described in Section IV of Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the cumulative impacts of the Project identified in the EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section V of Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the potential significant irreversible environmental changes that would result from the proposed Project identified in the EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section VI of Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the existence of any growth-inducing impacts resulting from the proposed Project identified in the EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section VII of Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, alternatives to the proposed Project that might further reduce the already less than significant environmental impacts are described in Section VIII of 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 are set forth herein, as described in Section IX of Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, all the mitigation measures identified in the EIR and necessary to reduce the potentially significant impacts of the proposed Project to a level of less than significant are set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) in Exhibit B to this Resolution, attached hereto and incorporated herein; and WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the City has heard, been presented with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record, including but not limited to 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 and is deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the Project; and WHEREAS, no comments made in the public hearings conducted by the City and no additional information submitted to the City have produced substantial new information requiring recirculation of the EIR or additional environmental review of the Project under Public Resources Code section 21092.1 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5; and
WHEREAS, on October 12, 2022, the City conducted a duly noticed public hearing on this Resolution, at which time all persons wishing to testify were heard and the Project was fully considered; and
Findings
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTEE:
SECTION 1. The above recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby finds that it has been presented with the EIR, which it has reviewed and considered, and further finds that the EIR is an accurate and objective statement that has been completed in full compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. The City Council finds that the EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City. The City Council declares that no evidence of new significant impacts or any new information of “substantial importance” as defined by State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5, has been received by the City after circulation of the Draft EIR that would require recirculation. Therefore, the City Council hereby certifies the EIR based on the entirety of the record of proceedings.
SECTION 3. The City Council hereby adopts the “CEQA Findings of Fact” where were prepared in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines sections 15091 and which are attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference.
SECTION 4. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the City Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference. Implementation of the Mitigation Measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is hereby made a condition of approval of the Project. In the event of any inconsistencies between the Mitigation Measures set forth in the EIR or the Findings of Fact and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program shall control.
SECTION 5. Based upon the entire record before it, including the EIR, Findings of Fact, and all written and oral evidence presented, the City Council hereby approves the Project.
SECTION 6. 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 for these records is the Department of Development Services. This information is provided pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6.
SECTION 7. City staff shall cause a Notice of Determination to be filed and posted with the County Clerk and the State Clearinghouse within five working days of the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of October, 2022.
Findings
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
APPROVED:
JOHN W. MINTO, MAYOR
ATTEST:
ANNETTE ORTIZ, CMC, CITY CLERK
Findings
7 EXHIBIT A
CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
The California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) (CEQA) requires that public agencies shall not approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report (“EIR”) has been certified that identifies one or more significant adverse environmental effects of a project unless the public agency makes one or more written Findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each Finding (State CEQA Guidelines [Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.], § 15091). This document presents the CEQA Findings of Fact made by City of Santee, in its capacity as the CEQA lead agency, regarding the City of Santee Housing Element Rezone Program Implementation PEIR (“Project”), evaluated in the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (“Draft PEIR”) and Final Program Environmental Impact Report (“Final PEIR”) for the Project.
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 proposed 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, Findings
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 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 Findings
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.)
Findings
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
1. Scenic Vistas
Threshold: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft PEIR, pp. 4.1-12 through 4.1-14) Explanation: Major views throughout the City include the San Diego River and surrounding mountains and hillsides. The City places a high value on protecting these views as they create a sense of place that defines the City. Future development within the Rezone Sites could result in new development and redevelopment that could detract from existing scenic vistas and views.
Rezone Sites are located throughout the City. Development at most sites would constitute infill development resulting in development consistent with surrounding urbanization that would not affect existing views. However, some larger vacant sites located near the San Diego River or within undeveloped lands that are not surrounded by urbanized lands could affect views. Rezone Sites 1 through 10, located just north of the urbanized portion of the City are currently zoned R1-A (Low Density Residential) and are developed with seven existing rural residential units. The sites are proposed to be rezoned to R7 (Medium Density Residential) which would allow between 4-10 additional dwelling units per acre or approximately 142 total units.
While this intensity of development would change the rural character of this area, views of the surrounding hillsides would continue to be visible from this low-lying area. Development of multi-family residential would not create obstruction of views of the surrounding hillsides based on the location of development within the low-lying valley.
Several large sites near the San Diego River including Sites 17, 18, 16A, 16B, 20A, and 20B are largely undeveloped open lands. Sites 17 and 18 are large vacant sites located north of the San Diego River (within the Town Center). The proposed rezoning of these sites would change zoning from TC-R-30 to TC-R-14, which more Findings
accurately reflects the likely development intensity that can be accommodated considering necessary constraints. Development within these sites could impede views to and from the river. Similarly, development of Sites 16A, 16B, 20A, and 20B would support multifamily development within the Town Center. While these sites are largely surrounded by development, their development could affect visibility to the San Diego River.
Site 35 is located at the eastern edge of the City and is adjacent to a large block of habitat including a hill with a water tank located on top.
Based on the existing site constraints, the development footprint would be limited to the lower eastern portions of the larger open space. As a result, views of the potential development area would be limited from surrounding City lands as the hill would provide intervening open space views. From the unincorporated lands to the east, the development area would be visible, but views of the adjacent open space would be retained due to its elevation.
Both future ministerial and discretionary development would be required to adhere to relevant portions of the Santee Municipal Code (SMC) including Chapter 13.08, et seq., which establishes the City’s development review procedures. These procedures require the implementation of development review for projects that require a building permit. This review requires an evaluation of project consistency with development review criteria defined in Section 1308.070 including evaluation of the relationship of the building site to the surrounding area, landscaping design including design that ensures avoidance of potential for obstruction of views when landscaping is mature, grading design, signage and lighting.
Additional criteria is applicable to multi-family residential developments as follows:
• Site Buildings to Avoid Crowding. Where multiple buildings are proposed, the minimum building separation shall be 10 feet in accordance with Section 13.10.040(G).
• Site and Design Buildings to Avoid Repetitions of Building or Roof Lines. This may be achieved through: variation in
building setback; wall plane offsets; use of different colors and materials on exterior elevations for visual relief; and architectural projections above maximum permitted height in accordance with Section 13.10.050(C).
• In the Urban Residential (R-30) zone, for each five-foot increase in building height over 45 feet, the wall plane shall be stepped back an additional five feet.
Findings
• Where adjacent to a single-family residential zone, design buildings to ensure a transition in scale, form, and height with adjacent residential properties. Setbacks are required in accordance with Table 13.10.040A. Designs may incorporate elements such as building massing and orientation, location of windows, building story stepbacks, building materials, deep roof overhangs, and other architectural features that serve to further transition the scale.
• Projects shall be designed so that assigned parking spaces are located as close as practicable to the dwelling units they serve. Refer to Section 13.24.030(B) for additional parking standards.
• The visual impact of surface parking areas adjacent to public streets shall be minimized through the use of mounded or dense landscape strips or low decorative masonry or stucco walls no more than three and one-half feet in height. Parking areas shall be treated with decorative surface elements to identify pedestrian paths, nodes and driveways.
In addition to the above design review requirements, development adjacent to the San Diego River would be subject to applicable Draft Subarea Plan setback and buffer requirements incorporated as in Mitigation Measure BIO-6. Additionally, as detailed in Municipal Code Section 13.08.010, the purpose of development review includes, but is not limited to, ensuring property is developed in a manner which respects the physical and environmental
characteristics of each site and ensuring that each new development is designed to best comply with the intent and purpose of the zone in which the property is located and with the General Plan of the City.
To that end, there are General Plan policies in the Community Enhancement and Conservation Elements of the City’s General Plan that support preservation of scenic vistas. For example, future development is encouraged to preserve significant natural features, such as watercourses, ridgelines, steep canyons, and major rock outcroppings (City of Santee 2003b, Conservation Element).
Additionally, development within the Town Center Specific Plan areas would be required to adhere to supplemental development regulations which include design guidelines for the planning area.
Overall adherence to applicable Municipal Code development review and design requirements, in addition to proposed objective design and performance standards, would ensure that future development would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic view or vista, and impacts would be less than significant.
Findings
2. Scenic Resources
Threshold: Would the Project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft PEIR, pp. 4.1-14 through 4.1-15) Explanation: There are no designated State Scenic Highways within City limits.
Only SR-52 located west of the City, is a designated State Scenic Highway which runs in an east–west direction approximately 1.8 mile south of the southern project site boundary (City of Santee 2020).
Due to its distance and intervening topography, the Rezone Sites would not be seen from this location.
Mission Gorge Road is designated as a Local Scenic Road in the City’s General Plan. While the City does not include any officially designated existing State Scenic Highways within its boundaries, the segments that traverse the City merit consideration for designation and General Plan Policy 9.9 encourages the City to explore pursuing this designation. As shown in Figure 4.1-2, several Rezone Sites are located near the locally designated Mission Gorge Road.
Specifically, Rezone Sites 29, 30, 15 and 16B may be visible from Mission Gorge Road. The remaining Rezone Sites are sufficiently set back from the road with intervening development such that they would not change the scenic environment as viewed from the roadway. Additionally, Rezone Sites 24 and 25 would be visible from the segment of SR-52 through the City which is eligible for State Scenic Designation.
While development at these sites could change the visual environmental as viewed from surrounding locally scenic and state eligible roadways, the sites are largely surrounded by urbanization and would represent infill development. Thus, while their development would represent a visual change, it would not substantially change the view of the foreground urbanization. Distant views of the mountains would be retained as height limitations associated with each underlying zone would prohibit buildings of excessive height.
All future development at Rezone Sites would be subject to the requirement for Development Review consistent with Municipal Code Chapter 13.08 which would ensure consistency with General Plan policies and applicable design and development review requirements including supplemental development regulations from the Town Center Specific Plan. Application of the Draft PEIR of these Findings
development review requirements would ensure protection of key scenic resources.
For both ministerial and discretionary development of the Rezone Sites, adherence to the requirement for development review consistent with Municipal Code Chapter 13.08 would ensure consistency with General Plan policies and applicable design and development review requirements including supplemental
development regulations from the Town Center Specific Plan.
Application of these regulatory requirements would ensure that future development would not degrade scenic resources including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State Scenic Highway. Impacts would be less than significant.
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. (Draft PEIR, pp. 4.1-16 through 4.1-18) Explanation: The Rezone Sites are composed of vacant and nonvacant parcels.
A majority of sites are located in urban areas while Sites 1 through 10 and Site 35 are located at the urban edge in a more rural setting, though still proximate to urbanization. As the project involves rezones to implement housing consistent with the City’s adopted Housing Element, the project would amend zoning to accommodate housing requirements. However, rezoning would not conflict with regulations governing scenic quality as none of the rezone areas were previously designated as open space or otherwise have zoning protections indicating a scenic status.
Sites 1 through 10 are located near the northern foothills of the City surrounded by both rural residential and undeveloped land, with urban residential development to the south. The sites are currently zoned R-1A and support single-family homes on lots that are between approximately one and five acres. Development of these sites with proposed rezones could result in between eight and twenty-nine new dwelling units per site. The additional density of residential uses could change the aesthetic character of the immediate neighborhood but would not degrade the visual quality.
Future development would be required to adhere to General Plan policies, including Community Enhancement Element Policy 13.1 which encourages the maintenance of adequate visual relief from Findings
developed portions of the City. Additionally, all projects would conform to Zoning Ordinance review procedures for development proposals to ensure best practices are used in design and siting, protect and enhance property values, ensure compliance with intent and purpose of each zone. Furthermore, the visual quality and publicly accessible views in this area are of the surrounding mountains which would not be affected by development at Sites 1 through 10.
