Santee City Council
February 26, 2025

4.19 Wildfire
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR

4.19-4

4.19.2.2 Regional
County of San Diego Code of Regulatory Ordinances, Removal of Fire Hazard (Section

96.1.005 and 96.1.202)
The County Fire Authority, in partnership with CAL FIRE, the Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S. Forest Service, is responsible for the enforcement of defensible space inspections.

Inspectors are responsible for ensuring that adequate defensible space has been created and maintained around structures. City businesses are required to undergo an annual fire prevention inspection. These inspections are to ensure compliance with fire codes and City Fire Code Amendments. Inspections provide an opportunity for the City's fire personnel to identify potential ignition sources of fire prior to an event and to familiarize themselves with various building layouts throughout the City. The City contracts with Fire Prevention Services to perform routine defensible space inspections and the program is managed by Code Compliance in Santee. If violations of the program requirements are noted, inspectors list the required corrective measures and provide a reasonable time frame in which to complete the task. If violations still exist upon re-inspection, the local fire inspector will forward a complaint to the County for further enforcement action.

San Diego County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan The purpose of the County’s Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MHMP) is to identify the County’s hazards, review and assess past disaster occurrences, estimate the probability of future occurrences, and set goals to mitigate potential risks to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people and property from natural and human-made hazards. The City participates in the MHMP (County 2023b). An important component of the plan is the Community Emergency Response Team, which educates community members about disaster preparedness and trains them in basic response skills, such as fire safety, light search and rescue, and disaster medical operations. The City is one of 20 jurisdictions that support and participate in the team.

County of San Diego Emergency Operations Plan
The County’s Emergency Operations Plan dictates who is responsible for an evacuation effort and how regional resources will be requested and coordinated. First responders are responsible for determining initial protective actions before the Emergency Operations Center and emergency management personnel have an opportunity to convene and gain situational awareness. Initial protective actions are shared and communicated to local Emergency Operations Centers and necessary support agencies as soon as possible to ensure an effective, coordinated evacuation.

During an evacuation effort, the designated County Evacuation Coordinator is the County Sheriff, who is also the Law Enforcement Coordinator. The County Evacuation Coordinator is assisted by other law enforcement and support agencies.

4.19.2.3 Local
Santee Emergency Operations Plan
On August 12, 2020, the City Council approved the updated City Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) to provide a framework to use in performing emergency functions before, during, and after an emergency event, natural disaster, or technological incident. The EOP is based on the San Diego County Operational Area Emergency Plan, but designed to meet the needs of the City with respect to organizational structure and the City’s top hazards. This plan establishes the emergency organization and addresses the coordination of emergency response activities. The

4.19 Wildfire
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR

4.19-5
goal of this plan is to provide for a coordinated effective response to ensure the protection of life, property, and the environment. The EOP is based on a whole community approach. This concept is a process by which residents, emergency management representatives, organizational and community leaders, and government officials can understand and assess the needs of their respective communities and determine the best ways to organize and strengthen their resources, capacities, and interests. Under the EOP, the Santee Fire Department and Sheriff’s Department (as the City’s contracted law enforcement service provider) work together to provide coordinated training on procedures and processes for managing emergency incidents.

General Plan
The City’s General Plan Safety Element contains policies related to the reduction of loss of life, injuries, and damage to property resulting from fire. Relevant policies are listed below.

Safety Element
• Policy 4.1: Proposed development should be approved only after it is determined that there will be adequate water pressure to maintain the required fire flow at the time of development.
• Policy 4.2: The City should ensure that all new development meets established response time standards for fire and life safety services.
• Policy 4.4: The City shall require emergency access routes in all developments to be adequately wide to allow the entry and maneuvering of emergency vehicles. • Policy 4.7: The City shall ensure that the distribution of fire hydrants and capacity of water lines is adequate through periodic review.
• Policy 4.8: Encourage and support the delivery of a high level of emergency services through cooperation with other agencies and use of available financial opportunities. • Policy 4.9: All proposed development shall satisfy the minimum structural fire protection standards contained in the adopted edition of the Uniform Fire and Building Codes; however, where deemed appropriate the City shall enhance the minimum standards to provide optimum protection.
• Policy 4.10: Encourage the continued development, implementation, and public awareness of fire prevention programs.
• Policy 4.12: The timing of additional fire station construction or renovation, or new services shall relate to the rise of service demand in the City and surrounding areas. • Policy 4.15: In order to minimize fire hazards the Santee Fire and Life Safety Department shall routinely be involved in the review of development applications. Considerations shall be given to adequate emergency access, driveway widths, turning radii, fire hydrant locations and needed fire flow requirements.

4.19 Wildfire
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR

4.19-6
Municipal Code
Chapter 11.18 of the Santee Municipal Code (SMC) adopts the 2022 California Fire Code, Part 9, Title 24, of the California Code of Regulations. The California Fire Code includes regulations requiring all new commercial or residential development to install sprinkler systems, the minimum required unobstructed street widths for fire apparatus access, and requirements that include a Fire Protection Plan for development in WUI. The City requires a minimum of 26 feet width for fire apparatus access roadways throughout the City, which is more restrictive than the California Fire Code. Ordinance 605 amended the SMC to formally adopt the 2022 California Fire Code as the City’s Fire Code.

4.19.3 Significance Determination Thresholds
Consistent with Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, impacts related to wildfire would be significant if the project is located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones and the project would:
1) Threshold 1: Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
2) Threshold 2: Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or uncontrolled spread of wildfire.
3) Threshold 3: 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. 4) Threshold 4: Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope stability, or drainage changes.

4.19.4 Methodology
The impact evaluation of potential impacts associated with wildfire consisted of a review of secondary sources, including the City’s adopted VHFHSZ map.

4.19.5 Issue 1: Emergency Response Plans
Would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

4.19.5.1 Impact Analysis
TCSP Area and AEN
The TCSP, including the AEN, is not within or adjacent to the City’s VHFHSZ; however, the northeastern and southwestern portions of the TCSP area are in a wildland urban interface (WUI) zone, which includes areas close to vacant sites with vegetation susceptible to fire. At the program level, the proposed update to the TCSP, including the proposed changes to the TCSP area and the AEN, would not directly result in the construction of new housing or other development but

4.19 Wildfire
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR

4.19-7
would provide capacity for future development consistent with the TCSP, state Housing Element Law, and state density bonus law. The resulting increase in development and population concentrations within the TCSP and AEN would place some increase in demand on emergency evacuation facilities and services. At the program level, the project would also result in changes in the City’s existing circulation network, consisting of plans for roadways and updated roadway facility guidelines and standards establishing pedestrian, bicycle, transit, auto, and parking standards to facilitate connectivity throughout the TCSP area and the AEN.

Emergency response in the City and the TCSP area and AEN is guided by regional and local plans and policies as described in the regulatory framework above and are focused on preparing local resources and training to respond to emergencies. The land uses and anticipated development within the TCSP area and AEN would continue to guide development within the area and would not include land uses that would impair implementation of or physically interfere with the City’s emergency response efforts or evacuation routes. Furthermore, applications for future projects within the TCSP area and AEN would be reviewed and approved by the City’s Fire Department prior to issuance of building permits to ensure consistency with fire standards and regulations. Additionally, future development would be required to adhere to the City’s General Plan (Safety Element) policies including, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.11, and 4.12 which address emergency response and emergency evacuation. Future development within the TCSP area and AEN would not conflict with emergency response and impacts would be less than significant.

Housing Element Sites
At the project level, development at Housing Element sites 16A, 16B, 20A, and 20B would also result in an increase in development and population concentrations in the southeastern part of the AEN. However, development at the Housing Element sites would not be within a VHFHSZ or include land uses that would impair implementation of or physically interfere with the City’s emergency response efforts or evacuation routes. Temporary construction and development of Housing Element sites 16A, 16B, 20A, and 20B would not conflict with emergency response and impacts would be less than significant.

4.19.5.2 Mitigation Measures
TCSP Area, AEN, and Housing Element Sites
No mitigation is required.

4.19.5.3 Significance After Mitigation
TCSP Area, AEN, and Housing Element Sites
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.

4.19 Wildfire
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR

4.19-8

4.19.6 Issue 2: Wildfire
Would the project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or uncontrolled spread of wildfire?

4.19.6.1 Impact Analysis
TCSP Area and AEN
The TCSP area and AEN are within an urbanized part of the City and are generally not located near areas of wildfire risk. None of the programmatic elements of the project are located within the CAL FIRE VHFHSZ; however, portions of the TCSP area are in a WUI zone (see Section 4.9).

Additional development will occur within this WUI zone. Fire safety in general would be addressed by the City’s General Plan policies 4.2 through 4.13 which 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 projects would require review by the Building Official/Fire Marshal that would include review of defensible space and other wildfire protection/preventative measures. Significant impacts related to exacerbating a wildfire risk would not occur in the TCSP area or AEN.

Housing Element Sites
The Housing Element sites are located in the southeastern part of the AEN on vacant and graded sites that are generally flat and located along existing roadways and near existing developed areas. None of the sites are located near slopes or other factors that would exacerbate wildfire risks. Building and occupancy permits for future use of the Housing Element sites would include review for fire safety by the Building Official/Fire Marshal. Significant impacts related to exacerbating a wildfire risk would not occur within the Housing Element sites.

