CITY OF SANTEE
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM
Permit Application: __________________
Date Submitted: __________________
1. Project Title:
2. Proposed Use of the Site: ___________________________________________________________________
3. Project Location: __________________________________________________________________________
4. Project APN(s): _______________________________
5. Applicant Property Owner
Name: _______________________________ Name: ____________________________________ Address: ______________________________ Address: __________________________________ City, State, ZIP: ________________________ City, State, ZIP: ___________________________ Telephone: ___________________________ Telephone: _______________________________
6. Description of Project: Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheet(s) if necessary. Attach a site plan and vicinity map in 8 ½” X 11” format. _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________
7. Existing General Plan Designation: 8. Existing Zoning:
9. Existing Conditions: (Is the site currently served by the following?) Paved Road Yes No
Water Services Yes No
Sewer Services Yes No
Septic System Yes No
Electric Service Yes No
10. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings, including plants, animals, any cultural, historic, or scenic aspects, type of land use, intensity of land use, and scale of development.
North:
South:
East:
West:
11. Gillespie Field Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP): Use the SD Airport Authority online tool http://www.san.org/Airport-Projects/Land-Use-Compatibility#118025-gis-data to answer the following:
Airport Influence Area (AIA) (Exhibit III-5): Overflight Zone (Exhibit III-4):
1 Yes
2 No
Not Applicable
Attachment D
ATTACHMENT
ATTACH ADDITIONAL SHEETS, AS NEEDED, TO FULLY EXPLAIN ANY OF
THE ANSWERS TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Agriculture / Forestry Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology / Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology / Water Quality Land Use / Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population / Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities / Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance I. AESTHETICS. Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on scenic vista?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
Discussion: Located in an existing urban area.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings with a scenic highway?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
Discussion: Site is situated in an urban area, not in proximity to scenic resources including rock outcroppings or historic buildings. Any tree removal will not affect trees placed for scenic purposes. c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
Discussion: The project is within an urban area and not in conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
Discussion: The project is located within an urban area and will not add significant light or glare .
II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information complied by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and the forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest protocols adopted by the California Air Resource Board – Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
Discussion: The project site is not located within an agricultural zone. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
Discussion: The project site is not within an agricultural zone or included in a Williamson Act contract. c) 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))? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
Discussion: The site is within an urban area and zoned for housing and not in conflict with forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned areas.
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
Discussion: The project site is located within an urban area and does not affect forest lands. e) 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 non-forest use? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
Discussion: The project site is located within an urban area and does not affect forest lands or farmlands.
III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
Discussion: The project site is consistent with the existing zoning and will not obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
Discussion: The project will not increase any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
Discussion: The project site will not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people)? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
Discussion: The project will not substantially increase emissions such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
Discussion:
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
Discussion: The project site is graded and maintained throughout the year, no riparian habitats or other sensitive species exist on site.
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
Discussion: The site is currently graded and cleared for brush management. No wetlands exist on the site. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
Discussion: The site is currently graded and cleared for brush management. The project does not interfere with native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, wildlife corridors or native wildlife nursery sites.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
Discussion: The project does not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policies or ordinances.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
Discussion: The project does not conflict with any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
Discussion: See the attached letter from Rincon, no surficial evidence of a cultural resource was found nor previously recorded. No historical buildings are located on the site. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
Discussion: See the attached letter from Rincon, no surficial evidence of an archeological resource was found nor previously recorded.
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
Discussion: See the attached letter from Rincon, no evidence of human remains was found nor previously recorded on the site.
VI. ENERGY. Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
Discussion: Homes to be constructed per Title 24 and meet criteria for energy efficiency. b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
Discussion: Homes to be constructed per Title 24 and comply with any additional plans for renewable energy and energy efficiency.
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
Discussion: No potential substantial adverse effects regarding geology and soils exist. i) 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? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
Discussion: Earthquake fault rupture is minimal. Homes will be constructed following local and state seismic ordinances.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
Discussion: Homes to be built in association with the latest seismic standards. iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
Discussion: Homes to be built per latest seismic standards. Liquefaction is not a significant impact. iv) Landslides?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
Discussion: Project site is not located in a zone susceptible to landslides. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
Discussion: Soils found on site not susceptible to substantial erosion. c) 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? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
Discussion: See the geotechnical report for soil breakdown and measures to address soil components. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code, creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
Discussion: See the geotechnical report for soil breakdown and measures to address soil components regarding expansive soils.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
Discussion: Sewer is available for the site, services provided by the Padre Dam Municipal Water District. f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
Discussion: The project site has been previously graded. No paleontological or unique geological resources are locate don the site.