Sites 11 and 12 are currently developed with a single-family residence on each lot, and are located in the center for the City. The sites are surrounded by single-family residences. Increased density on the sites would result in changes to the visual composition of the area; however, all development would comply with City policies and regulations as detailed above relating to siting and design of development and maintenance of high-quality visual character of the City.
Development with residential at Rezone Sites 15, 16A, 16B, 17, 18, 19, 20A, and 20B could affect the visual character and quality of views toward the San Diego River. Although these sites have been slated for development as part of the Town Center Specific Plan, the proposed rezoning and allowance for ministerial development at certain sites could accelerate development beyond the existing condition. The change in land use and introduction of high density residential would change the visual makeup of the Town Center and the surrounding area. However, each development would be subject to Development Review consistent with Municipal Code Chapter
13.08 which would ensure consistency with General Plan policies and applicable design and development review requirements including supplemental development regulations from the Town Center Specific Plan.
Site 24 consists of mainly open land with one existing single-family home. The surrounding area is developed with single-family residences, roadways, and a mobile home park. Development on the site consistent with the proposed rezone would not result in substantial degradation of visual quality. Future development would comply with City policies and regulations as detailed above relating to siting and design of development and maintenance of high-quality visual character of the City. Therefore, impacts to visual quality associated with development of these Rezone Sites would be less than significant.
Site 25 is largely undeveloped with miscellaneous storage buildings, and is surrounded by multi-family housing, a self-storage facility, and Findings
single-family houses. Development of this site consistent with the proposed rezone would result in additional density on-site which could change the aesthetic character of the immediate neighborhood but would not degrade the visual quality. Future development would comply with City policies and regulations as detailed above relating to siting and design of development and maintenance of high quality visual character of the City.
Site 29 is a developed commercial site with surface parking and miscellaneous commercial buildings. Directly to the east is Site 30, which is developed with a single-family home. Just west of Site 29 is multi-family housing and a mobile home park. South of Sites 29 and 30 is largely undeveloped with scattered trees and some miscellaneous storage buildings and a single-family residence. The additional density of residential uses could change the aesthetic character of the immediate neighborhood but would not degrade the visual quality. Future development would comply with City policies and regulations as detailed above relating to siting and design of development and maintenance of high-quality visual character of the City. Therefore, impacts to visual quality associated with development of these Rezone Sites would be less than significant.
The Graves Avenue Sites would be rezoned for commercial use which could result in changes to the visual composition of the undeveloped sites and surrounding areas. However, similar to the residential development, degradation of visual quality would not result. Future development within the Graves Avenue Sites would be required to comply with City regulations, including design guidelines.
Significant impacts related to visual quality would be less than significant for the Graves Avenue sites.
Development on the Rezone Sites could result in changes to the visual composition of the sites and surrounding areas; however, through compliance with regulations, impacts related to visual quality would be reduced to less than significant for most sites.
Adherence to regulatory requirements including Development Review consistent with Municipal Code Chapter 13.08
implementation and Town Center Specific Plan development regulations would ensure that future development would not substantially degrade scenic resources. Impacts for both ministerial and discretionary development on Rezone Sites would be less than significant.
4. Light and Glare
Findings
Threshold: Would the Project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft PEIR, pp. 4.1-18 through 4.1-19) Explanation: Development of the Rezone Sites could introduce new sources of light and glare, from increased development intensity. However, a majority of the Rezone Sites are located in urbanized areas. Existing sources of light that would be similar to light introduced with new development. Additionally, both ministerial and discretionary development within the sites would be required to comply with SMC standards related to light and glare (Chapter 13.08.070(G)), which requires that outdoor lighting be directed away from adjacent properties and set in a way to avoid any detriment to the surrounding area. Additionally, the Community Enhancement Element includes the standard for lighting and signage to minimize spillover of lighting through use of directional, cut-off and non-glare fixtures. General Plan policies would be implemented through the required development review process.
Adherence to regulatory requirements would ensure that future development would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the project areas. Impacts related to light and glare at Rezone Sites would be less than significant.
Findings
B. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES
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. (Draft PEIR, p. 8-1)
Explanation: The FMMP classifies the majority of the Rezone Sites as “Urban and Built Up Land,” “Other Land,” and “Grazing Land.” The areas classified as “Grazing Lands” are not considered a significant farmland resource under CEQA. A few Rezone Sites are classified as “Farmland of Local Importance”; however, there is no recent history of agricultural use at these sites. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
2. Agricultural Zoning
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
Finding: No impact. (Draft PEIR, p. 8-1)
Explanation: The FMMP classifies the majority of the Rezone Sites as “Urban and Built Up Land,” “Other Land,” and “Grazing Land.” The areas classified as “Grazing Lands” are not considered a significant farmland resource under CEQA. A few Rezone Sites are classified as “Farmland of Local Importance”; however, there is no recent history of agricultural use at these sites. There are no lands protected by a Williamson Act Contract within the City. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
3. Forestland Zoning
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)?
Finding: No impact. (Draft PEIR, p. 8-1)
Findings
Explanation: There is no forestland within the City, and the City does not possess any zoning classifications for forestland, timberland, or timberland production zones. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
4. Loss of Forest Land
Threshold: Would the Project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Finding: No impact. (Draft PEIR, p. 8-1)
Explanation: There is no forestland within the City, and the City does not possess any zoning classifications for forestland, timberland, or timberland production zones. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
5. Conversion of Farmland or Forestland
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. (Draft PEIR, p. 8-1)
Explanation: A few Rezone Sites are classified as “Farmland of Local Importance”; however, there is no recent history of agricultural use at these sites.
There are no lands protected by a Williamson Act Contract within the City. Additionally, there is no forestland within the City, and the City does not possess any zoning classifications for forestland, timberland, or timberland production zones. Therefore, no impacts to agricultural and forestry resources would occur.
C. AIR QUALITY
1. Sensitive Receptors
Threshold: Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft PEIR, pp. 4.2-23 through 4.2-27) Explanation: The project includes future development of residential and associated commercial uses which are generally not a source of TACs. However, implementation of the project would have the potential siting of new sensitive receptors, such as new homes in close proximity to existing sources of TAC and PM2.5 emissions, Findings
such as near freeways. The following discussion provides an analysis of the potential for the project to result in CO hot spots and expose sensitive receptors to TACs.
Localized Carbon Monoxide Hot Spots
Due to increased requirements for cleaner vehicles, equipment, and fuels, CO levels in the state have dropped substantially. All air basins are attainment or maintenance areas for CO. Therefore, more recent screening procedures based on more current methodologies have been developed. The Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District developed a screening threshold in 2011, which states that any project involving an intersection experiencing 31,600 vehicles per hour or more will require detailed analysis. In addition, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District developed a screening threshold in 2010 which states that any project involving an intersection experiencing 44,000 vehicles per hour would require detailed analysis. This analysis conservatively assesses potential CO hot spots using the SCAQMD screening threshold of 31,600 vehicles per hour. Based on the year 2050 traffic modeling prepared for buildout of the project, daily roadway segment volumes would be as high as approximately 52,000 average daily traffic. Based on regional traffic patterns and Caltrans peak hour traffic counts, peak hour volumes are generally 10 percent or less of the daily traffic volumes (Caltrans 2020). Therefore, no intersection is anticipated to have peak hour turning movements exceeding 31,600 vehicles per hour. Therefore, the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations associated with CO hot spots, and impacts would be less than significant.
Toxic Air Emissions
Construction
Construction of future development and associated infrastructure implemented under the project would result in short-term diesel exhaust emissions from on-site heavy-duty equipment. Construction would result in the generation of DPM emissions from the use of offroad diesel equipment required for site grading and excavation, paving, and other construction activities and on-road diesel equipment used to bring materials to and from project sites.
Generation of DPM from construction projects typically occurs in a single area for a short period. According to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, health risk assessments, which determine the exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic emissions, should be based on a 30-year exposure period; however, such assessments should be limited to the period/duration of activities associated with the project (Office of Environmental Health Findings
Hazard Assessment 2015). Therefore, if the duration of proposed construction activities near any specific sensitive receptor were a year, the exposure would be three percent of the total exposure period used for health risk calculation. Considering this assessment methodology, the highly dispersive nature of DPM, and the fact that construction activities would occur intermittently and at various locations over the lifetime of project buildout, DPM generated by construction would not create conditions where the probability is greater than 10 in 1 million of developing cancer for the Maximally Exposed Individual, or to generate ground-level concentrations of non-carcinogenic TACs that exceed a Hazard Index greater than 1 for the Maximally Exposed Individual. Additionally, with ongoing implementation of U.S. EPA and CARB requirements for cleaner fuels; off-road diesel engine retrofits; and new, low-emission diesel engine types; the DPM emissions of individual equipment would be substantially reduced over the years as project buildout continues.
Therefore, the project would not expose sensitive receptors to toxic air emissions during construction of future development at the Rezone Sites, and impacts would be less than significant.
Stationary Sources
The project would not result in the construction and operation of a stationary source of TACs. Various uses, such as dry cleaners and gasoline-dispensing facilities, have the potential to be substantial stationary sources that would require a permit from the SDAPCD. In April 2005, CARB published the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook:
A Community Health Perspective (CARB 2005). The handbook makes recommendations directed at protecting sensitive land uses from air pollutant emissions, while balancing a myriad of other land use issues (e.g., housing, transportation needs, economics, etc.). It notes that the handbook is not regulatory or binding on local agencies and recognizes that application takes a qualitative approach. Table 4.2-7 of the Draft PEIR summarizes the
recommended siting distances from various facilities.
Currently, none of these stationary sources are located within the recommended citing distances from the Rezone Sites. There are no distribution centers, ports, rail yards, or refineries located within the City. All Rezone Sites are located more than 1,000 feet from chrome platers (Pacific Plating located at 11316 N. Woodside Avenue #G), more than 500 feet from dry cleaners, and more than 300 feet from gas stations. Site 25 is located adjacent to a facility located at 8787 Olive Lane that has annual reporting requirements. Emissions of TACs from these types of facilities, including 8787 Olive Lane, are regulated by SDAPCD through permitting and monitoring
requirements. The California Air Toxics Program establishes the Findings
process for the identification and control of TACs and includes provisions to make the public aware of significant toxic exposures and for reducing risk. In accordance with AB 2588, if adverse health impacts exceeding public notification levels are identified, the facility would provide public notice, and if the facility poses a potentially significant public health risk, the facility would be required to submit a risk reduction audit and plan to demonstrate how the facility would reduce health risks. Therefore, adherence with this regulatory framework would ensure that future development of the Rezone Sites would not expose sensitive receptors to TACs associated with stationary sources, and impacts would be less than significant.
Mobile Sources
As reflected in the CARB Handbook, there is currently no adopted standard for the significance of health effects from mobile sources.
Therefore, the CARB has provided guidelines for the siting of land uses near heavily traveled roadways. Of pertinence to this impact analysis, the CARB guidelines indicate that siting new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway or urban roads with 100,000 or more vehicles per day or rural road with 50,000 vehicles per day should be avoided when possible.