4.19.6.2 Mitigation Measures
TCSP Area, AEN, and Housing Element Sites
No mitigation is required.

4.19.6.3 Significance After Mitigation
TCSP Area, AEN, and Housing Element Sites
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.

4.19 Wildfire
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR

4.19-9

4.19.7 Issue 3: Infrastructure
Would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?

4.19.7.1 Impact Analysis
TCSP Area and AEN
The proposed project identifies new roadways and pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and other infrastructure and public facilities improvements throughout the TCSP area, including the AEN.

The proposed TCSP Chapter 4, Infrastructure and Public Utilities, discusses the water, wastewater, and stormwater facilities that would continue to serve the TCSP area and AEN. The project is not located within the CAL FIRE VHFHSZ and none of the required infrastructure needed to serve future development within the TCSP area or the AEN would exacerbate fire risk or result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. Impacts would be less than significant on the TCSP area and AEN.

Housing Element Sites
Development of Housing Element sites 16A, 16B, 20A, and 20B would rely on existing infrastructure in the area such as roads, utilities and emergency services. None of the Housing Element sites would require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk and impacts in the Housing Element sites would be less than significant.

4.19.7.2 Mitigation Measures
TCSP Area, AEN, and Housing Element Sites
No mitigation is required.

4.19.7.3 Significance After Mitigation
TCSP Area, AEN, and Housing Element Sites
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.

4.19.8 Issue 4: Flooding or Landslides
Would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope stability, or drainage changes?

4.19.8.1 Impact Analysis
TCSP Area and AEN
Wildfires can greatly reduce the amount of vegetation on hillsides. Slope failures, mudflows, and landslides are common in areas where steep hillsides and embankments are present, and such conditions would be exacerbated in a post-fire environment where vegetative cover has been

4.19 Wildfire
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR

4.19-10
removed. The TCSP area, including the AEN, is generally flat and surrounds the San Diego River.

CAL FIRE mapping data indicates low to moderate erosion potential within the City limits. As discussed in EIR Section 4.10 and 4.7, future development within the TCSP area and AEN would not result in significant changes to runoff, slope stability, landslides, erosion, or drainage, and impacts would be less than significant.

Housing Element Sites
The Housing Element sites are in the southeastern part of the AEN on vacant and graded areas that do not have high erosion potential. None of the sites are located near slopes or other factors that would expose people or structures to downslope or downstream flooding risks or landslides.

Housing Element sites 16A and 20A are near the San Diego River and are identified as partially within flood hazard areas of the San Diego River; however, as discussed in EIR Section 4.10, development of the Housing Element sites would not result in significant changes to runoff, slope stability, or drainage on either site, and impacts associated with the Housing Element sites would be less than significant.

4.19.8.2 Mitigation Measures
TCSP Area, AEN, and Housing Element Sites
No mitigation is required.

4.19.8.3 Significance After Mitigation
TCSP Area, AEN, and Housing Element Sites
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.

5.0 Significant Unavoidable Environmental Effects/
Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
5-1

5.0 Significant Unavoidable Environmental Effects/
Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15126.2 (c) and (d) require that the significant unavoidable impacts of the project, as well as any significant irreversible environmental changes that would result from project implementation, be addressed in an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

5.1 Significant Environmental Effects Which Cannot Be Avoided if the Project is Implemented
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2 (c) any significant unavoidable impacts of a project, including those impacts that can be mitigated but not reduced to below a level of significance despite the applicant’s willingness to implement all feasible mitigation measures, must be identified in the EIR. Implementation of the Town Center Specific Plan (TCSP) area, Arts and Entertainment Neighborhood (AEN), and Housing Element sites (project) would result in significant unavoidable impacts to air quality (net increases of criteria pollutants at the program level only), and hazards and land use (potential conflicts with airport hazards), noise (potential for future outdoor performance noise levels to exceed 60 dBA), and traffic (vehicle miles traveled [VMT) at the program and project levels. All other significant impacts identified in Chapter 4.0, Environmental Analysis, of this EIR can be reduced to below a level of significance with implementation of the mitigation framework provided in Chapter 4.0 of this EIR.

5.2 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes Which Would Result if the Project is Implemented
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2 (d) requires an evaluation of significant irreversible environmental changes. Examples of possible irreversible changes include:
• Primary impacts such as the use of nonrenewable resources (i.e., biological habitat, agricultural land, mineral deposits, water bodies, energy resources and cultural resources);
• Secondary impacts, which would generally commit future generations to similar uses (such as highway improvements that provide access to a previously inaccessible areas); and
• Environmental accidents potentially associated with buildout of the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites.

5.2.1 Non-renewable Resources
The majority of the TCSP area and AEN are located within existing developed or disturbed areas; however, the Housing Element sites are located on vacant land with potentially sensitive resources present. While the potential for impacts to biological habitat and cultural resources is low, there is a potential for impacts to resources at certain sites. Biological and cultural resource impacts associated with future development would be mitigated to a level less than significant, as described in Sections 4.4 and 4.5. The potential for paleontological resources impacts to occur associated with future development at the Housing Element sites would be mitigated to less than

5.0 Significant Unavoidable Environmental Effects/
Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
5-2
significant (Section 4.7) with implementation of a mitigation framework that would ensure paleontological monitoring is required (where appropriate). Implementation of the project would result in less than significant impacts to water bodies (drainage and water quality) as described in Section 4.10.

As described in Section 4.2, the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program 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. Portions of the project area 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.

Although portions of the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites in the vicinity of the San Diego River are located within a Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ) 2 designated area, these areas are not zoned for mining operations and no mining operations exist within the sites. 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 project area is not designated as locally important mineral resource recovery sites in the City’s 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.

With regard to energy resources, actions related to future development would result in an irretrievable commitment of nonrenewable resources, including energy supplies and construction materials, such as lumber, steel and aggregate. Non-renewable energy resources (coal, natural gas, oil) would be used in construction, heating and refrigeration of food and water, transportation, lighting, and other associated energy needs.

Residential and mixed-use development anticipated within the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites, together with other projects in the City, would require the commitment or destruction of other nonrenewable and slowly renewable resources. These resources include (but are not limited to) lumber and other forested products; sand and gravel; asphalt; petrochemical construction materials; steel, copper, lead, other metals; and water. However, the amount and rate of consumption of these resources would not result in significant environmental impacts because multi-family and mixed-use development are not uses that are associated with an unnecessary, inefficient, or wasteful use of resources.

As described previously, the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites are mainly developed with existing commercial uses or located on underutilized residential sites. Development in these areas would reinvigorate underutilized areas by allowing new residential uses in close proximity to commercial services and community facilities, while preserving established residential neighborhoods. Most of the project areas are presently developed. Development on vacant parcels would, however, result in the long term commitment to urbanization because reversion back to vacant land would be difficult and highly unlikely. However, the development of mid- to high-density residential units or mixed uses would result in an efficient provision of housing and efficient land use pattern.

In summary, future construction and operation associated with implementation of the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites would result in the irretrievable commitment of limited, slowly

5.0 Significant Unavoidable Environmental Effects/
Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
5-3
renewable, and nonrenewable resources, which would limit the availability of these particular resource quantities for future generations or for other uses. Therefore, although irreversible environmental changes would result from future development, such changes would not be considered significant.

5.2.2 Secondary Impacts
The TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites are accessible via major roadways (e.g., State Routes (SR) 52, 67, and 125, as well as numerous arterials and local streets) and are served by existing utilities, and other public services. As a result, secondary impacts are not anticipated from environmental changes resulting from the construction of new infrastructure, as discussed in Sections 4.14 and 4.18.

5.2.3 Environmental Accidents
The CEQA Guidelines also require a discussion of the potential for irreversible environmental damage caused by an accident associated with the project. As described in Section 4.9, implementation of the proposed project would allow for the development of residential and mixeduses (including commercial uses) that commonly store, use, and dispose of hazardous materials.

Likewise, industries and businesses using hazardous materials may expand or increase to accommodate the projected population growth under buildout of the project.

Due to the nature of past and current land uses, future development/redevelopment within the City has the potential to expose people and the environment to hazards through the routine transport, use, disposal, or accidental release of hazardous materials. Businesses that are likely to store hazardous substances and petroleum products or generate waste include the following:
gasoline service stations, automobile repair facilities, dry cleaning facilities, photograph developing facilities, and medical and dental facilities. While none of these uses are explicitly planned in the TCSP area, AEN, or Housing Element sites, future projects could propose these uses.

All future projects would be subject to review to ensure conformance with the Municipal Code, General Plan policies, and regulations imposed by federal, state, and local agencies. Compliance with applicable federal, state, and local hazardous materials regulations such as the Chemical Accident Prevention Provision, Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, the California Health and Safety Code, California Code of Regulations Title 23, the Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act, California Accidental Release Prevention Program, and the California Emergency Services Act would ensure that buildout of the Housing Element sites would not result in irreversible environmental damage related to the accidental release of hazardous materials.