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
Discussion: The trips generated by the project are minimal and housing to be built to Title 24 efficiency standards.
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emission of greenhouse gases?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
Discussion: Homes to be built to Title 24 criteria and in compliance with all applicable plans, policies, or adopted regulations for the reduction greenhouse gas emissions.
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
Discussion: The project will not generate hazardous materials or need for transport, use, and disposal of said materials.
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
Discussion: The project is not anticipated to release hazardous materials into the environment. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
Discussion: The project site will not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials. d) 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? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
Discussion: The project site is not located in an area included on a list of hazardous waste sites. e) 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 or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
Discussion: The project is not within an airport land use plan and has been approved by the FAA. f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
Discussion: The project will not interfere either physically or with the implementation of emergency response plans/evacuation plans. The project will widen Lake Canyon Rd. to aid emergency response. g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
Discussion: The project site is located in an existing neighborhood and not within wildland fire prone areas.
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
Discussion:
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
Discussion:
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
Discussion:
i. result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
Discussion:
ii. substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite;
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
Discussion:
iii. create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
Discussion:
iv. impede or redirect flood flows?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
Discussion:
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
Discussion:
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
Discussion:
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
Discussion:
b) 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? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
Discussion:
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) 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?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
Discussion: There are no known mineral resources on project site. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact
Discussion: The project site is previously graded with no locally-important mineral resources on site.
XIII. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) 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?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
Discussion: Temporary noise during construction. The project would result in minimal noise increase. b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
Discussion: Temporary during construction. The project would result in minimal groundborne vibration and noise levels.
c) 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? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
Discussion:
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) 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)? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
Discussion:
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
Discussion:
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project:
a) 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 any of the public services:
i. Fire Protection?
ii. Police Protection?
iii. Schools?
iv. Parks?
v. Other Public Facilities?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
Discussion:
XVI. RECREATION.
a) 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? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
Discussion: The project will pay the required park and recreation fees. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
Discussion: The project will pay the required park and recreation fees and does not include recreational facilities.
XVII. TRANSPORTATION. Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
Discussion:
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
Discussion:
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
Discussion:
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
Discussion: The project improves emergency access with the proposed the widening of Lake Canyon Rd.
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES.
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in the Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in the Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
Discussion: No evidence of tribal or cultural resources detected on the project site. See Rincon letter dated Dec 21, 2021.
ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American Tribe.
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
Discussion: No evidence of tribal or cultural resources detected on the project site. See Rincon letter dated Dec 21, 2021.
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
Discussion: The project will use existing utilities, additional storm drain is adequately designed to minimize impact to surroundings.
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
Discussion: Sufficient water supplies are available. The site will be serviced by Padre Dam Municipal Water District.
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
Discussion: Wastewater treatments are sufficient to serve the project. The site will be serviced by Padre Dam Municipal Water District.
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
Discussion: The project will comply with all pertinent standards and will not otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals.
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
Discussion: The project will comply with federal, state, and local management/reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
XX. WILDFIRE. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
Discussion: The project will not impair emergency response or evacuation plans. b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
Discussion: Project site is located in an urban area, not susceptible to wildfire risks. c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
Discussion: The project will not exacerbate fire risks and is located within an urban area. d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
Discussion: The project will not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides.
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
Discussion: The project site is within an existing neighborhood on a graded site and will not substantially degrade the quality of the environment.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current project, and the effects of probable future projects.) Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
Discussion:
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
Discussion:
Authority: Public Resources Code 21083, 21094.5.5
Reference: Public Resources Code Sections 21094.5 and 21094.5.5 Doug Thomson, Senior Planner March 10, 2022
City of Santee
10601 North Magnolia Avenue
Santee, CA 92071
Subject: 9 Lot Subdivision TM 2021-1
Dear Mr. Thomson,
Dudek & Associates visited the 9-lot site located at the west end of Lake Canyon Road adjacent to Fanita Parkway.
The site is currently graded and cleared for brush management purposes. Several eucalyptus trees are located on the westerly side of the project area and may need to be removed. Prior to removal during the avian breeding season (generally between February 15 and August 31), a single-pass nesting bird survey should be performed to ensure compliance with the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Sections 3503 and 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code. It is our opinion that the project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact me at [email protected] or 760.479.4254.