Based on the year 2050 traffic modeling prepared for buildout of the project, SR-52, SR-67, and SR125 would carry more than 100,000 vehicles per day, and the segment of Mission Gorge Road between SR-125 and Fanita Drive would carry more than 50,000 vehicles per day. Rezone Sites 24 and 25 are both located within 500 feet of SR52. All other Rezone Sites are located more than 500 feet from freeways and the segment of Mission Gorge Road. However, CARB notes that these recommendations are advisory and should not be interpreted as defined “buffer zones,” and that local agencies must balance other considerations such as transportation needs, the benefits of urban infill, community economic development priorities, and other quality-of-life issues. With careful evaluation of exposure, health risks, and affirmative steps to reduce risk, where necessary, CARB’s position is that infill development, mixed-use, higher-density, transit-oriented development, and other concepts that benefit regional air quality can be compatible with protecting the health of individuals at the neighborhood level. Additionally, measures can be incorporated into future site-specific project design that would reduce the level of exposure for future residents. The CAPCOA published a guidance document, Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects, which provides recommended measures that reduce concentrations of DPM (CAPCOA 2009). These include planting vegetation between the receptor and the freeway, constructing barriers between the receptor and the freeway, and installing newer Findings
electrostatic filters in adjacent receptor buildings. Application of appropriate screening measures would be ensured through a sitespecific environmental review for discretionary projects. For ministerial and discretionary projects, the City’s has landscaping requirements that include landscape screening along street edges and at front, rear, and side yard setbacks, in addition to landscaping at outdoor group open space areas. Additionally, the 2019 California Building Code – Title 24 requires that all new residential uses include improved air filtration systems. Filters are categorized according to minimum efficiency reporting value (MERV) rating. The higher the MERV rating, the better the filtration. MERV-13 filters are effective at filtering DPM. MERV-13 filters are at least 85 percent efficient at capturing DPM (American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and AirConditioning Engineers 2022). The 2019 Title 24 requires the installation of MERV-13 filters or greater. Therefore, with application of the City’s landscaping requirements for new development, whether discretionary or by-right, in addition to application of the 2019 Title 24 requirements for air filtration, future residential uses would not be exposed to substantial levels of DPM from proximity to freeways and busy roadways. The project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations associated with mobile source emissions and impacts would be less than significant.
Buildout of the project would not result in a CO hot spot. Additionally, construction and operation of future development would not result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to TACs from construction activities, stationary sources, or mobile sources. Impacts would be less than significant.
2. 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. (Draft PEIR, pp. 4.2-27 through 4.2-28) Explanation: Existing sources of odors in the City include the Sycamore Landfill and a water reclamation plant. However, these uses are located one mile or more from the Rezone Sites and would not result in odors affecting a substantial number of people.
Emissions from construction equipment, such as diesel exhaust, and VOCs from architectural coatings and paving activities may generate odors; however, these odors would be temporary, intermittent, and not expected to affect a substantial number of people. Additionally, Findings
noxious odors would be confined to the immediate vicinity of construction equipment. By the time such emissions reach a receptor (e.g., people in residential units, day care centers, schools, nursing homes), they would be diluted to well below any level of air quality concern. Therefore, construction would not result in emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people, and impacts would be less than significant.
Once operational, future development implemented under the project would include residential and associated commercial uses that are generally not a source of objectionable odors. Therefore, project operation would not result in odors affecting a substantial number of people, and impacts would be less than significant.
The project would not result in emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people, and impacts 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. (Draft PEIR, p. 4.3-29) Explanation: The project does not propose any activities that would conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Future development would be required to implement the mitigation framework, including MM-BIO-1 through MM-BIO-6, as applicable to ensure impacts associated with biological resources would be reduced to a level that is less than significant.
Additionally, the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 8.06 aim to regulate the planting, maintenance, and removal of public trees and Chapter
11.8 aims to regulate the obstruction or interference of any natural watercourse or channel. Chapter 13.08 and 13.16 also require development review procedures and standards pertaining to biological resources. Future development, discretionary or by-right, would not conflict with the City’s adopted regulations pertaining to trees or natural watercourses. All future projects within the Rezone Sites would be required to adhere to these policies and regulations; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Findings
Potential impacts associated with local tree policies or ordinances protecting biological resources such as local watercourses 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, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft PEIR, p. 4.3-28) Explanation: The project would not conflict with an adopted HCP, NCCP, or any other approved local, regional, or state HCP. The Rezone Sites are located within the planning area for the Draft Santee Subarea Plan, which has not been adopted. Implementation of MM-BIO-1 through MM-BIO-6 would ensure future development within the Rezone Sites is consistent with the Draft Santee Subarea Plan by requiring sitespecific surveys to be conducted for future project-level review to verify the presence of sensitive biological resources occurring on individual sites; determine the extent of any potential impacts; and provide mitigation to reduce the impacts to below a level of significance.
Overall, all future projects (discretionary and by-right) would be required to address sensitive species and vegetation communities identified in the Draft Santee Subarea Plan, and therefore impacts associated with conflicts with an adopted HCP, NCCP, or any other approved local, regional, or state HCP would be less than significant.
Potential impacts associated with conflicts with the Draft Santee Subarea Plan or any local, regional, and state HCPs would be less than significant.
All future projects would be required to address sensitive species and vegetation communities identified in the Draft Santee Subarea Plan, and therefore impacts associated with conflicts with an adopted HCP, NCCP, or any other approved local, regional, or state HCP would be less than significant.
E. CULTURAL RESOURCES
1. Human Remains
Findings
Threshold: Would the Project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft PEIR, pp. 4.4-18 through 4.4-19) Explanation: There are no known burial sites or cemeteries within the vicinity of the Rezone Sites. Therefore, it is not expected that human remains would be disturbed as a result of construction of the project areas.
In the unlikely event that human remains are discovered, then the provisions set forth in California PRC Section 5097.98 and state Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 would be implemented in consultation with the assigned Most Likely Descendant as identified by the NAHC. No further construction activities would be permitted until the coroner is contacted, as well as any applicable Native American tribes. The City shall be required to comply with the California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (2001), the federal Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (1990), as well as AB 52 early consultation requirements. As regulations are in place to treat any inadvertent uncovering of human remains during grading, impacts to human remains would be less than significant.
Findings
F. ENERGY
1. Wasteful Use of Energy
Threshold: Would the Project result in potentially significant impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft PEIR, pp. 8-2 through 8-4) Explanation: Construction. Construction grading and construction activities consume energy through the operation of heavy off-road equipment, trucks, and worker traffic. At the program-level, it is too speculative to quantify total construction-related energy consumption of future development, either in total or by fuel type. Energy used during future construction of the project areas is not considered significant given typical energy use associated with the type of development proposed and short-term nature of the energy consumption. There are no conditions in the project areas that would require non-standard equipment or construction practices that would increase fuel-energy consumption above typical rates. Consistent with state requirements, all construction equipment would meet California Air Resources Board (CARB) Tier 3 In-Use Off-Road Diesel Engine Standards.
Engines are required to meet certain emission standards, and groups of standards are referred to as Tiers. A Tier 0 engine is unregulated with no emission controls, and each progression of standard level (i.e., Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3, etc.) generate lower emissions, use less energy, and are more advanced technologically than the previous tier. CARB’s Tier 3 In-Use Off-Road Diesel Engine Standards requires that construction equipment fleets become cleaner and use less energy over time. Therefore, the project would not result in a wasteful and inefficient use of energy resources during the construction of future development, and impacts would be less than significant.
Long-term Operations. Long-term operational energy use
associated with buildout of residential housing at the Rezone Sites includes fuel consumption of vehicles; electricity and natural gas consumption by residents and commercial operations, and energy consumption related to obtaining water. However, anticipated housing will be multi-family housing which is a more efficient way to provide housing than lower density single-family development.
Although the project would provide capacity for future housing development that could increase energy use, energy demand of future residential development would be consistent with energy demand for multi-family housing within other cities in the region and would not be associated with inefficient or wasteful energy use.
Findings
Implementation of the project would not result in any unusual characteristics that would result in excessive long-term operational building energy demand. Future development associated with implementation of residential development at the Rezone Sites would be subject to compliance with the California Building Code (Title 24) which aims to reduce excessive and inefficient energy use.
The California Building Code is regularly updated and includes higher energy-efficiency standards in comparison to other states.
Individual development projects in the City would be required to comply with applicable federal, state, and local energy and building regulations, including the requirements of the Sustainable Santee Plan.
Transportation. Buildout of the Rezone Sites would consume energy associated transportation uses. Trips by individuals traveling to, from, and within the project area would largely rely on passenger vehicles or public transit. Passenger vehicles would be mostly powered by gasoline, with some fueled by diesel or electricity. Public transit would be powered by diesel or natural gas, and could potentially be fueled by electricity. Pursuant to the Federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration is responsible for establishing vehicle standards and for revising existing standards. Compliance with federal fuel economy standards is not determined for each individual vehicle model. Rather, compliance is determined based on each manufacturer’s average fuel economy for the portion of their vehicles produced for sale in the United States. Over time, fuel economy standards have increased and reduced the greenhouse gas emissions footprint of vehicles. The project would result in a reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per capita which would move the City in the direction of reducing VMT citywide, although a significant VMT impact would still result due to the fact that VMT per capita would be greater than 85 percent of the regional average. The higher VMT per capita in Santee compared to the County of San Diego is representative of major job centers being located in other areas of the County and Santee residents relying heavily on commutes to job centers in other cities. Although the City has a less efficient VMT per capita when compared to the region, this does not indicate that the project would result in a wasteful or inefficient use of transportation-related energy since the growth is planned and needed to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) obligations. By locating housing at existing retail sites and developing retail uses along with multi-family residential uses at the Rezone Sites, non-commute vehicle trips may be reduced. The City shall ensure that future projects are compliant with Mobility Element Policies 9.1 through 9.5, which encourage the use of Transportation Findings
Demand Management (TDM) strategies, such as ride sharing programs, flexible work schedule programs, and incentives for employees to use transit. Future projects would be required to comply with the Sustainable Santee Plan by promoting nonmotorized transportation options, improving bicycle transit, installing electric vehicle charging stations, and improving traffic flow. This would be demonstrated through completion of the Sustainable Santee Plan Consistency Checklist. Additionally, alternative transportation modes, such as walking, cycling, and public transit are encouraged to reduce peak hour vehicular trips, save energy, and improve air quality. Therefore, the project would not create a land use pattern that would result in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of transportation-related energy, and impacts would be less than significant.
2. Energy Efficiency Plans
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct a state of local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft PEIR, pp. 8-4 through 8-5) Explanation: Non-transportation energy use would be associated with electricity and natural gas. The Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) promotes diversification of the state’s electricity supply and decreased reliance on fossil fuel energy sources. Renewable energy includes (but is not limited to) wind, solar, geothermal, small hydroelectric, biomass, anaerobic digestion, and landfill gas.