5.0 Significant Unavoidable Environmental Effects/
Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
5-4
This page intentionally left blank

6.0 Growth Inducement
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
6-1

6.0 Growth Inducement
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that an environmental impact report (EIR) evaluate the “growth-inducing” effects of a proposed project. Specifically, CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(e) requires that an EIR:

Discuss the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Included in this are projects which would remove obstacles to population growth (for example, a major expansion of a wastewater treatment plant might, for example, allow for more construction in service areas). Increases in the population might tax existing community services facilities, requiring construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental effects. Also discuss the characteristics of some projects which may encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively. It must not be assumed that growth in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment.

A project can directly or indirectly induce growth. Construction of new housing would directly induce population growth. Also, if a project creates substantial new permanent employment opportunities, it could indirectly induce growth by stimulating the need for additional housing and services to support the new employment demand. It could also indirectly induce growth by removing infrastructure limitations or regulatory constraints on a required public service, such as roads or water service. The following section analyzes potential impacts that could result from growth inducing conditions from the update to the City of Santee’s (City) Town Center Specific Plan (TCSP; project).

6.1 Population and Housing Growth
The project would result in the expansion of the boundaries of the overall TCSP area and create updated development standards and conceptual development plans and Objective Design Standards for Housing Element sites. Buildout of the TCSP would result in an increase of approximately 3,140 dwelling units and 2,148,864 square feet (sf) of non-residential development in the TCSP area. Of that growth, 1,480 dwelling units and 1,792,103 sf of non-residential development would be within the Arts and Entertainment Neighborhood (AEN). Development at Housing Element sites 16A, 16B, 20A, and 20B would result in an increase of 1,480 dwelling units and 389,651 sf of non-residential development pursuant to the maximum densities permitted in the City’s adopted 6th Cycle Housing Element and state density bonus assumptions. Nonresidential development throughout the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites would generally be composed of local neighborhood-serving retail and office uses, intended to serve the residents of new and existing housing in the immediate area. The potential for new residential and non-residential development within the TCSP area would foster economic growth consistent with the City’s General Plan (see EIR Section 4.13.5 for more discussion on population growth).

Buildout of the TCSP would therefore be consistent with existing projections for development in the City and would not be considered growth inducing in regard to significant economic or employment growth.

6.2 Removal of an Impediment to Growth
The project does not propose the construction or expansion of new services or infrastructure to currently unserved or undeveloped areas; rather it would update the TCSP to facilitate

6.0 Growth Inducement
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
6-2
development and supporting infrastructure consistent with the City’s General Plan, including its most recently adopted Housing Element. A vast majority of the permitted future residential and mixed-use development would occur as infill development and redevelopment within the urbanized TCSP area, which is already served by essential roads, utilities, and public services.

Therefore, the project would not remove an impediment to growth.

6.3 Foster Economic or Employment Growth
Buildout of the TCSP area would result in an increase of approximately 2,148,864 sf of nonresidential development in the TCSP area, including 1,792,103 sf of non-residential development within the AEN. Development at Housing Element sites 16A, 16B, 20A, and 20B would also result in an increase of 389,651 sf of non-residential development. New non-residential development would generally be composed of local neighborhood-serving retail and office uses, intended to serve the residents of existing and planned housing in the immediate area. Economic and employment growth because of the additional development would be consistent with the City’s growth projections within their General Plan and would not be considered growth inducing in regard to significant economic or employment growth for the City.

6.4 Conclusion
Overall, the project would facilitate growth through updating the TCSP area and development standards, consistent with the City’s General Plan, including its most recently adopted Housing Element. The project would not remove an impediment to growth; nor does it propose to develop or permit the encroachment into an isolated area adjacent to open space or foster economic and employment expansion. As discussed above, the project would accommodate projected population growth and would not be considered growth inducing because it would provide residential and non-residential capacity for projected population growth. The opportunities to provide housing would be consistent with the City’s need to establish a resilient housing base for the community and to comply with state law.

7.0 Cumulative Impacts
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
7-1

7.0 Cumulative Impacts
This section addresses cumulative impacts associated with implementation of the updated City of Santee (City) Town Center Specific Plan (TCSP; project). The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15355 defines cumulative impacts as “two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.” Section 15355 further states that cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time.

Section 15130(a) of the CEQA Guidelines requires a discussion of cumulative impacts of a project “when the project’s incremental effect is cumulatively considerable.” Cumulatively considerable, as defined in Section 15065(a)(3), “means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.” According to Section 15130(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, the discussion of cumulative effects “… need not provide as great a detail as is provided for the effects attributable to the project alone.

The discussion should be guided by standards of practicality and reasonableness…” The evaluation of cumulative impacts is to be based on either (a) “a list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those impacts outside the control of the agency,” or (b) “a summary of projections contained in an adopted local, regional, or statewide plan or related planning document, that describes or evaluates conditions contributing to the cumulative effect… Any such planning document shall be referenced and made available to the public at a location specified by the Lead Agency” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b)(1)). Pursuant to Section 15130(d), cumulative impact discussions may rely on previously approved land use documents such as general plans, specific plans, and local coastal plans, which may be incorporated by reference.

7.1 Cumulative Analysis Setting and Methodology
The project includes a comprehensive update to the TCSP area boundaries and development standards, adjustments to the boundaries of the Arts and Entertainment Neighborhood (AEN), as well as conceptual development plans for Housing Element sites 16A, 16B, 20A, and 20B.

Therefore, cumulative effects would occur from development associated with buildout of the TCSP area combined with effects of projected development on land within and around the City.

The cumulative impacts of the project would, therefore, consider growth projected by the City and surrounding jurisdictions, including the cities of San Diego and El Cajon, and the County of San Diego (County). A broad examination of cumulative impacts involves considering buildout of the project together with growth and new development in the surrounding jurisdictions identified above.

The geographic area considered for each cumulative impact depends upon the impact that is being analyzed. For example, in assessing air quality impacts, all development within the air basin contributes to regional emissions of criteria pollutants, and basin wide projections of emissions are the best tool for determining the cumulative effect. Each subsection below identifies the specific parameters for the cumulative evaluation.

A significant impact would occur if the project’s contribution to a significant cumulative effect is determined to be substantial. Each subsection below provides an overview of the potential cumulative impacts that could occur followed by a summary of the project’s contribution to that

7.0 Cumulative Impacts
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
7-2
cumulative effect. The subsection concludes with a determination of the significance of the project.

7.1.1 Plans and Programs Evaluated for Determination of Cumulative Impacts Multiple federal, state, and local planning documents and programs were used to evaluate the project’s contribution to cumulative impacts. These plans and programs are discussed under the Regulatory Framework subsections throughout Chapter 4.0. Highlighted below are a number of regional and City plans and programs relied upon throughout the cumulative evaluation.

San Diego Forward: The 2021 Regional Plan
San Diego Forward combines and updates the region’s two big picture planning documents: the Regional Comprehensive Plan and the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Community Strategy. San Diego Forward provides a vision for the region’s growth through the year 2050. The plan reflects a strategy for a more sustainable future.

General Plan
The City’s General Plan, including the adopted and certified 2021-2029 Housing Element, serves as a blueprint for physical development and contains goals and policies, which aim to enhance the City’s character, to provide a balance of land uses and services, and to preserve environmentally sensitive areas.

Municipal Code
The Santee Municipal Code (SMC) contains the primary zoning implementation mechanisms for the General Plan Land Use Element. The zoning ordinance classifies and regulates the uses of land and structures within the City, consistent with the General Plan. The Zoning Code (Title 13) is adopted to protect and to promote the public health, safety, comfort, convenience, prosperity, and general welfare of residents and businesses in the City. The City’s Zoning Code also regulates the physical development of land by imposing minimum standards on lot size, lot width and depth, setbacks, and by placing maximum limits on lot coverage and floor area ratio. These development standards are intended to reduce unacceptable mass and bulk, ensure proper scale of development, provide minimum light, air, and open space for every lot, and minimize the potential for spillover and edge effects between uses.

7.2 Cumulative Effect Analysis

7.2.1 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
The study area for the assessment of cumulative agriculture and forestry resources impacts is limited to the TCSP area as areas surrounding the TCSP are generally urbanized and while much of the City and surrounding areas were once used for agricultural production and grazing, there is no active agricultural uses or operations in the TCSP area or surrounding areas. As the majority of the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites have been part of the TCSP since its adoption in 1986, the project site has been identified for urban development and not been used for agricultural use or contained forestry resources.

7.0 Cumulative Impacts
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
7-3
Project approval would result in the expansion of the boundaries of the overall TCSP area and updated development standards, as well as conceptual development plans and Objective Design Standards for Housing Element sites. As noted in Table 4.2-1 in EIR Section 4.2, portions of the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element Sites 16A and 16B are designated as Farmland of Local Importance; however, these areas are not in active agricultural use and are identified for residential and non-residential development in the existing and proposed TCSP. As there are no active or planned agricultural uses or forestry resources in the TCSP area or nearby surrounding urban areas, the project would not contribute to a cumulative agricultural and forestry resources impact.