Sincerely,
______________________
Brock Ortega
Principal, Senior Wildlife Biologist
N:\3483\Report\Letter Report.doc
November 22, 2021
Mr. Jeff O’Connor
HomeFed Corporation
1903 Wright Place, Suite 220
Carlsbad, CA 92008
LLG Reference: 3-21-3483
Subject: West Lake Canyon Road Subdivision
Dear Mr. O’Connor:
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) has reviewed the subject project from a transportation perspective. The project proposes nine (9) single-family units to be located on the northeast and southeast corner of the Fanita Parkway / Lake Canyon Road intersection in the City of Santee. Figure 1 shows a project area map and Figure 2 shows the site plan.
Table 1 contains a summary of the trip generation for the project. The table shows that the project will generate 90 ADT with 7 AM peak hour trips and 9 PM peak hour trips.
For the purpose of the traffic assessment, all traffic was assumed to utilize the Fanita Parkway / Lake Canyon Road intersection. Figure 3 shows the project assignment.
Table 2 shows the Existing and Existing + Project Levels of Service at the Fanita Parkway / Lake Canyon Road intersection. The existing volumes were obtained from the Fanita Ranch traffic study and a 5% growth factor was added. Table 2 shows that good levels of service are calculated with and without project. No improvements would be necessary.
Count sheets are included in Attachment A and the Existing and the Existing + Project worksheets are included in Attachment B.
The project generates less than 110 ADT and therefore the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) impact would be presumed to be less than significant based on Office of Planning and Research (OPR) guidelines.
Mr. Jeff O’Connor
November 22, 2021
N:\3483\Report\Letter Report.doc
Please call me with any questions.
Thank you.
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers
John Boarman, P.E.
Principal
California Registration: C50033
cc: File
Mr. Jeff O’Connor
November 22, 2021
N:\3483\Report\Letter Report.doc
Table 1
Trip Generation Summary
West Lake Canyon Road Subdivision
Land Use Size b
Daily Trip Ends (ADTs) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Rate a Volume
% of
ADT a
In:Out
Split a
Volume % of
ADT a
In:Out
Split a
Volume
In Out Total In Out Total
Single-Family Units 9 DU 10 /DU 90 8% 30 : 70 2 5 7 10% 70 : 30 6 3 9 Footnotes: `
a. Rates are based on SANDAG’s (Not So) Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region, April 2002.
Table 2
Near-Term Intersection Analysis
West Lake Canyon Road Subdivision
Intersection Control
Type
Peak
Hour
Existing Existing + Project Δc Improvement
Required? Delaya LOSb Delay LOS
1. Fanita Pkwy / Lake Canyon Rd AWSC AM 8.3 A 8.4 A 0.1 No PM 8.7 A 8.8 A 0.1 No
Footnote:
a. Overall average delay per vehicle in seconds
b. Level of Service.
c. Increase in delay due to Project traffic in seconds.