Originally adopted in 2002 with a goal to achieve a 20 percent renewable energy mix by 2020 (referred to as the “Initial RPS”), the goal has been accelerated and increased by Executive Orders S-14- 08 and S-21-09 to a goal of 33 percent by 2020. In April 2011, Senate Bill (SB) 2 (1X) codified California’s 33 percent RPS goal. SB 350 (2015) increased California’s renewable energy mix goal to 50 percent by year 2030. SB 100 (2018) further increased the standard set by SB 350 establishing the RPS goal of 44 percent by the end of 2024, 52 percent by the end of 2027, and 60 percent by 2030. The City is served by San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E). Based on the most recent annual report, SDG&E has already procured 44 percent (California Public Utilities Commission [CPUC] 2019) renewable energy and is on track to procure 60 percent by 2030 as outlined in SDG&E’s 2019 RPS Procurement Plan. The California Code of Regulations, Title 24, is referred to as the California Building Code (CBC). It consists of a compilation of several distinct standards and codes related to building construction, including plumbing, electrical, interior acoustics, energy efficiency, handicap accessibility, and so Findings
on. Of particular relevance to greenhouse gas reductions are the CBC’s energy efficiency and green building standards as outlined below. Title 24, Part 11 of the California Code of Regulations is CALGreen. Beginning in 2011, CALGreen instituted mandatory minimum environmental performance standards for all ground-up new construction of commercial and low-rise residential buildings, state-owned buildings, schools, and hospitals. It also includes voluntary tiers (I and II) with stricter environmental performance standards for these same categories of residential and nonresidential buildings. Local jurisdictions must enforce the minimum mandatory requirements and may adopt CALGreen with
amendments for stricter requirements. Future development would, at a minimum, be required to comply with the mandatory measures included in the current 2019 Energy Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6) and the 2019 CALGreen standards.
The mandatory standards require the following:
• Residential solar requirements;
• Outdoor water use requirements as outlined in local water efficient landscaping ordinances or current Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance standards, whichever is more stringent;
• Requirements for water conserving plumbing fixtures and fittings;
• 65 percent construction/demolition waste diverted from landfills;
• Inspections of energy systems to ensure optimal working efficiency; and
• Low-pollutant emitting exterior and interior finish materials such as paints, carpets, vinyl flooring, and particle boards.
Similar to the compliance reporting procedure for demonstrating Energy Code compliance in new buildings and major renovations, compliance with the CALGreen operational water reduction requirements must be demonstrated through completion of water use reporting forms for new low-rise residential and non-residential buildings. The water use compliance form must demonstrate a 20 percent reduction in indoor water use by either showing a 20 percent reduction in the overall baseline water use as identified in CALGreen or a reduced per-plumbing-fixture water use rate. The project does not involve any unusual characteristics that would result in excessive long-term operational demand for electricity or natural gas. The applicable state plans that address renewable energy and energy efficiency are CALGreen, the California Energy Code, and RPS, and the applicable local plan is the General Plan. All future development projects would be required to meet the mandatory energy Findings
requirements of 2019 CALGreen and the 2019 California Energy Code, at a minimum. Future projects would be required to comply with the Sustainable Santee Plan by increasing energy efficiency and installing solar photovoltaic systems. This would be demonstrated through completion of the Sustainable Santee Plan Consistency Checklist. The project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of CALGreen and the California Energy Code, or with SDG&E’s implementation of RPS. Project adherence with state and federal regulations and the Sustainable Santee Plan goals will guide reductions in the City’s collective long-term operational energy use. Impacts relative to the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy would be less than significant.
The applicable state plans that address renewable energy and energy efficiency are CALGreen, the California Energy Code, and RPS, and the applicable local plan is the Sustainable Santee Plan.
The project would be required to meet the mandatory energy requirements of 2019 CALGreen and the 2019 California Energy Code. The project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of CALGreen and the California Energy Code, or with SDG&E’s implementation of RPS. Additionally, future development would be consistent with Sustainable Santee Plan Goals and Implementing Measures. Therefore, the project wound not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, and impacts would be less than significant.
G. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
1. Fault Rupture
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. (Draft PEIR, pp. 4.5-11 through 4.5-13) Explanation: Fault Rupture. The City is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone and no active or potentially active faults are known to occur within or adjacent to the City; however, like all other areas in California, the City is subject to periodic seismic shaking due to earthquakes along remote or regional active faults. Thus, all development within the Rezone Sites would be susceptible to Findings
damage due to the seismically active nature of the region. However, future development, whether discretionary or by-right, would be required to comply with the City’s General Plan Safety Element policies identified below.
• Policy 2.1: The City should utilize existing and evolving geologic, geophysical and engineering knowledge to
distinguish and delineate those areas that are particularly susceptible to damage from seismic and other geologic
conditions.
• Policy 2.2: The City should ensure that if a project is proposed in an area identified herein as seismically and/or geologically hazardous, the proposal shall demonstrate through
appropriate geologic studies and investigations that either the unfavorable conditions do not exist in the specific area in question or that they may be avoided or mitigated through proper site planning, design and construction.
• Policy 2.3: The City shall require that all potential geotechnical and soil hazards be fully investigated at the environmental review stage prior to project approval.
The above policies are implemented through Section 11.40.130 of the City’s Municipal Code which specifies that a preliminary soils engineering report must be submitted with the application for a grading permit. A preliminary geological investigation and report is required for all land development projects designated as Group I or Group II as defined in the Safety Element. In addition, conformance to building construction standards for seismic safety within the CBC would ensure that new structures would be able to withstand seismic events within the City. Specifically, the CBC provides minimum standards relating to building design and construction to protect structural damage and hazards that could occur from seismic shaking. Therefore, adherence to General Plan Safety Element policies, the City’s Municipal Code, and the CBC would ensure that future development within the Rezone Sites would not cause substantial adverse effects associated with fault rupture, and impacts would be less than significant.
Ground Shaking. No active or potentially active faults are known to occur within or adjacent to the City, however, like all other areas in California the City is subject to periodic seismic shaking due to the earthquakes along remote or regional active faults. Thus, all development within the Rezone Sites would be susceptible to damage due to the seismically active nature of the region. The project would increase the allowable number of people and Findings
structures that could be exposed to ground shaking during a seismic event. However, future development, whether discretionary or byright, would be required to comply with General Plan Safety Element policies and the City’s Municipal Code requirements described in Section 4.5.5.1.a above. In addition, conformance to building construction standards for seismic safety within the CBC would ensure that new structures would be able to withstand seismic events within the City. Therefore, adherence to General Plan Safety Element policies, the City’s Municipal Code, and the CBC would ensure that future development within the Rezone Sites would not cause substantial adverse effects associated with ground shaking, and impacts would be less than significant.
Liquefaction and Landslide. Areas having the potential for earthquake-induced landslides generally occur within areas of previous landslide movement, or where local topographic, geological, geotechnical, and subsurface water conditions indicate a potential for permanent ground displacement. Debris flows are caused by high rainfall, steep slopes, loss of vegetation cover, and thick overburden. Within the City, the soil deposits that may be susceptible to liquefaction are the alluvial soils found in the San Diego River and its deeper tributary channels. The general extent of the areas identified for liquefaction potential are shown on Figure 4.5- 3 of the Draft PEIR. All the Rezone Sites except for Site 10 are within an area identified as having liquefaction potential.
Landslides, or landslide prone material, exist predominantly in the northern portion of the City, generally below the 600-foot elevation.
Some of this area has been previously altered to remediate the potential effects of slope instability. Compressible and expansive soils (primarily in Friars Formation slopes) and shallow groundwater are in the Sycamore Canyon Creek drainage (City of Santee 2020).
Areas of potential landslide are shown in Figure 4.5-3 of the Draft PEIR. The Rezone Sites are not located within a landslide susceptible area.
All future development, whether discretionary or by-right, would be required to comply with the General Plan Safety Element policies and the City’s Municipal Code requirements described in Section
4.5.5.1.a of the Draft PEIR. In addition, conformance to building construction standards for seismic safety within the CBC would ensure that new structures would be able to withstand seismic events within the City. Therefore, adherence to Safety Element policies, the Municipal Code, and the CBC would ensure that future development within the Rezone Sites would not cause substantial adverse effects associated with liquefaction or landslide, and impacts would be less Findings
than significant. Through regulatory compliance, impacts associated with seismic hazards and unstable geology would be less than significant.
2. Soil Erosion
Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft PEIR, p. 4.5-13) Explanation: Grading, excavation, demolition, and construction activities associated with future development would increase the potential to expose topsoil to erosion. While graded or excavated areas and fill materials would be stabilized through efforts such as compaction and installation of hardscape and landscaping, erosion potential would be higher during construction activities as individual rezone sites are built out. Erosion and sedimentation would primarily be a concern during construction phases as future developed areas would be stabilized through the installation of hardscape, landscaping, or native revegetation as appropriate. Future development would also incorporate long-term water quality controls pursuant to the most current storm water standards including the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Permit
requirements. Measures implemented to avoid or reduce erosion and sedimentation effects are discussed in Section 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft PEIR. Short-term erosion and sedimentation impacts would be addressed through conformance with the NPDES and associated Municipal Code requirements (Title 9, Chapter 9.06 Stormwater Management and Discharge Control).
These regulations require erosion and sedimentation control during construction and implementation of best management practices to avoid erosion and off-site drainage. Therefore, adherence to applicable Municipal Code requirements would ensure that future development would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil, and impacts would be less than significant. Through regulatory compliance, impacts associated with soil erosion would be less than significant.
3. Unstable Soils
Threshold: Would the Project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Findings
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft PEIR, p. 4.5-12) Explanation: Areas having the potential for earthquake-induced landslides generally occur within areas of previous landslide movement, or where local topographic, geological, geotechnical, and subsurface water conditions indicate a potential for permanent ground displacement. Debris flows are caused by high rainfall, steep slopes, loss of vegetation cover, and thick overburden. Within the City, the soil deposits that may be susceptible to liquefaction are the alluvial soils found in the San Diego River and its deeper tributary channels.
The general extent of the areas identified for liquefaction potential are shown on Figure 4.5-3 of the Draft PEIR. All the Rezone Sites except for Site 10 are within an area identified as having liquefaction potential.
Landslides, or landslide prone material, exist predominantly in the northern portion of the City, generally below the 600-foot elevation.
Some of this area has been previously altered to remediate the potential effects of slope instability. Compressible and expansive soils (primarily in Friars Formation slopes) and shallow groundwater are in the Sycamore Canyon Creek drainage (City of Santee 2020).
Areas of potential landslide are shown in Figure 4.5-3 of the Draft PEIR. The Rezone Sites are not located within a landslide susceptible area.
All future development, whether discretionary or by-right, would be required to comply with the General Plan Safety Element policies and the City’s Municipal Code requirements described in Section
4.5.5.1.a of the Draft PEIR. In addition, conformance to building construction standards for seismic safety within the CBC would ensure that new structures would be able to withstand seismic events within the City. Therefore, adherence to Safety Element policies, the Municipal Code, and the CBC would ensure that future development within the Rezone Sites would not cause substantial adverse effects associated with liquefaction or landslide, and impacts would be less than significant. Through regulatory compliance, impacts associated with seismic hazards and unstable geology would be less than significant.
4. Expansive Soils
Threshold: Would the Project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft PEIR, p. 4.5-14) Findings
Explanation: Soil types that occur within the Rezone Sites include clay, loam, sand, sandy loam, and riverwash. Soils with relatively high fines content (clays dominantly) are generally considered expansive or potentially expansive. Development within these soils could result in a significant impact due to the soils inability to support the proposed structures, especially during major rain events and/or flash floods.
Future development, whether discretionary or by-right, within the Rezone Sites would be required to adhere to Municipal Code requirements for project-specific geotechnical reports that would ensure site-specific measures are implemented to ensure safe building construction in areas with expansive soils. These reports would provide guidance for the inclusion of proper site planning, design, and construction measures to avoid unfavorable conditions.
Adherence to Municipal Code requirements would ensure that future development would not create substantial direct or indirect risks associated with expansive soils, and impacts would be less than significant.
5. 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. (Draft PEIR, p. 4.5-15)
Explanation: Due to the urban and built out nature of the Rezone Sites, there is no expectation that septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would be part of any future development proposal. All Rezone Sites would be served by Padre Dam Municipal Water District for wastewater service. No impact would occur.