Overall, future development in the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites, combined with development in the surrounding cumulative study areas, would not result in a cumulatively significant agricultural and forestry resources impact due to the mostly urbanized and nonagricultural nature of the cumulative study area. Thus, the project’s incremental contribution to agricultural and forestry resources impacts would not be cumulatively considerable and cumulative agricultural and forestry resources impacts would be less than significant.

7.2.2 Aesthetics
The study area for the assessment of cumulative visual impacts includes the entirety of the City as well as parts of the surrounding cities within viewshed of the TCSP area and AEN including the City of El Cajon to the south and southwest, the City of San Diego to the west and northwest, and the County of San Diego to the east and northeast. The project is the update to the TCSP that is part of the City’s General Plan. Future development within the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites could have a cumulative impact on visual resources due to changes in the existing visual quality and aesthetics resulting from incremental increases in density and urbanization. This growth could gradually alter the visual nature of the study area. The following is a summary of the project’s contribution to cumulative aesthetic impacts.

The most noticeable visual changes would occur with development of vacant and underutilized sites within the TCSP area that is surrounded by residential and commercial development.

Development of the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites would be consistent with the visual quality and character of surrounding development based on application of required design review and consistency with SMC standards, including those provided in the TCSP. Additionally, some of the underutilized sites consist of aging structures with poor visual quality, and redevelopment of these structures would result in new residential structures developed consistent with the visual requirements of the SMC. Furthermore, development of vacant and underutilized sites within the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites would be required to adhere to the land use plan in the TCSP.

Regarding public views, the TCSP area involves a majority of the central portion of the City.

Development within the TCSP area 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 could affect views. Future development would be required to adhere to relevant portions of the SMC including Chapter 13.08, et seq., which establishes the City’s Development review procedures, including the supplemental development regulations of the proposed TCSP. The Development review process would ensure that future development would not degrade scenic vistas and views and, therefore, there would be no substantial cumulative obstruction of public views.

7.0 Cumulative Impacts
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
7-4
Regarding light pollution, development with the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites would be required to comply with the 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 City’s General Plan 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.

Overall, future development in the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites, combined with development in the surrounding cumulative study areas, would not result in a cumulatively significant visual impact due to the mostly urbanized nature of the cumulative study area.

Adherence to regulatory requirements including Development review consistent with SMC Chapter 13.08 implementation and proposed TCSP development regulations would ensure that future development would not substantially degrade scenic resources. Thus, the project’s incremental contribution to visual impacts would not be cumulatively considerable and cumulative visual impacts would be less than significant.

7.2.3 Air Quality
Cumulative impacts to air quality may be regional or localized. Regional air quality would be impacted if emissions from the project contributed to cumulative degradation of air quality in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB). Localized air quality would be impacted if emissions from the project and other proximate emissions sources resulted in pollutant concentrations that exceeded standards at a sensitive receptor.

The study area for the assessment of cumulative regional air quality impacts is the SDAB which is considered a nonattainment area due to exceedances of the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for ozone and inhalable particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). Future development within the SDAB could have a cumulative impact on air quality due to increased air pollution emissions associated with construction and operations, including transportation.

The cumulative assessment of regional air quality impacts to the SDAB relies partially on assessment of the project’s consistency with the adopted Regional Air Quality Strategies (RAQS) and State Implementation Plan (SIP). The RAQS and SIP are based on growth forecasts for the region, which are in turn based on maximum buildout of land uses as allowed in the adopted community and general plans. As discussed in Section 4.3.5, the project would update the TCSP but would not result in increased land use intensity compared to what is anticipated in the current TCSP, and thereby would not result in increased air emissions that not accounted for in the Attainment Plan or RAQS. The project would be consistent with adopted land use plans upon which the RAQS was based, a significant impact would not occur.

As detailed in Section 4.3.6, construction emissions associated with cumulative construction activities associated with buildout of the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites may result in some instances where future development would occur simultaneously; however, short term air quality emissions associated with construction would not cumulatively exceed the relevant thresholds. Therefore, cumulative construction-related regional air quality impacts for the TCSP, AEN, and Housing Element sites would be less than significant. Regarding cumulative operational emissions, while buildout of the project would not conflict with implementation of the RAQS, a cumulatively considerable net increase in emissions is identified for buildout of the TCSP area and AEN. The Housing Element sites are not identified to result in a cumulatively significant increase in operational emissions.

7.0 Cumulative Impacts
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
7-5
Mitigation measure AQ-1 would be applied to address significant cumulative operational impacts associated with buildout of the TCSP area and AEN. This measure would require the use of electrically powered landscape equipment; however, operational emissions would still exceed maximum daily operational emissions. Therefore, the project’s contribution to a significant cumulative effect is determined to be substantial relative to operational air quality emissions, and cumulative air quality impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

7.2.4 Biological Resources
The study area for the assessment of cumulative impacts to biological resources includes the East County inland region composed of the City and neighboring jurisdictions identified above.

As development occurs throughout this region, cumulative impacts to sensitive biological resources could occur, particularly with resources associated with the San Diego River. However, cumulative impacts are expected to be addressed and minimized through compliance with resource planning documents such as the Multiple Species Conservation Plan, draft subarea plans, Resource Protection Ordinance, and Vernal Pool Habitat Conservation Plan and applicable federal and state regulatory standards and permit requirements.

As shown on Table 4.4-1 in Section 4.4, most of the TCSP area is developed; however, wetland and upland habitats are present within the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element Site 16A.

Other biological resources have the potential to occur at any of the project areas, such as smooth tarplant and sensitive animal species. Mitigation measures BIO-1 through BIO-11 are included in Section 4.4 to mitigate potentially significant impacts to less than significant requiring focused surveys and translocation plans for smooth tarplant, exclusionary fencing, construction personnel training, revegetation requirements, pre-construction surveys, and jurisdictional waters and wetlands permitting requirements. Future development within the TCSP area and AEN, outside of the Housing Element sites, would also require a site-specific general biological resources survey in areas where the City has determined there to be potential for sensitive biological resources. For projects within the TCSP area and AEN, outside of the Housing Element sites in biologically sensitive areas, additional analysis would be required to identify the presence of sensitive species and appropriate mitigation would be applied to reduce potential impacts to less than significant. Mitigation measures in Section 4.4 address these potentially significant impacts to sensitive communities, including plant and animal species, and the project’s contribution to cumulative biological resources impacts would also be reduced to less than significant.

Impacts to state or federally protected wetlands associated with future projects within the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element Site 16A would require mitigation for future development projects. The implementation of mitigation measure BIO-6, BIO-10, and BIO-11 would reduce impacts to a level less than significant and ensure that the project would not contribute to a significant cumulative impact to biological resources.

7.2.5 Cultural Resources
The study area for the assessment of cumulative impacts to cultural resources includes the entirety of the City because loss of cultural resources associated with actions occurring in the City could affect the City’s overall historic context and setting. Future development within the cumulative study area could have a cumulative impact on cultural resources through loss of records or artifacts as land is developed (or redeveloped).

7.0 Cumulative Impacts
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
7-6
As discussed in Section 4.5, future development in accordance with the project could impact historical or archaeological resources, which may be present within the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites. Implementation of mitigation measures CUL-1 through CUL-4 would reduce impacts to cultural resources to less than significant through the requirement for historic and archaeological surveys and archaeological monitoring during grading and construction for projects. Mitigation measure CUL-5 would reduce potential historic resources impacts to the Edgemoor Polo Barn during future development of Housing Element Site 20A. Implementation of these measures would ensure that the project would not contribute to a significant cumulative impact to historical or archaeological resources.

7.2.6 Energy
The study area for energy is the San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) service area which serves the County. New development or redevelopment within the service area could result in cumulative impacts associated with additional demands for energy, resulting in the need for new or expanded facilities. As discussed in Section 4.6, future development associated with implementation of development in the TCSP area and AEN would be subject to compliance with the California Building Code (Title 24) which aims to reduce excessive and inefficient energy use. As new development and redevelopment occurs, buildings will be required to comply with the Title 24 requirements in place at the time of building permit issuance. Project adherence with state and federal regulations and the Sustainable Santee Plan goals would also guide reductions in the City’s collective long-term operational energy use. Other projects proposed in the City would similarly be required to comply with Title 24 and Sustainable Santee Plan goals. Therefore, the project would not contribute to a significant cumulative impact to energy.

7.2.7 Geology and Soils
The study area for the assessment of cumulative impacts related to geology and soils is the City.

Future development in the City would be required to adhere to regulatory requirements including the California Building Code and SMC requirements for soils engineering/engineering geology reports and erosion control plans would prevent adverse effects associated with fault rupture, ground shaking, liquefaction, or landslides. Like the project, all future development would be required to adhere to all regulations applicable to the site/zone, including Chapter 11.40 (Grading Ordinance), which include objective standards relating to the elimination or reduction of potential seismic hazards prior to the issuance of permits. Additionally, all development would be subject to General Plan policies from the Safety Element. Future development within the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites, in addition to other future development throughout the City, would be required to adhere to regulatory requirements including preparation of Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and SMC Chapter 11.40 (Grading Ordinance) to ensure that they would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Adherence to California Building Code requirements as adopted by the City would ensure that future development would not create substantial direct or indirect risks associated with expansive soils. Therefore, the project would not contribute to a significant cumulative impact to these issues.