M ap
Project Area Map
Figure 1
West Lake Canyon Road Subdivision
N:\3483\FiguresDate: 11/22/21
Project
Site
Site Plan
Figure 2
West Lake Canyon Road Subdivision
N:\3483\FiguresDate: 11/22/21
SOURCE: Hale EngineeringDate: 09/03/2021
AM / PM Intersection
Peak Hour Volumes AM / PM
X,XXX Average Daily Trips along Roadways
Project Tra
ffic Assignment
Figure 3
West Lake Canyon Road Subdivision
N:\3483\FiguresDate: 11/22/21
Project
L Site
D
Lake Canyon Rd
Fanita Pkwy
5 / 3
2 / 6
90 ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT A
INTERSECTION MANUAL COUNT SHEETS
Location: File Name:
Intersection: Project:
Date of Count:
Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Total 7:00 0 22 0 28 0 1 0 3 9 0 0 0 63
7:15 1 28 0 18 0 0 0 4 5 0 0 0 56
7:30 1 20 0 17 0 1 0 10 6 0 0 0 55
7:45 0 22 0 13 0 1 0 8 6 0 0 0 50
8:00 1 28 0 31 0 4 0 13 28 0 0 0 105
8:15 0 28 0 24 0 1 0 7 20 0 0 0 80
8:30 0 27 0 17 0 2 0 11 17 0 0 0 74
8:45 2 19 0 16 0 2 0 9 9 0 0 0 57
Total 5 194 0 164 0 12 0 65 100 0 0 0 540
Approach% 2.5 97.5 - 93.2 - 6.8 - 39.4 60.6 - - -
Total% 0.9 35.9 - 30.4 - 2.2 - 12.0 18.5 - - -
AM Intersection Peak Hour:
Volume 3 102 - 88 - 9 - 40 74 - - - 316
Approach% 2.9 97.1 - 90.7 - 9.3 - 35.1 64.9 - - -
Total% 0.9 32.3 - 27.8 - 2.8 - 12.7 23.4 - - -
PHF 0.91 0.69 0.70
Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Total 16:00 5 16 0 9 0 3 0 32 23 0 0 0 88
16:15 2 21 0 13 1 6 2 28 9 0 0 0 82
16:30 0 20 0 7 0 2 0 21 25 0 0 0 75
16:45 0 17 0 8 0 4 2 29 25 0 0 0 85
17:00 1 20 0 21 0 6 3 36 31 0 2 0 120
17:15 3 22 0 13 0 4 2 36 16 0 0 0 96
17:30 3 16 0 10 0 6 2 26 19 0 0 0 82
17:45 1 14 0 3 1 4 2 25 14 0 0 0 64
Total 15 146 0 84 2 35 13 233 162 0 2 0 692
Approach% 9.3 90.7 - 69.4 1.7 28.9 3.2 57.1 39.7 - 100.0 - Total% 2.8 27.0 - 15.6 0.4 6.5 2.4 43.1 30.0 - 0.4 -
PM Intersection Peak Hour:
Volume 7 75 - 52 - 20 9 127 91 - 2 - 383
Approach% 8.5 91.5 - 72.2 - 27.8 4.0 55.9 40.1 - 100.0 - Total% 2.2 23.7 - 16.5 - 6.3 2.8 40.2 28.8 - 0.6 -
PHF 0.82 0.67 0.81 0.25
16:45 to 17:45
#09 ITM-18-015-09
Lake Canyon Road / Fanita Parkway LLG Ref. 3-15-2462
Westbound Northbound Eastbound
Fanita Ranch
Fanita Parkway
Southbound
-
Southbound
Westbound
Lake Canyon Road
Northbound
Fanita Parkway
Eastbound
-
08:00 to 09:00
AM
Wednesday, January 31, 2018
PM
Fanita Parkway Lake Canyon Road Fanita Parkway
Report Generated by Bearcat Enterprises LLC, DBA "Count Data" | 619-987-5136 | [email protected] Intersection Turning Movement - Peak Hour Vehicle Count Location: File Name:
Intersection: Project:
Date of Count:
B-Left B-Thru B-Right B-Left B-Thru B-Right B-Left B-Thru B-Right B-Left B-Thru B-Right Bicycle 7:00 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 4
7:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
7:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
8:15 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
8:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped Total
Bike Total 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 7
B-Left B-Thru B-Right B-Left B-Thru B-Right B-Left B-Thru B-Right B-Left B-Thru B-Right Bicycle 16:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
16:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
16:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
16:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
17:00 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
17:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
17:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
17:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped Total
Bike Total 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
1 45 1 88
3 0 0 0 3
2 19
17 5
#09 ITM-18-015-09
Lake Canyon Road / Fanita Parkway LLG Ref. 3-15-2462
0 0 2 0
8 0 11 0
6 0 11 0
9 0 1 1 11
5 0 12 0 17
Ped
6 1 7 0 14
AM
Wednesday, January 31, 2018 Fanita Ranch
Ped Ped Ped Ped
3 8
Ped
11 Lake Canyon Road
Southbound
0 0
4 0
5 12
Fanita Parkway
2 Fanita Parkway
Northbound
Ped
2 2
1 0
Westbound
Ped
1 0
2 0
0 7
12 -
Eastbound
Ped
2 0
0 Totals
7 Ped
6 4
1 9
0 0
4 20
47 2 17 3
0 0
2 0
69 1
2 8
PM
Fanita Parkway Lake Canyon Road Fanita Parkway - Totals Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound 4 0 1 0
41 Intersection Turning Movement - Bicycle & Pedestrian Count Report Generated by Bearcat Enterprises LLC, DBA "Count Data" | 619-987-5136 | [email protected] Location: File Name:
Intersection: Project:
Date of Count:
-
17 / 45
AM: 0 40 74 1 Fanita Parkway PM: 9 127 91 0
PM: 1 0 75 7
47 / 41 Lake Canyon Road AM: 88 0 9 0 PM: 52 0 20 0 3 / 1 PM: 0 2 0 0 AM: 0 0 0 3 Time Period AM = 08:00 to 09:00
PM = 16:45 to 17:45 2 / 1