Findings
H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
1. Hazardous Materials
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. (Draft PEIR, pp. 4.7-17 through 4.7-18) Explanation: While the project does not specifically propose activities such as grading or construction that would have the potential to create a significant hazard to the public or environment, future development within the Rezone Sites could have the potential to directly or indirectly impact the public or environment through such activities.
Figure 4.7-1 of the Draft PEIR identifies GeoTracker cleanup sites throughout the City. None of the existing cleanup sites are located within or adjacent to the Rezone Sites; however, future development within the Rezone Sites may result in the transport of hazardous materials during construction (e.g., ACMs, LBPs, and/or contaminated soils). This transport would be limited in duration and would be required to comply with all applicable State and local regulatory measures associated with handing and transport of contaminated or potentially contaminated materials. Additionally, City implementation of General Plan Safety Element Policies support implementation of Citywide safety measures associated with hazardous materials handling. Future development within the Rezone Sites, whether discretionary or by-right would be required to adhere to extensive regulations related to hazardous materials handling and transport. Additionally, implementation of the City’s Development Review process would ensure site specific
consideration and regulation of the potential for storage, handling, and use of hazardous materials.
Future residential development would not involve the ongoing or routine use of substantial quantities of hazardous materials during operations. Only small quantities of hazardous materials associated with household hazards would be anticipated to occur. Mixed-use development and commercial development associated with the Graves Avenue Sites would likewise be associated with common hazardous materials such as cleaning solvents, fertilizers, pesticides, and other materials used in the regular maintenance and upkeep of the proposed land uses.
Potentially applicable to Rezone Sites with a mixed-use component and/or the Graves Avenue Rezone Sites, HMBPs are required of businesses that handle hazardous substances in amounts greater Findings
than or equal to specified thresholds. The purpose of an HMBP is to minimize hazards to human health and the environment from unplanned, accidental releases of hazardous substances into the air, soil, or surface water. An HMBP must include an emergency response program that serves to manage emergencies at the given facility and prepare response personnel for a variety of conditions.
HMBPs are submitted to County of San Diego’s DEH Hazardous Materials Division, and are reviewed and updated as necessary every three years, or in the event of an accidental release, change in materials storage location or use, or change in business name, address, or ownership. Additionally, future development associated with the project would have the benefit of City provided household hazardous waste collection programs and City programs that encourage safe and proper disposal of household hazardous waste consistent with General Plan Policies 3.5 and 3.7.
With proper use and disposal of hazardous materials as required by state, regional, and local regulations, the project would not result in hazardous or unhealthful conditions within or in proximity to the Rezone Sites. Compliance with all applicable regulations would ensure impacts associated with use, transport and disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant.
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. (Draft PEIR, p. 4.7-19) Explanation: 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. None of the Rezone Sites are within 0.25 mile of an existing school and consultation with and notification to the Santee School and Grossmont High School Districts would not be required. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Impacts associated with the routine use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials, and impacts associated with emissions near a school would be less than significant. Impacts associated with the Findings
accidental release of hazardous materials during future buildout of the Rezone Sites would be potentially significant.
Findings
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 impact. (Draft PEIR, p. 4.7-21) Explanation: None of the Rezone Sites are listed as hazardous materials sites pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (Cortese List).
Therefore, it is not expected that grading, excavation, or construction activities would result in the release of hazardous materials associated with contaminated soils or underground tanks.
Therefore, the program would not result in conditions leading to any reasonably foreseeable upset or accident involving the release of hazardous materials. Impacts would be less than significant.
4. Public Airports
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 impact. (Draft PEIR, pp. 4.7-21 through 4.7-22) Explanation: A portion of the City is located within the AIA of Gillespie Field. As shown in Figure 4.7-2, Rezone Sites 15, 16A, 16B, 17, 20A, 20B, 24, 25, and the Graves Avenue Rezone Sites are located within Gillespie Field Review Area 1 and Rezone Sites 11, 12, 17, 18, 19, and 35 are located within Gillespie Field Review Area 2. In addition, Rezone Sites 11, 12, 17, 18, 19, 16A, and 35 are located within MCAS Miramar Review Area 2.
The ALUCP addresses four types of compatibility factors including noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight. Based on review of each site in relation to the respective ALUCPs, the proposed rezones are not anticipated to result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area.
With specific respect to air safety issues, according to the Gillespie Field and MCAS Miramar ALUCPs (SDCRAA 2010 and 2011),
• Review Area 1 consists of locations where noise and safety concerns may necessitate limitations on the types of land uses actions. Specifically, Review Area 1 encompasses
locations exposed to aircraft noise levels of 60 dB CNEL or Findings
greater and areas subject to the safety zones depicted on Figure 4.7-2.
• Review Area 2 consists of locations beyond Review Area 1 but within the airspace and/or overflight notification areas depicted on the maps in the respective ALUCPs. Limits on the heights of structures, particularly in areas of high terrain, are the only restriction on land uses within Review Area 2. For projects within Review Area 2, the recordation of overflight notification documents is also required.
All future development, whether discretionary or by-right located within the Gillespie Field AIA would be reviewed to ensure that design features are incorporated into the site plan to address identified aircraft safety and noise hazards, consistent with General Plan Policy 7.1. Additionally, as applicable, site-specific land use proposals within the AIA would be routed to the ALUC for a compatibility determination as part of the site-specific development review. While individual projects may be incompatible with the Gillespie Field ALUCP due to the proposed rezoning, consultation with the ALUC would be undertaken at the time of specific development proposals. As discussed in Section 4.9 of this EIR, its is possible that individual projects could be found incompatible with the Gillespie Field ALUCP due to density inconsistencies and the City Council could override the ALCUP density limitations in favor of a specific development proposal. Notwithstanding the potential override of ALUCP density limitations, individual projects would be required to obtain a FAA determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation and/or implement FAA conditions that would allow the FAA determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation.
Conformance with applicable City policies, ALUCP design considerations applicable to development with airport safety zones, and compliance with any applicable FAA conditions would ensure that future development within the Rezone Sites located within the Gillespie Field and MCAS Miramar AIA would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. Impacts associated with airport hazards would be less than significant.
5. Emergency Plans
Threshold: Would the Project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Draft PEIR, p. 4.7-23) Findings
Explanation: The project does not propose the construction of new housing or other development; rather it provides capacity for future development consistent with state Housing Element Law. Buildout of the Rezone Sites would increase density and create opportunities for new residential mixed-use development in certain areas of the City; resulting in greater population concentrations within neighborhoods.
This could result in an increase in demand on emergency evacuation.
The project does not propose any changes in the City’s existing circulation network, and no land uses are proposed that would impair implementation of or physically interfere with the City’s emergency response plan, evacuation routes; or conflict with any of the MultiJurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan’s specific hazard mitigation goals, objectives, and related potential actions. Specifically, the Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan requires each jurisdiction to develop and publish evacuation procedures that are published and available to the public. The City provides educational materials related to emergency preparedness. All residents of the City have access to the materials as well as included in all Community Emergency response Team training and information. Furthermore, applications for all future projects within the Rezone Sites, whether discretionary or by-right, would be reviewed and approved by the Santee Fire Department prior to issuance of building permit.
Therefore, buildout of the Rezone Sites would not conflict with emergency response, and impacts would be less than significant.
6. Wildland Fires
Threshold: Would the Project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Draft PEIR, p. 4.7-24) Explanation: The project does not propose the construction of new housing or other development; rather it provides capacity for future development consistent with state Housing Element Law. Rezone Sites 1 through 10 and 35 are located within the CAL FIRE VHFHSZ. Locating residential land uses adjacent to or within a high fire hazard area can result in increased fire-related risk to people and structures.
Future development located within the VHFHSZ would be required to adhere to California Fire Code Title 19, Division 1, Section 3.07(b), requiring a minimum 30-foot brush clearance around structures for Findings
fire safety. Further codified by the City in Municipal Code Chapter
11.18, all new developments, subdivisions, or tracts that are planned in Fire Hazard Severity Zones and/or Wildland Urban Interface Areas (WUIA) shall have a minimum of 100 horizontal feet of “fuel modified” defensible space between structures and wildland areas. The City’s General Plan policies 4.2 through 4.13 provide guidance for the minimization of fire hazards including ensuring adequate response times, setting standards for emergency access, structural standards, other planning design measures required to be considered in all new development. Additionally, future discretionary projects would require review by the Building Official/Fire Marshal. Adherence to fire code regulations and General Plan policies would ensure impacts associated with risk of wildland fires would be less than significant.
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. (Draft PEIR, p. 4.8-16 through 4.8-18) Explanation: While the project does not propose the construction of new housing or other development, it provides capacity for future development through rezoning. Future development of the Rezone Sites would have the potential to result in water quality impacts both during construction and from post-construction operation. During construction, development would entail grading and other earthmoving activities. Exposed soils could be eroded and deposited into the surrounding water bodies, increasing the amount of sediment and turbidity in these water bodies. Additionally, chemicals or fuels could accidentally spill and be released into receiving waters, which could adversely alter water chemistry.
As part of long-term operation of projects, water quality impacts could result from use of common household materials used in landscaping and residential uses that may result in the generation of runoff pollutants such as sediments, oils and grease, heavy metals, pesticides, fertilizers, trash and debris, oxygen-demanding substances, and bacteria and viruses, which are typical for residential and mixed uses. In addition, new development would result in greater vehicular use of roadways, which could potentially increase contaminants that would be carried in runoff and discharged into receiving waters. Therefore, nonpoint source pollutants would be the primary contributors to potential water quality degradation as Findings
a result of project buildout. Nonpoint source pollutants could be washed by rainwater from rooftops, landscaped areas, parking areas, and other impervious surfaces into the on-site drainage system.
In addition, the City and most of the Rezone Sites are already highly impervious and were developed largely at a time prior to the regulation of stormwater quality. New development within the sites will have to come into conformance with current water quality regulatory standards. Thus, overall water quality in the post-buildout condition would be similar (if not improved) to existing conditions, except at the undeveloped sites where an increase in impervious surfaces would result, thereby potentially increasing stormwater pollutants into the drainage systems.
Future development, whether discretionary or by right, would be required to adhere to all applicable water quality standards as provided in various water quality regulations and plans including all pertinent requirements of the City’s JRMP (including WQIP and MS4 Permit), BMP Design Manual, NPDES General Construction Permit, as well as all regulations related to water quality. The General Construction Permit requires preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, which must include erosion and sediment control BMPs that would meet or exceed measures required by the NPDES General Permit, as well as BMPs that control hydrocarbons, trash and debris, and other potential constructionrelated pollutants. Future projects within the Rezone Sites would comply with the City’s General Plan policies requiring the incorporation of construction BMPs for the protection of water quality.
Additionally, new development would be required to adhere to the City’s Stormwater Ordinance applying source control and site design BMPs as project design features in order to reduce the discharge of pollutants into the stormwater conveyance system.
Therefore, through regulatory compliance impacts related to water quality standards and waste discharge requirements would be less than significant. Likewise, future development within the Rezone Sites would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan.
While development of the Rezone Sites has the potential to increase the amount of pollutants discharged into surface waters, all future development, whether discretionary or by right, would be subject to federal, state, and local regulations aimed at controlling water quality impacts. Therefore, potential water quality impacts resulting from buildout of the Rezone Sites would be less than significant.