Regarding paleontological resources, the mitigation measure GEO-1 would reduce project impacts to a less than significant level. Additionally, other development in the City would be required to implement measures identified in the City’s General Plan mitigation monitoring program for paleontological resources which would reduce impacts to a level less than significant.

All potential impacts associated with geology and soils would be reduced to less than significant levels because future development would be required to adhere to regulations and implement the General Plan EIR’s existing mitigation framework. Additionally, mitigation measure GEO-1 would

7.0 Cumulative Impacts
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
7-7
require applicants to provide information to the City regarding the paleontological sensitivity of the site. On properties determined to be moderately to highly sensitive for paleontological resources where grading would disturb sensitive formations, the ordinance shall require implementation of a mitigation plan. Therefore, implementation of mitigation measures GEO-1 and GEO-2 would ensure that the project would not contribute to a significant cumulative impact to paleontological resources.

7.2.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The analysis of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is, by its nature, a cumulative issue; thus, the study area is global in nature. The analysis provided in Section 4.8 was modeled in year 2035 to align with the Sustainable Santee Plan emission projections. The Housing Element sites were modeled in the soonest operational year in 2026.

Development of the TCSP area and AEN would result in GHG emissions; however, the project would not result in an increase in anticipated development or traffic generation nor would it result in an increase in emissions that are not already accounted for in the Sustainable Santee Plan.

However, mitigation measures GHG-1 through GHG-5 are included for the Housing Element sites to ensure implementation of identified GHG emissions strategies consistent with the Sustainable Santee Plan Project Consistency Checklist (Checklist) is completed for the Housing Element sites. Other future development within the TCSP area and AEN would be required to demonstrate compliance with Sustainable Santee Plan through completion of a Checklist.

Overall, the project would be consistent with the 2022 Scoping Plan, 2021 Regional Plan/SCS, and Sustainable Santee Plan goals and would not conflict with GHG emissions reduction plans and impacts would be less than significant. Implementation of mitigation measures GHG-1 through GHG-5 would reduce GHG impacts associated with future development at the Housing Element sites and impacts would be mitigated to less than significant. Likewise, the project’s contribution to cumulatively significant impacts associated with GHG emissions would be less than significant.

7.2.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The cumulative study area for the assessment of cumulative impacts to hazards and hazardous materials impacts is the City. As population growth increases, the number of people potentially exposed to hazards and hazardous materials would increase. The cumulative study area for airport hazards includes the entirety of the airport influence areas (AIA) for the Gillespie Field Airport and Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Miramar.

Generally, the release of hazardous materials has site-specific impacts that do not compound or increase in combination with impacts elsewhere. As discussed in Section 4.9, future development within the TCSP area, AEN, or Housing Element sites could result in hazards to the public or the environment by accidental release of hazardous materials. Mitigation measure HAZ-1 would require that future projects identify potentially hazardous conditions prior to grading, through preparation of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) and a Phase II ESA if necessary.

Remediation of any contaminated soils would be required prior to development. Additionally, cumulative projects within the region would be required to comply with applicable federal, state, and local regulations of agencies having jurisdiction over hazardous materials, including the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, County Department of Health Services, and County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health. Therefore, implementation of mitigation measure HAZ-1 would ensure that the project

7.0 Cumulative Impacts
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
7-8
would not contribute to a significant cumulative impact to hazards or the release of hazardous materials.

The Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) includes policies that are applicable within the AIA. To ensure safety compliance with the Gillespie Field ALUCP, future development must adhere to the existing City policies and regulations, and policies of the ALUCP. While the project could result in future development that could exceed the density allowed in Gillespie Field Safety Zones 3 and 4, all other projects in these safety zones would similarly be subject to ALUC review and the project’s incremental contribution to airport hazard impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. As discussed in Section 4.9, the project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with the City’s emergency response plan, evacuation routes and would not conflict with any Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan hazard mitigation goals. Furthermore, applications for all future projects within the project areas in addition to cumulative projects in the surrounding area would require review and approval by the Santee Fire Department prior to issuance of building permit. Therefore, the cumulative impacts associated with airport safety would be less than significant.

Regarding potential cumulative impacts related to wildfire, the TCSP area, including the AEN and Housing Element sites, are outside of the City’s designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) which occurs north of the TCSP area. However, portions of the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites are within the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) which identifies areas close to vacant sites with vegetation susceptible to fire. As a result, future development in the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites, as well as other cumulative projects in the City, would be required to comply with state and local regulations including SMC Chapter 11.18, which states all new developments, subdivisions, or tracts that are planned in WUI Areas shall have a minimum of 100 horizontal feet of “fuel modified” defensible space between structure and wildland areas.

Adherence to these regulations and the General Plan policies would reduce risks in conjunction with future development related to wildland fire. Thus, the project’s incremental contribution to wildfire impacts would not be cumulatively considerable and cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

7.2.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
The study area for potential hydrology and water quality impacts is the Santee Drainage Basin.

While future development within the Santee Drainage Basin has the potential to increase pollutants discharged into surface waters, all future development would be subject to federal, state, and local regulations aimed at controlling water quality impacts, including SMC Chapters

9.06 (Stormwater Ordinance) and Chapter 11.40 (Grading Ordinance), which include requirements to ensure stormwater runoff is captured and treated and erosion control measures are implemented. Thus, based on the requirements of future development within the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites to comply with the existing regulatory framework that requires treatment of pollutants generated on-site, the project’s incremental contribution to cumulative water quality impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable and cumulative impacts associated with water quality would be less than significant.

While future development has the potential to alter drainage patterns resulting in increased erosion, stormwater runoff, and impacts to the existing drainage system, all future development would be subject to federal, state, and local regulations aimed at reducing polluted storm water and avoiding overloading the City’s drainage system. Development would be required to adhere to regulatory requirements including City Municipal Chapter 9.06 (Stormwater Ordinance), which includes requirements for the elimination or reduction of stormwater runoff. Impacts associated

7.0 Cumulative Impacts
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
7-9
with drainage patterns and stormwater runoff would be less than cumulatively considerable and cumulative impacts associated with drainage would be less than significant.

Future development of the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites would be required to conform to applicable federal, state, and City regulatory standards to effectively avoid and/or address potential impacts associated with development in flood zones. The TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites are not within an area anticipated to be adversely affected by a tsunami. Implementation of all regulatory requirements would ensure that cumulative impacts related to flood hazards would be less than significant.

7.2.11 Land Use and Planning
The study area for the assessment of cumulative land use impacts would be the City and neighboring jurisdictions as detailed above. Cumulative land use impacts could result from changes to land use plans, which become incompatible and/or unsustainable. Adoption of the project could contribute to cumulative impacts if buildout would conflict with land use plans and/or policies or physically divide a community. As discussed in Section 4.11.6, the City’s 2021-2029 Housing Element and current Zoning Ordinance allow up to 36 dwelling units per acre (du/ac), and none of the residential densities established by the TCSP would exceed 36 du/ac. The proposed modifications to the TCSP would become part of the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and would not conflict with applicable state and local land use requirements. Future development proposals within the City and surrounding jurisdictions would still be subject to review for consistency with applicable plans and zoning ordinances that serve to reduce or avoid cumulative environmental impacts, including ALUC review for compatible densities within Gillespie Field Safety Zones 3 and 4. Further, no major features are proposed or known that would divide an established community. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to land use and planning would be less than significant.

7.2.12 Noise
The analysis for noise provided in Section 4.12 is cumulative in nature as it considers buildout conditions within the City. As discussed, the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites are in locations where noise levels are generally acceptable for the proposed uses; however, temporary project-related construction and operational noise was identified as less than significant with mitigation NOI-1 and NOI-2. NOI-3 was identified to regulate outdoor performance and other entertainment uses that could result in temporary increases in ambient noise levels if future events are not reduced to 60 A-weighted decibel one-hour equivalent noise level at nearby noisesensitive land uses. The project would not generate a level of additional traffic that would perceptibly increase noise levels on roadways within and adjacent to the City. Despite the incorporation of NOI-3, outdoor noise levels were concluded at the project level to result in significant and unavoidable impacts. Therefore, while implementation of mitigation measure NOI1 and NOI-2 would reduce some noise impacts associated with the project to a level less than significant, cumulative outdoor noise level impacts in the TCSP area may not be reduced to acceptable levels, and the project would result in a significant cumulative noise impact.