Report Generated by Bearcat Enterprises LLC, DBA "Count Data" | 619-987-5136 | [email protected] Intersection Turning Movement - Peak Hour Summary
#09 ITM-18-015-09
Lake Canyon Road / Fanita Parkway LLG Ref. 3-15-2462
Wednesday, January 31, 2018 Fanita Ranch
N Fanita Parkway AM: 3 0 102 3
ATTACHMENT B
PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
– EXISTING & EXISTING + PROJECT
HCM 6th AWSC Existing AM
1: Fanita Pkwy & Lake Canyon Rd 11/19/2021
West Lake Canyon Road Subdivision Synchro 10 Report
3-21-3483 Page 1
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.3
Intersection LOS A
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 92 9 42 78 3 107
Future Vol, veh/h 92 9 42 78 3 107
Peak Hour Factor 0.69 0.69 0.70 0.70 0.91 0.91
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 133 13 60 111 3 118
Number of Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 1
Approach WB NB SB
Opposing Approach SB NB
Opposing Lanes 0 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left NB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 0 1
Conflicting Approach Right SB WB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 0
HCM Control Delay 8.8 8 8.3
HCM LOS A A A
Lane NBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 0% 91% 3%
Vol Thru, % 35% 0% 97%
Vol Right, % 65% 9% 0%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 120 101 110
LT Vol 0 92 3
Through Vol 42 0 107
RT Vol 78 9 0
Lane Flow Rate 171 146 121
Geometry Grp 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.192 0.191 0.15
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.039 4.69 4.473
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes
Cap 890 766 803
Service Time 2.056 2.712 2.492
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.192 0.191 0.151
HCM Control Delay 8 8.8 8.3
HCM Lane LOS A A A
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.7 0.7 0.5
HCM 6th AWSC Existing PM
1: Fanita Pkwy & Lake Canyon Rd 11/19/2021
West Lake Canyon Road Subdivision Synchro 10 Report
3-21-3483 Page 1
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.7
Intersection LOS A
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 55 21 133 96 7 79
Future Vol, veh/h 55 21 133 96 7 79
Peak Hour Factor 0.67 0.67 0.81 0.81 0.82 0.82
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 82 31 164 119 9 96
Number of Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 1
Approach WB NB SB
Opposing Approach SB NB
Opposing Lanes 0 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left NB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 0 1
Conflicting Approach Right SB WB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 0
HCM Control Delay 8.6 9 8.2
HCM LOS A A A
Lane NBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 0% 72% 8%
Vol Thru, % 58% 0% 92%
Vol Right, % 42% 28% 0%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 229 76 86
LT Vol 0 55 7
Through Vol 133 0 79
RT Vol 96 21 0
Lane Flow Rate 283 113 105
Geometry Grp 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.32 0.149 0.131
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.079 4.742 4.513
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes
Cap 885 758 796
Service Time 2.093 2.765 2.531
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.32 0.149 0.132
HCM Control Delay 9 8.6 8.2
HCM Lane LOS A A A
HCM 95th-tile Q 1.4 0.5 0.4
HCM 6th AWSC Existing + Project AM
1: Fanita Pkwy & Lake Canyon Rd 11/22/2021
West Lake Canyon Road Subdivision Synchro 10 Report
3-21-3483 Page 1
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.4
Intersection LOS A
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 97 9 42 80 3 107
Future Vol, veh/h 97 9 42 80 3 107
Peak Hour Factor 0.69 0.69 0.70 0.70 0.91 0.91
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 141 13 60 114 3 118
Number of Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 1
Approach WB NB SB
Opposing Approach SB NB
Opposing Lanes 0 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left NB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 0 1
Conflicting Approach Right SB WB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 0
HCM Control Delay 8.9 8.1 8.3
HCM LOS A A A
Lane NBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 0% 92% 3%
Vol Thru, % 34% 0% 97%
Vol Right, % 66% 8% 0%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 122 106 110
LT Vol 0 97 3
Through Vol 42 0 107
RT Vol 80 9 0
Lane Flow Rate 174 154 121
Geometry Grp 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.196 0.201 0.151
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.057 4.702 4.497
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes
Cap 887 765 799
Service Time 2.074 2.724 2.516
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.196 0.201 0.151