Findings
The project does not propose the construction of new housing or other development. Development at the Rezone Sites would occur on a project-by-project basis, resulting in redevelopment of existing developed sites that have existing impervious surfaces; a few sites, however, are currently vacant with pervious surfaces that would allow for groundwater infiltration. Both redevelopment and new development on vacant sites would be required to comply with applicable stormwater management requirements which focus on retention and infiltration of waters on-site, which would provide for ongoing groundwater recharge. Redevelopment within the Rezone Sites with existing development would not result in a substantial change in impervious surfaces as these sites already support some level of development. Additionally, development at all Rezone Sites would be required to comply with the City’s General Plan policies and regulations that prioritize infiltration and treatment of stormwater and generally require increased on-site infiltration and higher standards of water quality protection compared to water quality standards that would have been implemented on existing developed sites.
Therefore, although development/redevelopment within the Rezone Sites would increase impervious surfaces, prioritization of on-site infiltration would ensure on groundwater recharge, impacts to ground water quality would be less than significant.
While the City does not have a groundwater management plan as one is not required for the City’s groundwater basins under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, the project would not obstruct implementation of ongoing sustainable use of the City’s groundwater resources as the City is not dependent on groundwater (City of Santee 2003b). Therefore, the project would not substantially interfere with groundwater recharge such that the project would impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. Impacts would be less than significant.
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. (Draft PEIR, p. 4.8-18) Explanation: The project does not propose the construction of new housing or other development. Development at the Rezone Sites would occur on a project-by-project basis, resulting in redevelopment of existing developed sites that have existing impervious surfaces; a few sites, Findings
however, are currently vacant with pervious surfaces that would allow for groundwater infiltration. Both redevelopment and new development on vacant sites would be required to comply with applicable stormwater management requirements which focus on retention and infiltration of waters on-site, which would provide for ongoing groundwater recharge. Redevelopment within the Rezone Sites with existing development would not result in a substantial change in impervious surfaces as these sites already support some level of development. Additionally, development at all Rezone Sites would be required to comply with the City’s General Plan policies and regulations that prioritize infiltration and treatment of stormwater and generally require increased on-site infiltration and higher standards of water quality protection compared to water quality standards that would have been implemented on existing developed sites.
Therefore, although development/redevelopment within the Rezone Sites would increase impervious surfaces, prioritization of on-site infiltration would ensure on groundwater recharge, impacts to ground water quality would be less than significant.
While the City does not have a groundwater management plan as one is not required for the City’s groundwater basins under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, the project would not obstruct implementation of ongoing sustainable use of the City’s groundwater resources as the City is not dependent on groundwater (City of Santee 2003b). Therefore, the project would not substantially interfere with groundwater recharge such that the project would impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. Impacts would be less than significant.
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?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft PEIR, pp. 4.8-19 through 4.8-20) Explanation: Development within the Rezone Sites has the potential to alter drainage patterns by increasing impervious surfaces (additional structures, walkways, and parking areas), which have a lower absorption rate for rainfall than that of vacant natural lands. All future development, whether discretionary or by right, would be required to conform with the City’s General Plan policies and new regulatory standards. Specifically, adherence to the City’s Stormwater and Grading Ordinances include requirements which focus on retention Findings
and infiltration of waters on-site and avoidance of changes to drainage velocities during both construction and postconstruction/operational phases of development. These regulations would ensure avoidance of increases in erosion and siltation.
With respect to construction-related measures, consistent with the Municipal Code Chapters 9.06 and 11.40, all future development proposing one acre or greater of grading would be required to prepare a construction SWPPP describing specific construction BMPs that address pollutant source reduction, and provide erosion control measures necessary to reduce potential pollutant sources.
Additionally, post construction, individual projects would be required to ensure the maintenance of post-construction BMPs designed to retain volume and velocity of stormwater, The ongoing erosion control measures would ensure that surface water runoff flows leaving future development sites during both construction and operation of future projects would not carry substantial amounts of sediment to downstream waters. Therefore, through regulatory compliance, impacts related to erosion and siltation associated with development of the Rezone Sites would be less than significant.
4. Flooding
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 substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft PEIR, p. 4.8-20) Explanation: Future development could result in increased surface runoff due to the construction of additional structures, walkways, and parking areas within the Rezone Sites. Consistent with the City’s General Plan Conservation Element policies and Municipal Code (Chapters
9.06 and 11.40), all future development, whether discretionary or by right, would be required to ensure the maintenance of stormwater flows to ensure the project would not result in increased surface runoff or redirect existing flood flows. Implementation of applicable stormwater BMPs and erosion control measures would be required to retain flows on-site and minimize the velocity of stormwater runoff.
Such BMPs could include on-site drainage swales, bioretention features, use of permeable pavers in parking areas and streets, or infiltration basins which also serve as a means for pollutant removal.
Additionally, applicable projects would be required to include low impact development (LID) BMPs as discussed in the JRMP to treat Findings
potentially polluted runoff prior to entering the public storm drain system. Project-specific studies would be required to ensure that volume-based treatment LID BMPs are properly sized to infiltrate, filter, or treat the remaining portion of the runoff volume that was not retained or treated by other BMPs to maintain flows and ensure future projects would not redirect flood flows or alter the course of a stream or river. Through these project-specific measures, impacts related to increased or redirected surface runoff associated with development of the Rezone Sites would be less than significant.
5. Runoff
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 create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantially additional sources of polluted runoff or impede or redirect flood flows? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft PEIR, p. 4.8-20) Explanation: Future development of the Rezone Sites would contribute runoff to the existing stormwater drainage system. However, future development, whether discretionary or by right, would be required to adhere to state and local regulation and policies including preparation of project specific Stormwater Quality Management Plans, BMP Plan Sheets, drainage plans, and pollution control plans.
Specifically, Municipal Code Section 9.06.250(B) requires priority development projects to include hydromodification management BMPs that are sized and designed to ensure that post-project runoff conditions (flow rates and durations) will not exceed the predevelopment runoff conditions by more than 10 percent. This assists in ensuring that stormwater flows would not overwhelm the City’s stormwater system. Additionally, the Development Impact Fee and Dedication Ordinance requires new development to provide funds for the installation of needed drainage improvements. Through regulatory compliance and payment of the DIF, impacts related to exceeding the capacity of the stormwater system associated with development of the Rezone Sites would be less than significant.
6. Flood Hazard
Threshold: In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the Project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Findings
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft PEIR, pp. 4.8-21 through 4.8-22) Explanation: Rezone Sites 15, 17, 16A, 20A, and 25 are located within or partially within flood hazard areas of the San Diego River. Additionally, as noted in Section 4.8.1.5, a number of Rezone Sites are located within the mapped inundation areas. Riverine flooding impacts could occur from increases in the amount of runoff delivered to the creeks or river, causing an increase to the total flow and pollutant release in the creeks or river. In general, the potential for riverine flooding impacts is addressed through management of local surface runoff.
Additionally, the potential for flooding impacts from direct alterations to the creeks or river is managed through the adoption of development regulations for SFHAs or areas mapped as 100-year flood hazard areas on federal FIRMs, where the NFIP’s management regulations must be enforced. These regulations address placement of fill, housing, and structures in areas mapped as SFHAs. The City’s General Plan Safety Element specifically prohibits development within a mapped 100-year flood zone (Policy 1.8). The project does not propose the construction of new housing or other development; rather, it provides capacity for future development consistent with state housing element law. Buildout of these identified project areas would be required to adhere to all state and local development regulations including the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code (Chapter 11.36), which establishes Flood Damage Prevention standards and development prohibitions.
Development within any of the Rezone Sites would not be expected to exacerbate flooding issues, considering the emphasis on stormwater retention and on-site infiltration. Overall, through regulatory compliance impacts related to flood hazards associated with development of the Rezone Sites would be less than significant.
The Rezone Sites are not in a tsunami zone and, therefore, the project would not be affected in the event of a tsunami. Thus, buildout of the Rezone Sites would not result in impacts associated with tsunami inundation.
7. 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. (Draft PEIR, pp. 4.8-16 through 4.8-18) Explanation: The City and most of the Rezone Sites are already highly impervious and were developed largely at a time prior to the regulation of stormwater quality. New development within the sites will have to Findings
come into conformance with current water quality regulatory standards. Thus, overall water quality in the post-buildout condition would be similar (if not improved) to existing conditions, except at the undeveloped sites where an increase in impervious surfaces would result, thereby potentially increasing stormwater pollutants into the drainage systems.
Future development, whether discretionary or by right, would be required to adhere to all applicable water quality standards as provided in various water quality regulations and plans including all pertinent requirements of the City’s JRMP (including WQIP and MS4 Permit), BMP Design Manual, NPDES General Construction Permit, as well as all regulations related to water quality. The General Construction Permit requires preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, which must include erosion and sediment control BMPs that would meet or exceed measures required by the NPDES General Permit, as well as BMPs that control hydrocarbons, trash and debris, and other potential constructionrelated pollutants. Future projects within the Rezone Sites would comply with the City’s General Plan policies requiring the incorporation of construction BMPs for the protection of water quality.
Additionally, new development would be required to adhere to the City’s Stormwater Ordinance applying source control and site design BMPs as project design features in order to reduce the discharge of pollutants into the stormwater conveyance system.
Therefore, through regulatory compliance impacts related to water quality standards and waste discharge requirements would be less than significant. Likewise, future development within the Rezone Sites would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan.
While development of the Rezone Sites has the potential to increase the amount of pollutants discharged into surface waters, all future development, whether discretionary or by right, would be subject to federal, state, and local regulations aimed at controlling water quality impacts. Therefore, potential water quality impacts resulting from buildout of the Rezone Sites would be less than significant.
The project does not propose the construction of new housing or other development. Development at the Rezone Sites would occur on a project-by-project basis, resulting in redevelopment of existing developed sites that have existing impervious surfaces; a few sites, however, are currently vacant with pervious surfaces that would allow for groundwater infiltration. Both redevelopment and new development on vacant sites would be required to comply with Findings
applicable stormwater management requirements which focus on retention and infiltration of waters on-site, which would provide for ongoing groundwater recharge. Redevelopment within the Rezone Sites with existing development would not result in a substantial change in impervious surfaces as these sites already support some level of development. Additionally, development at all Rezone Sites would be required to comply with the City’s General Plan policies and regulations that prioritize infiltration and treatment of stormwater and generally require increased on-site infiltration and higher standards of water quality protection compared to water quality standards that would have been implemented on existing developed sites.
Therefore, although development/redevelopment within the Rezone Sites would increase impervious surfaces, prioritization of on-site infiltration would ensure on groundwater recharge, impacts to ground water quality would be less than significant.
While the City does not have a groundwater management plan as one is not required for the City’s groundwater basins under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, the project would not obstruct implementation of ongoing sustainable use of the City’s groundwater resources as the City is not dependent on groundwater (City of Santee 2003b). Therefore, the project would not substantially interfere with groundwater recharge such that the project would impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. Impacts would be less than significant.
Findings
J. LAND USE AND PLANNING
1. Established Communities
Threshold: Would the Project physically divide an established community? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft PEIR, p. 4.9-15) Explanation: All Rezone Sites are in urbanized areas that are already served by existing infrastructure. Implementation of the rezones would result in increased allowable residential density, or newly allowed residential density within all sites, except the Graves Avenue Sites. Although the additional density or change to residential use would increase the intensity of land uses at the sites, they would constitute infill development and would not divide an established community.
Additionally, the project would not include new major infrastructure that could physically divide an established community. Furthermore, development of the Rezone Sites within the TCSP would be required to adhere to all supplemental development regulations of those sites to ensure they would be compatible with the existing community.