7.2.13 Population and Housing
The study area considered for the population and housing cumulative impact analysis is defined as the region (County). Buildout of the project would result in future construction of up to 3,140 new residential units, providing capacity for projected growth in the region consistent with the adopted zoning designations and densities currently allowed within the TCSP area, AEN, and

7.0 Cumulative Impacts
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
7-10
Housing Element sites, and would also be consistent with the population and housing growth identified in the City’s 2021-2029 Housing Element. The increase in housing stock would accommodate the projected growth in population in the region and is consistent with adopted plans and regional growth principles. No permanent displacement of housing or people would occur with implementation of the project. Significant population and housing impacts associated with cumulative development within the region is not anticipated to result in a displacement of housing or people because future development is generally growth accommodating and each jurisdiction has a mandate to comply with its adopted Housing Element. Therefore, cumulative impacts associated with population and housing would be less than significant.

7.2.14 Public Services
The study area for public services is the applicable provider’s service area. New development or redevelopment within the service area could result in cumulative impacts associated with additional demands for public services, resulting in the need for new or expanded facilities. As discussed in Section 4.14, all future development within the City would be reviewed to ensure that adequate facilities and services are available at the time of application. Other projects proposed in the City would similarly be required to demonstrate adequate facilities are available prior to development. All future development is required to pay applicable fees that support schools.

Cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

7.2.15 Recreation
The study area for recreation is the City and nearby regional parks located within the City of San Diego and the County. New development or redevelopment within the service area could result in cumulative impacts associated with additional demands for recreation and parks, resulting in the need for new or expanded facilities. As discussed in Section 4.15, all future development within the City would be reviewed to ensure that adequate recreation opportunities are available at the time of application. Other projects proposed in the City would similarly be required to demonstrate adequate recreation opportunities are available prior to development. All future development is required to pay applicable fees that support recreational facilities. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

7.2.16 Transportation
The study area for transportation is the region served by the Green Copper Line trolley which connects the TCSP area and the City with downtown San Diego. Future development of the region could result in significant cumulative impacts associated with transportation, particularly vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Buildout of the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites would occur in accordance with the land use and densities identified in the TCSP, some of which would occur within ½ mile of a major transit stop (including Housing Element Sites 16A and 16B). Also, several transportation projects would be implemented under the proposed TCSP, including multi-use pathways, bike routes, roadway connections throughout the TCSP area, AEN, and near the Housing Element sites. As discussed in Section 4.16.6, the transportation projects identified in the TCSP are intended to increase pedestrian and bicycle safety and connection within the TCSP area and would not result in an increase in VMT. The TCSP would mostly accommodate development near transit, enhance roadway connections within the TCSP area, and would not result in an increase in density or housing beyond what is permitted under current plans and zoning. No project level or cumulative impact will occur associated with VMT in relation to development in Housing Element Sites 20 A and 20B. However, for areas outside transit priority areas, significant VMT impacts could occur with future development projects, contributing to

7.0 Cumulative Impacts
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
7-11
significant cumulative impacts associated with VMT in a part of the region that has greater VMT per capita than the region as a whole. Mitigation measure TRA-1 would be applied to address significant VMT impacts associated with buildout of the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element Sites 20A and 20B. However, this measure cannot be guaranteed to reduce all VMT impacts to less than significant. Therefore, the project’s contribution to a significant cumulative effect is determined to be substantial related to regional VMT, and cumulative VMT impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

7.2.17 Tribal Cultural Resources
The study area for the assessment of cumulative impacts to tribal cultural resources includes the entirety of the tribal lands of those tribes that responded to the City’s invitation for consultation under Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) associated with government-to-government consultation conducted by the City. Future development within the cumulative study area could have a cumulative impact on tribal cultural resources through loss of cultural landscapes, sacred places, or objects with cultural value as land is developed (or redeveloped).

As discussed in Section 4.17, future development in accordance with the project could impact historical or archaeological resources, which may be present within the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites. Implementation of mitigation measures CUL-1 through CUL-4 would also reduce impacts to tribal cultural resources to less than significant through the requirement to include Native American monitors archaeological monitoring during grading and construction for projects. Implementation of these measures would ensure that the project would not contribute to a significant cumulative impact to tribal cultural resources.

7.2.18 Utilities and Service Systems
The study area for public utilities is the applicable provider’s service area, including the Padre Dam Municipal Water District (PDMWD) and San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA). Future development within the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites would occur within existing developed areas with access to existing utility infrastructure. Significant utility extensions or improvements are not anticipated beyond local connections from adjacent roadways. Similarly, other projects in the City would be required to undergo a similar review to ensure the environmental impacts of utility and services improvements are minimized. A cumulative impact related to 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, is not anticipated. Cumulative impacts related to utilities and service systems would be less than significant.

Development anticipated as part of the project would occur within areas of the City that are already served by existing stormwater and water infrastructure. Although development of the Housing Element sites would require connection to these existing facilities, stormwater and water infrastructure improvements would be evaluated upon submittal of project-specific development plans. All future project applications would be required to adhere to the mitigation framework presented in this EIR which would address physical impacts associated with construction of pipeline connections to existing stormwater rand water infrastructure. The project’s incremental contribution to stormwater and water facility impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.

Buildout potential within the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites could result additional development that was not accounted for in the latest Urban Water Management Plan but has been accounted for within the PDMWD Water Supply Assessment approved by the PDMWD

7.0 Cumulative Impacts
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
7-12
Board in 2024 (Appendix G). The PDMWD approved the Water Supply Assessment for the project, which demonstrated that there is adequate capacity to adequately serve the anticipated buildout of the TCSP, AEN, and Housing Element sites. Urban Water Management Plans (UWMPs) are required to be updated on a five-year cycle and the next update to the PDMWD UWMP is anticipated by 2025. Future UWMP updates would account for the anticipated water use associated with future development consistent with the adopted TCSP and approved Water Supply Assessment. While the proposed TCSP area would add development potential within the City, it would primarily authorize higher density residential development which is more water efficient than single-family residential development. Based on the water efficiency of multi-family development, water conservation requirements, along with existing regulations that require new construction to be water efficient, it is not anticipated that the project would affect the ability of PDMWD to plan for adequate water supplies within the City during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. As the PDMWD and SDCWA consider water supply on a regional basis for their entire service areas, the project’s incremental contribution to water system/water supply impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.

Cumulative impacts related to solid waste disposal would be less than significant because an existing regulatory framework is in place, detailed in Section 4.18.8, that would apply to future development associated with the project in addition to cumulative development within the City.

Future development in the TCSP area, AEN and Housing Element sites is located within existing developed areas with access to solid waste disposal services. No development is proposed as part of the project; however, it is anticipated that future projects would result in an increase in solid waste generation. Solid waste requirements associated with the future development of the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites would be evaluated upon submittal of projectspecific development plans. All projects would be reviewed for conformance with state and local regulations and adherence to General Plan and TCSP policies. Thus, with implementation of the existing regulatory framework addressing solid waste disposal, the project’s incremental contribution to solid waste disposal impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.

7.2.19 Wildfire
The study area for the assessment of cumulative impacts related to wildfire is the City.

Development within the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites would not physically interfere with any emergency response or evacuation plans because they would not include any features that would prevent continued implementation of these plans. Additionally, applicable General Plan Safety Element policies would continue to be implemented to ensure adequate citywide emergency response and preparedness. While none of the project components are within or adjacent to VHFHSZ, the project is within the WUI and could potentially result in impacts related to wildfire. However, future development within the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites would be required to adhere to all regulatory requirements in place to minimize wildfire hazards including applicable sections of the SMC, fire and building codes, and requirements from the fire marshal that would be identified during future building permit reviews.

Additionally, implementation of the City’s General Plan policies support implementation of measures that will enhance wildfire safety. Future development projects would require review by the Building Official/Fire Marshal. All impacts associated with infrastructure improvements including any required measures to address fire safety would be evaluated in their respective subsequent environmental documents for discretionary projects, as necessary. The City fire marshal may also use their authority to require additional building, planning, or landscaping requirements that provide enhanced fire protection. Development would be required to comply with applicable regulations and policies related to flooding, drainage patterns, and landslides, and thereby avoid significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a

7.0 Cumulative Impacts
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
7-13
result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. Like the project, all future development in the City would be required to comply with applicable SMC and building and fire code regulations that would reduce the potential for cumulative impacts. The project’s incremental contribution to impacts related to wildfire would not be cumulatively considerable.

7.0 Cumulative Impacts
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
7-14
This page intentionally left blank

8.0 Effects Found Not To Be Significant
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
8-1

8.0 Effects Found Not To Be Significant
Section 15128 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines requires that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) briefly describe potential environmental effects that were determined not to be significant, and therefore were not discussed in detail in the EIR. Based on initial environmental review, the City of Santee (City) determined that the project would not have the potential to cause significant impacts associated with the environmental category discussed below. All other CEQA Guidelines Appendix G issue areas are addressed in Section 4.0 of this EIR.

8.1 Mineral Resources
Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, a significant impact to mineral resources would occur if the project would:
1) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state; or
2) 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.

The County of San Diego’s General Plan Program EIR displays generalized mineral land classifications. Although portions of the Town Center Specific Plan (TCSP) area, Arts and Entertainment Neighborhood (AEN), and Housing Element sites in the vicinity of the San Diego River are located within a Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ) 2 designated area, these areas are not zoned for mining operations and no mining operations existing within the sites. While mining operations exist northeast of the City limits, these operations are approximately 4 miles from the TCSP area and would not be affected by the proposed project. Lands within the project area may support mineral resources, but mining operations at these sites would not be feasible considering the proximity to sensitive receptors and existing established neighborhoods. Furthermore, the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites are not designated as locally important mineral resource recovery sites in the City’s 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.