HCM Control Delay 8.1 8.9 8.3
HCM Lane LOS A A A
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.7 0.7 0.5
HCM 6th AWSC Existing + Project PM
1: Fanita Pkwy & Lake Canyon Rd 11/22/2021
West Lake Canyon Road Subdivision Synchro 10 Report
3-21-3483 Page 1
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.8
Intersection LOS A
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 58 21 133 102 7 79
Future Vol, veh/h 58 21 133 102 7 79
Peak Hour Factor 0.67 0.67 0.81 0.81 0.82 0.82
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 87 31 164 126 9 96
Number of Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 1
Approach WB NB SB
Opposing Approach SB NB
Opposing Lanes 0 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left NB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 0 1
Conflicting Approach Right SB WB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 0
HCM Control Delay 8.7 9.1 8.2
HCM LOS A A A
Lane NBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 0% 73% 8%
Vol Thru, % 57% 0% 92%
Vol Right, % 43% 27% 0%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 235 79 86
LT Vol 0 58 7
Through Vol 133 0 79
RT Vol 102 21 0
Lane Flow Rate 290 118 105
Geometry Grp 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.329 0.156 0.132
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.083 4.767 4.532
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes
Cap 882 753 792
Service Time 2.099 2.792 2.554
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.329 0.157 0.133
HCM Control Delay 9.1 8.7 8.2
HCM Lane LOS A A A
HCM 95th-tile Q 1.4 0.6 0.5
600 B Street, Suite 2000, San Diego, CA 92101 p: 619.236.1778 f: 619.236.1179 www.WeAreHarris.com December 9, 2021
Doug Thomson
Senior Planner
City of Santee
10601 North Magnolia Avenue
Santee, California 92071
Subject: 9-Lot Subdivision TM 2021-1
Dear Mr. Thomson:
Harris & Associates has completed an air quality and noise preliminary review of the proposed 9-lot subdivision at the intersection of Fanita Parkway and Lake Canyon Road. The site is surrounded to the north, east, and south by existing residential development. Therefore, the proposed residential use would be compatible with existing surrounding uses. Typical residences are anticipated that would not result in a new source of air toxics, odor, or stationary noise sources that would significantly impact surrounding sensitive receptors.
The main source of criteria pollutant air emissions and permanent noise increases from residential development is new vehicle emissions. The San Diego Association of Governments’ (Not So) Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates For The San Diego Region (2002) estimates that a 9-lot subdivision would generate approximately 90 average daily vehicle trips, based on a daily trip rate of 10 trips per residential unit. Based on our experience with similarly sized projects, an increase of 90 daily trips would not result in a significant increase in criteria pollutant emissions or vehicle noise.
For scale, the County of San Diego has established air quality study trigger criteria in the Report Format and Content Requirements – Air Quality (2007). Projects under the trigger criteria would not be expected to result in operational emissions that would exceed the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District’s daily emissions thresholds, which are also applicable in Santee. A 9-lot subdivision is well below the trigger criteria of 300 units for single-family residential development.
Regarding noise, the Transportation Impact Analysis – Fanita Ranch (Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers 2020) and Noise Technical Report – Fanita Ranch (Harris & Associates 2020) determined that the segments of Fanita Parkway north and south of Lake Canyon Road currently experience 2,610 and 3,860 vehicle trips, respectively, and do not generate noise levels that exceed the City of Santee’s noise compatibility standard of 65 A-weighted decibel (dBA) Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) for residential development. Based on standard noise modeling equations adapted from the Federal Highway Administration’s noise prediction model, an additional 90 vehicle trips on Fanita Parkway would result in a minimal noise increase and would not cause noise levels on Fanita Parkway in the vicinity of the project to exceed 65 dBA CNEL.
Based on the above review of the proposed 9-lot subdivision, it is our professional opinion that the proposed development would not result in significant noise or air quality impacts.
Sincerely,
Sharon Toland
Senior Technical Specialist, Air Quality and Noise