None of the Housing Sites would require any new major
infrastructure or improvements that could physically divide an established community. Therefore, the project would not physically divide an established community, and 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. (Draft PEIR, pp. 4.9-15 through 4.9-20) Explanation: The City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element included rezone programs required to meet the City’s RHNA requirements and comply with state housing mandates. The majority of the Rezone Sites would be located within the SANDAG existing/planned town center smart growth opportunity area. All of the Rezone Sites would require changes to existing zoning and/or General Plan land use designations and result in density increases throughout the City.
Future development at the Rezone Sites may occur either with a discretionary action, or with a ministerial approval for projects that meet certain criteria including providing at least 20 percent of the Findings
housing as affordable to lower income residents. Future discretionary development would require a subsequent site-specific environmental review that would consider each project’s consistency with all applicable plans, including the City’s General Plan. Future by-right development would be required to adhere to the City’s proposed objective design standards, which include design guidelines and regulations to ensure consistency with City plans and policies. Both future ministerial and discretionary review would be subject to review for consistency with the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code regulations that serve to reduce or avoid environmental impacts.
State Housing Element Law (California Government Code
Section 65583 et seq.)
Cities are required to update their Housing Elements every eight years. Cities are also required to demonstrate in their Housing Element that the land inventory is adequately zoned to
accommodate that jurisdiction’s share of the regional growth.
Consistent with State Housing Law, the City prepared its 6th Cycle Housing Element, adopted by City Council on July 14, 2021, which covers the planning period from April 15, 2021 to April 15, 2029 (8 years). The Housing Element identifies 34 sites throughout the City with the capacity to accommodate the City’s assigned
growth/Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) minimum of 1,219 housing units. Housing Element Programs 9 and 10 commit the City to evaluate candidate sites and rezone as appropriate to achieve adequate housing capacity. The project implements Programs 9 and 10. Therefore, the project is consistent with State Housing Element Law and land inventory/regional growth
requirements and no impact would occur.
San Diego Forward
The Regional Plan: San Diego Forward, adopted in 2021, further identified GHG reduction strategies through transportation and land use planning as follows: connect communities through multi-modal transportation choices; and increase a variety of housing options in proximity to existing and planned transit. Consistent with State Housing Law, the City prepared its 6thCycle Housing Element, adopted by City Council on July 14, 2021, which covers the planning period from April 15, 2021 to April 15, 2029 (8 years). The Housing Element identifies 34 sites throughout the City with the capacity to accommodate the City’s assigned growth/Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) minimum of 1,219 housing units. Housing Element Programs 9 and 10 commit the City to evaluate candidate sites and rezone as appropriate to achieve adequate housing capacity. The project implements Programs 9 and 10. Therefore, the Findings
project is consistent with State Housing Element Law and land inventory/regional growth requirements and no impact would occur.
Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP)
The City’s Draft MSCP Subarea Plan is used by the City as a biological resource guidance document. There are no Rezone Sites located within preserved land; however, a few sites are located adjacent to those 75 percent and 100 percent preserve areas as mapped in the City’s Draft Subarea Plan. Future development which is adjacent to the preserve areas would be required to adhere to land use adjacency guidelines to ensure no impacts occur. Through compliance with the policies contained in the City’s Draft MSCP Subarea Plan, the project would be consistent with the goals of the City’s Draft MSCP Subarea Plan and no impact would occur.
General Plan, Land Use Element
The Land Use Element provides goals, objectives, and policies that guide City decision makers in directing future growth and development and regulates the types of land uses and land use intensities within the City. Specifically, Policy 2.2 encourage the development of higher density residential developments in areas close the multi-modal transit station and along major road corridors where transit and other convenience services are available. The Rezone Sites are located primarily within the center of the City in proximity to existing major roads and transit. Rezone Sites located within the TCSP provide greater opportunity for residential use of multi-modal and transit options. In addition, the project includes a General Plan amendment to redesignate land uses within the Rezone Sites and adjust residential densities consistent with proposed rezones. Future projects would be required to demonstrate compatibility with surrounding land uses as required by the Land Use Element. Therefore, through adherence to goals and policies, the project would be consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element and no impact would occur.
Municipal Code
The Zoning Ordinance implements the City’s General Plan by establishing site specific development use regulations and development standards. The project proposes Rezone actions to change the allowable density within the Rezone Sites. Future projects would be required to show compliance with all development standards associated with the zone. Additionally, the project includes the adoption of objective design and performance standards that would apply to sites that qualify for by-right development. Therefore, all future development would be required to be consistent with zoning Findings
use regulations and development standards and no impact would occur.
Impacts associated with policy consistency for future development at the Rezone Sites would be less than significant.
Findings
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. (Draft PEIR, p. 8-6)
Explanation: Rezone Sites 15, 16A, 16B, 17, and 20A are designated as MRZ-2, Sites 1-12, 19, 24, 29, 30 and both Graves Avenue sites are designated as MRZ-3, and Sites 18, 20B, 35, and 25 are designated as a mix of both MRZ-2 and MRZ-3. Although some Rezone Sites are located within a MRZ-2 designated area, these areas are not zoned for mining operations and the existing land use would also not be a mining land use as mining would not be a consistent land use with the surrounding area. While these lands may support mineral resources, mining operations at these sites would not be feasible considering the proximity to sensitive receptors and existing established neighborhoods. Furthermore, the Rezone Sites are not designated as locally important mineral resource recovery sites in the Santee General Plan. Therefore, the project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource or locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan, and impacts would be less than significant.
2. Locally-Important Mineral Resource
Threshold: Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a localy-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft PEIR, p. 8-6)
Explanation: Rezone Sites 15, 16A, 16B, 17, and 20A are designated as MRZ-2, Sites 1-12, 19, 24, 29, 30 and both Graves Avenue sites are designated as MRZ-3, and Sites 18, 20B, 35, and 25 are designated as a mix of both MRZ-2 and MRZ-3. Although some Rezone Sites are located within a MRZ-2 designated area, these areas are not zoned for mining operations and the existing land use would also not be a mining land use as mining would not be a consistent land use with the surrounding area. While these lands may support mineral resources, mining operations at these sites would not be feasible considering the proximity to sensitive receptors and existing established neighborhoods. Furthermore, the Rezone Sites are not Findings
designated as locally important mineral resource recovery sites in the Santee General Plan. Therefore, the project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource or locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan, and impacts would be less than significant.
L. NOISE
1. Noise Standards
Threshold: Would the Project result in the generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft PEIR, p. 4.10-35) Explanation: Stationary Noise. A significant impact would occur if implementation of the project resulted in the exposure of people to noise levels that violate the regulations contained in City’s Municipal Code, Title 5 Health and Safety, Chapter 5.04 Noise Abatement and Control.
Stationary sources of noise include activities associated with a given land use. For example, noise sources from residential land uses would include vehicles arriving and departing, landscaping activities, and HVAC equipment, and noise sources from commercial land uses would include fast food restaurants, parking lots, truck loading/unloading activities, and HVAC equipment. Noise generated by residential or commercial uses is generally short-lived and intermittent, and are not a substantial source of noise. Potential noise conflicts could occur in mixed-use areas where residential uses are located in close proximity to commercial and retail uses.
Noise levels within the City are currently dominated by vehicle traffic on freeways and heavily traveled area roadways, and would continue to be the primary source of noise under project buildout. Therefore, future noise levels from residential and commercial stationary sources throughout the City would not be expected to increase the hourly or daily average sound level with respect to current conditions.
Future development of the Rezone Sites would include residential and mixed-use land uses that are not anticipated to be a significant source of stationary noise.
The City requires that noise from new stationary sources comply with the City’s Noise Abatement and Control Ordinance, which provides general noise regulations, prohibits disturbing, excessive or Findings
offensive noises, and places noise limitations on motorized equipment and loading and unloading operations. Noise Abatement and Control Ordinance requirements would reduce nuisances to sensitive land uses. The City Police or Code Enforcement Officer enforces the Noise Abatement and Control Ordinance, and violations are punishable by a fine for each day a violation occurs and may be subject to abatement by restraining order or injunction.
Consequently, stationary-source noise from these types of proposed land uses would not substantially increase the noise environment, and impacts would be less than significant.
2. 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. (Draft PEIR, pp. 4.10-49 through 4.10-50) Explanation: Gillespie Field Airport and MCAS Miramar are located in the vicinity of the City. Gillespie Field is located outside the City limits, within the adjacent City of El Cajon, and lands adjacent to the western boundary of the northern portion of the City are part of MCAS Miramar. The Rezone Sites are located outside the 65 CNEL aircraft noise contours. Implementation of the project would not expose noise-sensitive land uses to incompatible levels of aircraft noises.
Therefore, the project would not expose people to significant aircraft noise levels. 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. (Draft PEIR, pp. 4.11-4 through 4.11-5) Explanation: The project would result in the adoption of rezones required to implement the 6thCycle Housing Element. SANDAG has allocated the City its share of the regional housing need for the 2021-2029 Findings
RHNA period based on a number of factors, including recent growth trends, income distribution, and capacity for future growth. The proposed rezoning would result in the potential future construction of up to 1,945 residential units which more than accommodates the City’s RHNA allocation of 1,219 units. Rezones beyond the 1,219 RHNA allocation have been proposed to provide for flexibility for decisionmakers to adopt all or a portion of the proposed rezones.
The additional rezones would also provide a buffer should the City’s RHNA allocation increase the future. The additional rezones provide capacity for projected growth in the region. Considering the rate of growth and barriers to housing development, the additional capacity would not induce unplanned population growth in the region but would provide additional opportunities to achieve buildout of required RHNA allocation. The region needs to plan for a 13.2 percent increase in population while the City needs to plan for an 11.8 percent increase in population. The project would facilitate land use changes in the City that would allow the City and region to achieve their housing goals. The project would further implement SANDAG’s vision and goals by placing higher density in areas most able to support residential growth, including existing infrastructure and access to transit and would therefore be consistent with the RTP/SCS. State requirements to allow for ministerial approvals of certain housing projects that include an affordable component, which would facilitate and encourage construction of housing in the City.
The project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth as all rezones are located within existing developed areas with access to services, roadways, and utilities. Therefore, the project would not induce unplanned population growth, and 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: Less than significant. (Draft PEIR, pp. 4.11-5 through 4.11-6) Explanation: Future redevelopment within Rezone Sites with existing residential land uses would have the potential to displace some people and housing through demolition of existing residential structures.
However, for each home that would be removed, more housing units would be provided in its place which would accommodate more people and ensure no net loss of housing. The analysis provided in this PEIR evaluates the potential physical impacts of future housing construction and identifies a mitigation framework that would be Findings
applied to ensure impacts are minimized to the greatest extent feasible. Impacts related to displacement of people and housing would be less than significant.
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. (Draft PEIR, pp. 4.12-19 through 4.12-20) Explanation: The project includes implementation of the 6th Cycle Housing Element program which commits the City to evaluate the Rezone Sites and implement rezones as appropriate to achieve adequate housing capacity to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation obligations, which is a total of 1,219 units. The project does not propose the construction of new housing or other development; rather it provides capacity for future development consistent with the proposed rezones. The future construction of residential units associated with Rezone Sites would accommodate future population growth within the City anticipated by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG); however, construction of these residential units could potentially increase demand for fire protection facilities.