8.0 Effects Found Not To Be Significant
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
8-2
This page intentionally left blank

9.0 Project Alternatives
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
9-1

9.0 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. The State CEQA Guidelines further specify that the alternatives selected should attain most of the basic project objectives and avoid or substantially lessen one or more significant effects of the project. The “range of alternatives” is governed by the “rule of reason,” which requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit an informed and reasoned choice by the lead agency, and to foster meaningful public participation (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[f]). CEQA generally defines “feasible” to mean an alternative that is capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, while also considering economic, environmental, social, technological, and legal factors.

9.1 Selection of Alternatives
As discussed throughout Chapter 4.0 of this EIR (EIR), the updated Town Center Specific Plan (TCSP) (project) would result in less than significant environmental impacts with mitigation for aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs), and tribal cultural resources,. Project level and cumulative operational long-term air quality, and hazards, land use and planning, noise, and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) impacts would remain significant and unavoidable after mitigation. Impacts to all other issue areas would be less than significant and not require mitigation. In developing the alternatives to be addressed, consideration was given to their ability to meet the basic objectives of the project and eliminate or substantially reduce the significant environmental impacts associated with the project. As identified in Chapter 3.0, project objectives include the following:
• Allow for a unified comprehensive open space system to be an integral part of the design concept of the TCSP area. The river shall be an open space area for the benefit of the community;
• Provide and encourage both active and passive recreational opportunities to help meet the recreational needs of the community;
• Establish criteria for architectural designs and concepts that reinforce the sense of community identity and support high quality development. These criteria should foster uniqueness and cohesive design enhancing Santee’s character; • Use landscape design to enhance the quality of the environment, resiliency of the community, and contribute to high quality, safe, and sustainable development; • Provide for the development of a varied, safe, efficient, and cost-effective transportation system to adequately support the mobility needs of the TCSP area with minimal negative impact on the community;
• Provide a variety of housing types and sizes with a mixture of ownership and rental housing;
• Create a variety of commercial and office/professional opportunities to provide goods, services, and employment opportunities to the region and establish the TCSP area as an activity center of the community;

9.0 Project Alternatives
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
9-2
• Incorporate community-serving, civic, and public uses within the TCSP area to become focal points for residents and visitors to enjoy;
• Limit new institutional uses within the TCSP area;
• Establish employment-supportive uses as part of new developments to provide job opportunities for the community and establish revenue sources within the TCSP area.

These should include research and development and office/ professional uses; and • Provide for housing development opportunities on Housing Element sites 16A, 16B, 20A, and 20B consistent with the City’s adopted Housing Element for 2021-2029 Alternatives considered but rejected included a No Project (No Build) Alternative, Reduced Residential Alternative (Site 20A), Reduced Residential Alternative (sites 16A, 16B, 20A, and 20B), and Increased Institutional Alternative (sites 20A and 20B) and are discussed in Section

9.2. Alternatives selected for consideration include the No Project Alternative, Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative, Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative, and the No Outdoor Performance Uses Project Alternative are discussed in Section 9.3. As required under Section 15126.6 €(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR must identify the environmentally superior alternative. Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, if the No Project Alternative is determined to be the most environmentally superior project, then another alternative among the alternatives evaluated must be identified as the environmentally superior project. Section 9.4 addresses the environmentally superior alternative selected.

The following section provides an analysis of each major issue area included in the impact analysis for the project. Table 9-1, Matrix Comparison of the Project and Alternatives Impacts, provides a matrix comparison of the significant impacts of the project as compared to each alternative.

Table 9-1

MATRIX COMPARISON OF THE PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVES IMPACTS Issue Area Project No Project
Alternative
Reduced
Biological
Impacts
Alternative
Increased
Density/Transit
Oriented
Design
Alternative
No Outdoor
Performance
Uses
Alternative
Aesthetics SM SM/ Similar SM/ Similar SM/ Similar SM/ Similar Agricultural
Resources
LTS LTS/ Similar LTS/ Similar LTS/ Similar LTS/ Similar Air Quality SU SU/ Similar SU/ Similar SU/ Greater SU/ Similar Biological
Resources
SM SM/ Less SM/ Less SM/ Similar SM/ Less
Cultural Resources SM SM/ Less SM/ Less SM/ Similar SM/ Similar Energy LTS LTS/ Similar LTS/ Similar LTS/ Similar LTS/ Similar Geology and Soils SM SM/ Similar SM/ Similar SM/ Similar SM/ Similar Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
SM SM/ Similar SM/ Similar SM/ Similar SM/ Similar
Hazards and
Hazardous
Materials
SU SU/ Similar SU/ Similar SU/ Similar SU/ Similar

9.0 Project Alternatives
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
9-3
Issue Area Project No Project
Alternative
Reduced
Biological
Impacts
Alternative
Increased
Density/Transit
Oriented
Design
Alternative
No Outdoor
Performance
Uses
Alternative
Hydrology and
Water Quality
LTS LTS/ Similar LTS/ Similar LTS/ Similar LTS/ Similar Land Use and
Planning
SU SU/ Similar SU/ Similar SU/ Similar SU/ Similar
Noise SU SM/Less SM/ Less SM/ Similar SM/ Less
Population and
Housing
LTS LTS/ Similar LTS/ Similar LTS/ Similar LTS/ Similar Public Services LTS LTS/ Similar LTS/ Similar LTS/ Similar LTS/ Similar Recreation LTS LTS/ Similar LTS/ Similar LTS/ Similar LTS/ Similar Transportation SU SU/ Similar SU/ Similar SU/ Similar SU/Similar Tribal Cultural
Resources
SM SM/Less SM/Less SM/ Similar SM/ Similar
Utilities and Service
Systems
LTS LTS/ Similar LTS/ Similar LTS/ Greater LTS/ Similar Wildfire LTS LTS/ Similar LTS/ Similar LTS/ Similar LTS/ Similar LTS = less than significant; SM = significant and mitigated; SU = significant and unavoidable

9.2 Alternatives Considered But Rejected
Four alternatives were considered but rejected and are not analyzed further. Specifically, a No Project (No Build) Alternative was considered which would assume existing conditions would remain and buildout of the vacant areas subject to the adopted TCSP would not occur. This alternative was rejected because the adopted TCSP would continue to guide land use and development decisions within the TCSP area, and development would continue to be allowed within the project area per existing plans and regulation. A “no build” alternative is more commonly included in an alternatives analysis if the applicant or Lead Agency has the authority or ability to not develop a project and maintain existing conditions.

Other alternatives considered but rejected included two reduced residential alternatives. The Reduced Residential Alternative (Site 20A) considered changing the land uses of Site 20A from Residential TC-R-22 MU to Park/Open Space but was rejected as it would not implement the adopted Housing Element. Similarly, a Reduced Residential Alternative (sites 16A, 16B, 20A, and 20B) was considered to reduce the density at each of the Housing Element sites; however, this alternative was rejected as it would also not implement the adopted and certified Housing Element. Lastly, an Increased Institutional Alternative (sites 20A and 20B) was considered that would change the zoning at Housing Element Sites 20A and 20B from Residential TC-R-22 MU to Institutional at the request of the County of San Diego Department of General Services; however, this alternative would also not implement the adopted and certified Housing Element. It is important for the City to have an adopted and certified Housing Element because when a jurisdiction’s Housing Element is found to be out of compliance, its General Plan is at risk of being deemed inadequate, and therefore, invalid. Cities without a valid Housing Element may also be at risk of losing state and federal funding for certain activities.

9.3 Project Alternatives
Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(d), the alternatives described below are analyzed to include sufficient information to allow a meaningful analysis and comparison with the

9.0 Project Alternatives
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
9-4
project. For purposes of this analysis, those subject areas included in Chapter 4.0 are also included in the analysis of the alternatives. The following sections include a discussion of the impacts of the alternatives compared to the project. The conclusion for each alternative also provides an overview of how the alternative meets, partially meets, or fails to meet the project objectives.

9.3.1 No Project Alternative
The following discussion of the No Project Alternative is based on the CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3)(A) which states:

When the project is the revision of an existing land use or regulatory plan, policy or ongoing operation, an alternative will be the continuation of the existing plan, policy, or operation into the future. Typically, this is a situation where other projects initiated under the existing plan will continue while the new plan is developed. Thus, the projected impacts of the proposed plan or alternative plans would be compared to the impacts that would occur under the existing plan.

Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3)(A), the No Project Alternative represents the continued implementation of the TCSP land use and development standards, including the current boundaries of the overall TCSP area and existing Arts and Entertainment Overlay District (AEOD) boundary. Under the No Project Alternative, development within the current TCSP area boundaries would proceed pursuant to the adopted TCSP and 2021-2029 Housing Element and would not include updated development standards and conceptual development plans and design standards for Housing Element sites 16A, 16B, 20A, and 20B. Also, the No Project Alternative would not include the proposed roadway network upgrades and roadway connections or associated pedestrian and bicycle improvements, including the River Bridge spanning the San Diego River. Other improvements identified in the TCSP, including outdoor events in the Arts and Entertainment Neighborhood (AEN), would not be included in the TCSP as proposed under the project.