All future development, whether discretionary or by-right, would be required to adhere to the City’s Municipal Code. Specifically, Chapter
12.50, would require payment of a Development Impact Fee (DIF) to ensure the costs of constructing public facilities that are reasonably related to the impacts of the new development. Likewise, future project compliance with the City’s General Plan requires land developers to pay the cost of ensuring adequate public services and facilities. Safety Element Policy 4.2 requires that all new development meets established response time standards for fire and life safety services, and Policy 4.12 requires the timing of additional fire station construction or renovation, or new services to be related to the rise of service demands. Development at the Rezone Sites would not directly result in sufficient demand to require construction of new fire facilities; however, each incremental housing Findings
development would pay DIF towards anticipated fire facility needs that would ultimately support funding for improvements to fire facilities and operations. At the time future fire facilities are proposed, they would require a separate environmental review and compliance with regulations in existence at that time would address potential environmental impacts related to the construction and operation of new fire facilities. Therefore, at this programmatic level of review, impacts related to the need for and/or provision of new or physically altered fire emergency facilities would be less than significant.
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 Sheriff Law Enforcement Services?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft PEIR, pp. 4.12-20 through 4.12-21) Explanation: The project does not propose the construction of new housing or other development; rather it provides capacity for future development consistent with the proposed rezones. While future development at the Rezone Sites would accommodate future population growth within the City, construction of these residential units could potentially increase demand for police protection facilities.
All future development, whether discretionary or by-right, would be required to adhere to the City’s municipal code. Specifically, Chapter
12.50, would require payment of a DIF to ensure the costs of constructing public facilities that are reasonably related to the impacts of the new development. Likewise, future project compliance with the City’s General Plan requires land developers to pay the cost of ensuring adequate public services and facilities. Safety Element Policy 4.2 requires that all new development meets established response time standards for fire and life safety services, and Policy
5.4 requires the involvement of law enforcement personnel in the review of new development applications through participation in the Development Review process. Development at the Rezone Sites would not directly result in sufficient demand to require construction of new police facilities, since each incremental housing development would pay DIF towards anticipated police facility needs. Additionally, the review of project applications by law enforcement personnel would ensure that City’s police department are comfortable with the Findings
level of safety associated with the proposed development. In the future, if law enforcement facilities are proposed, they would require a separate environmental review and compliance with regulations in existence at that time would address potential environmental impacts related to the construction and operation of new fire facilities.
Therefore, at this programmatic level of review, impacts related to the need for and/or provision of new or physically altered police facilities would be less than significant.
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. (Draft PEIR, pp. 4.12-21 through 4.12-22) Explanation: The project does not propose the construction of new housing or other development; rather it provides capacity for future development consistent with the proposed rezones. Future development at the Rezone Sites would accommodate future population growth within the City. The Santee School District and the Grossmont Union High School District were contacted to determine their availability to accommodate student enrollment generated by the project. The Santee School District estimated that the project would generate an additional 495 students, while the Grossmont Union High School District estimated student generation of approximately 300 high school students. While development of future residential units would have the potential to generate students that would place additional demand on school facilities, both the SSD and GUHSD have excess enrollment capacity, indicating that additional students can be accommodated. Refer to Appendix F for correspondence from the respective districts indicating the availability of school enrollment.
Additionally, all future development, whether discretionary or by-right would be required to adhere to state statutory fees pursuant to SB
50. Specifically, the SSD and GUHSD each currently levy impact fees on development within their district boundaries consistent with SB 50. For SSD and GUHSD, residential development fees are $2.35/square foot and $1.00/square foot, respectively. Future development projects would also be required to demonstrate compliance with the City’s General Plan which requires land developers to ensure adequate schools for potential residents.
Findings
Development within the Rezone Sites would not directly result in sufficient demand to require construction of new school facilities, based on the existing capacity at area schools and the payment of SB 50 fees. At the time future schools are proposed, they would require a separate environmental review and compliance with regulations in existence at that time would address potential environmental impacts related to the construction and operation of new school facilities. Therefore, at this programmatic level of review, impacts related to the need for and/or provision of new or physically altered schools would be less than significant.
4. Parks
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 parks?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft PEIR, pp. 4.12-23 through 4.12-24) Explanation: The project does not propose the construction of new housing or other development; rather it provides capacity for future development consistent with the proposed rezones. Development at the Rezone Sites would accommodate future population growth within the City.
The City currently meets its overall goal for parkland; however, construction of additional residential units could potentially increase demand for park and recreational facilities.
All future development, whether discretionary or by-right, would be required to pay in-lieu fees consistent with the Quimby Act and City Municipal Code Section 12.40 to fund additional park facilities within the City. Payment of such fees would allow the City to continue to implement numerous General Plan policies in place to maintain park and recreation facilities within the City, including Land Use Policy 3.1 (adequate parkland consistent with development); Conservation Element Policies 11.1, 11.2, and 11.4 (promote dedicated open space, both active and passive, throughout the City); Recreation Element Policies 1.1 and 2.2 (increase parkland ratios, and focus on recreational facilities to be constructed in mixed-use development); and numerous Trails Element policies which all envision the continued development of bicycle, equestrian and pedestrian trails throughout the City. Development within the Rezone Sites would not directly result in sufficient demand to directly require construction or expansion of a parks and recreational facilities, since each Findings
incremental housing development would pay its fair share toward anticipated park needs. At the time a future parkland project is proposed, it would require a separate environmental review and compliance with regulations in existence at that time would address potential environmental impacts related to the construction and operation of new park facilities. Therefore, at this programmatic level of review, impacts related to the need for and/or provision of new or physically altered parks and recreation facilities would be less than significant.
5. Other Public Facilities
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 other public facilities?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft PEIR, pp. 4.12-22 through 4.12-23) Explanation: The project does not propose the construction of new housing or other development; rather it provides capacity for future development consistent with the proposed rezones. Development at the Rezone Sites would accommodate future population growth within the City.
Based on the San Diego County service ratio goals for library services the Santee Library, with 75,000 square feet of space, is at a deficit; however, the combination of a cooperative library system with surrounding cities, and participation in Bookmobile, library service within the City is considered to be adequate. Nonetheless, construction of additional residential units could potentially increase demand for library services.
All future development, whether discretionary or by-right, would be required to adhere to the City’s Municipal Code. Specifically, Chapter
12.50, would require payment of DIF to ensure the costs of constructing public facilities that are reasonably related to the impacts of the new development, including libraries. Additionally, the City would continue to participate in programs related to providing residents access to library books and programs and support the efforts of the Friends of Santee Library, a non-profit organization committed to raising funds for a new larger library. Development within the Rezone Sites would not directly result in sufficient demand to require construction or expansion of a library, since each incremental housing development would pay its fair share toward anticipated library facility needs. At the time a future library is proposed, it would require a separate environmental review and Findings
compliance with regulations in existence at that time would address potential environmental impacts related to the construction and operation of new school facilities. Therefore, at this programmatic level of review, impacts related to the need for and/or provision of new or physically altered library 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. (Draft PEIR, pp. 4.12-23 through 4.12-24) Explanation: The project does not propose the construction of new housing or other development; rather it provides capacity for future development consistent with the proposed rezones. Development at the Rezone Sites would accommodate future population growth within the City.
The City currently meets its overall goal for parkland; however, construction of additional residential units could potentially increase demand for park and recreational facilities.
All future development, whether discretionary or by-right, would be required to pay in-lieu fees consistent with the Quimby Act and City Municipal Code Section 12.40 to fund additional park facilities within the City. Payment of such fees would allow the City to continue to implement numerous General Plan policies in place to maintain park and recreation facilities within the City, including Land Use Policy 3.1 (adequate parkland consistent with development); Conservation Element Policies 11.1, 11.2, and 11.4 (promote dedicated open space, both active and passive, throughout the City); Recreation Element Policies 1.1 and 2.2 (increase parkland ratios, and focus on recreational facilities to be constructed in mixed-use development); and numerous Trails Element policies which all envision the continued development of bicycle, equestrian and pedestrian trails throughout the City. Development within the Rezone Sites would not directly result in sufficient demand to directly require construction or expansion of a parks and recreational facilities, since each incremental housing development would pay its fair share toward anticipated park needs. At the time a future parkland project is proposed, it would require a separate environmental review and compliance with regulations in existence at that time would address potential environmental impacts related to the construction and operation of new park facilities. Therefore, at this programmatic level Findings
of review, impacts related to the need for and/or provision of new or physically altered parks and recreation facilities would be less than significant.
2. Construction and Expansion
Threshold: Does the Project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft PEIR, pp. 4.12-23 through 4.12-24) Explanation: The project does not propose the construction of new housing or other development; rather it provides capacity for future development consistent with the proposed rezones. Development at the Rezone Sites would accommodate future population growth within the City.
The City currently meets its overall goal for parkland; however, construction of additional residential units could potentially increase demand for park and recreational facilities.
All future development, whether discretionary or by-right, would be required to pay in-lieu fees consistent with the Quimby Act and City Municipal Code Section 12.40 to fund additional park facilities within the City. Payment of such fees would allow the City to continue to implement numerous General Plan policies in place to maintain park and recreation facilities within the City, including Land Use Policy 3.1 (adequate parkland consistent with development); Conservation Element Policies 11.1, 11.2, and 11.4 (promote dedicated open space, both active and passive, throughout the City); Recreation Element Policies 1.1 and 2.2 (increase parkland ratios, and focus on recreational facilities to be constructed in mixed-use development); and numerous Trails Element policies which all envision the continued development of bicycle, equestrian and pedestrian trails throughout the City. Development within the Rezone Sites would not directly result in sufficient demand to directly require construction or expansion of a parks and recreational facilities, since each incremental housing development would pay its fair share toward anticipated park needs. At the time a future parkland project is proposed, it would require a separate environmental review and compliance with regulations in existence at that time would address potential environmental impacts related to the construction and operation of new park facilities. Therefore, at this programmatic level of review, impacts related to the need for and/or provision of new or physically altered parks and recreation facilities would be less than significant.
P. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC
Findings
1. Plans, Policies, and Ordinances
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft PEIR, pp. 4.13-14 through 4.13-15) Explanation: The project includes evaluation of Rezone Sites that would increase ultimate development intensity on selected sites. Additionally, development at Rezone Sites may proceed within a ministerial approval in certain circumstances. Future development on these sites could have an effect on the circulation system including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.
Future development that requires a discretionary review would be subject to a site-specific environmental review that considers consistency with all applicable plans including the City’s Active Santee Plan. Consistency review associated with future
discretionary review would ensure impacts associated with policy consistency related to the circulation system would be less than significant.
While potential future ministerial development projects would not require a subsequent environmental review, these projects would be subject to a ministerial review that would include consistency with the City’s Public Works Standards. The City’s Engineering Division review would ensure individual projects include appropriate frontage requirements to ensure consistency with the City’s Mobility Element and the ASP. Pedestrian and bicycle improvements necessary to meet City Public Work Standards could include providing sidewalks and landscape buffers, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility requirements, and other improvements that would support bicycle, pedestrian, and transit accessibility. To support implementation of these requirements, the project includes objective design and performance standards that would be implemented during the review process for future ministerial development. The standards include a requirement that project applicants shall make roadway improvements along the project frontage including adjoining intersections in accordance with the Mobility Element.
Regarding transit, future development at Rezone Sites would be consistent with Policy 2.2 within the City’s General Plan Land Use Element, which encourages the development of higher density residential developments in areas close to the multi-modal transit station (at Santee Town Center) and along major road corridors where transit and other convenience services are available. The Findings