9.3.1.1 Environmental Analysis of the No Project Alternative a. Aesthetics
Under the No Project Alternative, development within the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites would be subject to the existing TCSP as well as the City’s General Plan and Santee Municipal Code (SMC). The No Project Alternative would not result in the expansion of the TCSP area and AEN and the updated development standards and conceptual development plans and design standards for Housing Element sites 16A, 16B, 20A, and 20B. Although the proposed TCSP development and design standards would not apply to future development in the TCSP area and AEN and conceptual designs for the Housing Element sites would not be part of the TCSP, development could proceed based on the existing TCSP. Development under the No Project Alternative would be subject to Development review consistent with SMC Chapter 13.08 to ensure consistency with General Plan policies and applicable design and development review requirements including the existing design guidelines in the adopted TCSP. The development review process would ensure that future development would not degrade scenic vistas, scenic resources, or visual quality. Compliance with SMC standards related to light and glare (Chapter

13.08.070(G)), requiring that outdoor lighting be directed away from adjacent properties and set in a way to avoid any detriment to the surrounding area and lighting standards of the Community Enhancement Element would ensure that future development would not result in impacts related

9.0 Project Alternatives
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
9-5
to light and glare. A mitigation measure identified to address potential impacts to the Edgemoor Polo Barn near Housing Element sites 20A and 20B (MM CUL-5) would not be implemented under the No Project Alternative; however, development within Housing Element sites 20A and 20B would still be required to demonstrate compliance with the Secretary of Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Potentially significant aesthetics impacts under the No Project Alternative would be similar to the project as the potential for development of Housing Element sites 20A and 20B has the potential to damage views of an historic resource at the Edgemoor Polo Barn.
b. Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Under the No Project Alternative, development within the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites would be subject to the adopted TCSP as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC. While the proposed development and design standards and conceptual designs for Housing Element sites 16A, 16B, 20A, and 20B would not be adopted as part of the TCSP, areas identified as Farmland of Local Importance in the TCSP area and AEN would still be developed and would similarly result in less than significant impacts as these areas are identified for development and do not contain active agricultural uses. Therefore, impacts associated with agriculture and forestry resources under the No Project Alternative would be less than significant and similar to the project. c. Air Quality
Future development under the No Project Alternative would be subject to the development standards in the adopted TCSP, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC, and therefore would be consistent with the existing growth projections for which regional air quality standards (RAQs) are based. Development potential would be similar compared to the project since are no increases in density or development intensity associated with the project. Construction time frames and equipment for site-specific development projects are not available at this time, and there is a potential for multiple development projects to be constructed at one time, resulting in significant construction-related emissions. While future development under this alternative would be required to implement mitigation measures documented in the City’s General Plan, mitigation for air quality impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Therefore, impacts associated with air quality under the No Project Alternative would be significant and unavoidable, similar to the project. d. Biological Resources
Future development under the No Project Alternative would occur as guided under the adopted TCSP, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC. The No Project Alternative would not include the River Bridge or outdoor performance uses in the AEN as these details are not identified in the adopted TCSP. Although not including the River Bridge and not allowing outdoor performances in the AEN would avoid some of the potential impacts to biological resources associated with the project, development consistent with the existing TCSP could still occur within areas that support sensitive biological resources.

Future development under the No Project Alternative would be subject to implementation of mitigation measures documented in the City’s General Plan for biological resources, which would reduce impacts related to sensitive species, sensitive habitats, and wetlands to a level less than significant. Applicable federal, state, and local regulations would also apply, such as the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA), Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), California Fish and Game (CFG) Code, and San Diego County Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP). Not constructing the River Bridge and not allowing outdoor performance uses in the AEN under the

9.0 Project Alternatives
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
9-6
No Project Alternative would avoid some of the potentially significant project impacts on the biological resources along the San Diego River. Therefore, impacts related to biological resources under the No Project Alternative would remain less than significant with mitigation and would have slightly less impacts compared to the project.
e. Cultural Resources
Future development under the No Project Alternative would occur pursuant to the City’s adopted TCSP, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC. The No Project Alternative would not include the River Bridge, as it is not included in the adopted TCSP. Future development under this alternative would be required to implement mitigation measures documented in the City’s General Plan for cultural resources. As described in Section 4.5, the project would result in less than significant cultural resources impacts with mitigation incorporated. Both the No Project Alternative and the proposed project would similarly result in potential impacts on historic resources due to the proximity of Housing Element sites 20A and 20B to the Edgemoor Polo Barn. The No Project Alternative would not include the River Bridge which is located within an area identified for moderate potential to contain eligible buried archaeological sites, and the potential for cultural resources impacts would be slightly reduced. Therefore, impacts related to cultural resources under the No Project Alternative would be less than significant with mitigation, slightly less than the project.
f. Energy
Future development under the No Project Alternative would be subject to the City’s adopted TCSP land use plan and zoning, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC, and would not be subject to the development and design standards and conceptual designs provided in the updated TCSP.

Future development under the No Project Alternative would not result in increased energy use compared to the project as no changes to land uses or zoning are proposed. Therefore, impacts associated with energy would be less than significant, similar to the project. g. Geology and Soils
Future development under the No Project Alternative would be subject to the City’s adopted TCSP land use plan and zoning, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC, and would not be subject to the development and design standards and conceptual designs provided in the updated TCSP.

The No Project Alternative would support development consistent with the existing TCSP which could be subject to potential geologic hazards. Adherence to Safety Element policies, the SMC, and the California Building Code would ensure that future development under this alternative would not cause substantial adverse effects associated with fault rupture, ground shaking, liquefaction, landslide, or expansive soils, and impacts would be less than significant. Similarly, adherence to applicable SMC requirements would ensure that future development under this alternative would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil, and impacts would be less than significant. Implementation of mitigation measures documented in the City’s General Plan for paleontological resources would reduce impacts related to paleontological resources to a level less than significant. Therefore, impacts related to geology and soils under the No Project Alternative would be mitigated to a level less than significant, similar to the project. h. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Future development under the No Project Alternative would be subject to the City’s adopted TCSP land use plan and zoning, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC, and would not be subject

9.0 Project Alternatives
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
9-7
to the development and design standards and conceptual designs provided in the updated TCSP.

Future development under the No Project Alternative would also be subject to implementation of the City’s Sustainable Santee Plan (Climate Action Plan). The project would result in less than significant GHG impacts with mitigation and impacts associated with GHG under the No Project Alternative would also be less than significant with mitigation, similar to the project. i. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The No Project Alternative would not involve changes to land use or zoning compared to the project, and thereby would not result in changes related to exposing potential hazards and hazardous materials to more people. Future development would be required to adhere to multiple regulations related to hazardous materials handling and transport, including applicable state and local regulatory measures. Citywide General Plan Safety Element policies would also support safe handling of hazardous materials. Future development under this alternative would be required to implement mitigation measures documented in the City’s General Plan for hazardous materials. Furthermore, applications for all future projects under the No Project Alternative would be reviewed and approved by the Santee Fire Department prior to issuance of a building permit.

Future development under this alternative located within the Gillespie Field and MCAS Miramar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans (ALUCPs) would be required to adhere to applicable City policies and regulations, as well as policies of the ALUCP. Similar to the project, future development under the No Project Alternative could be determined by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) to not conform to density requirements for areas identified within ALUCPs as potentially hazardous due to the proximity to an airstrip. Because the ALUC may identify a hazard during review of development under the No Project Alternative, impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials under the No Project Alternative may also be significant and unavoidable, similar to the project.
j. Hydrology and Water Quality
Future development under the No Project Alternative would be subject to the City’s adopted TCSP land use plan and zoning, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC, and would not be subject to the development and design standards and conceptual designs provided in the updated TCSP.

Future development under the No Project Alternative 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 Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plan, Best Management Practice (BMP) Design Manual, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permit, as well as all regulations related to water quality. 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.

Additionally, development under this alternative would be required to comply with City General Plan policies and regulations that prioritize infiltration and treatment of stormwater. Future development would also be required to implement applicable stormwater BMPs and erosion control measures 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.

Development under this alternative would be required to adhere to all state and local development regulations including the SMC (Chapter 11.36), which establishes Flood Damage Prevention standards. Therefore, impacts associated with hydrology and water quality under the No Project Alternative would be less than significant, similar to the project.

9.0 Project Alternatives
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
9-8
k. Land Use and Planning
Future development under the No Project Alternative would be subject to the City’s adopted TCSP land use plan and zoning, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC, and would not be subject to the development and design standards and conceptual designs provided in the updated TCSP.

All future development under this alternative would be subject to a site-specific review that considers consistency with all applicable plans, including the City’s General Plan and the ALUCP.

As discussed above for hazards, the ALUC may determine a safety concern during future review of projects under the No Project Alternative and a significant land use conflict may result.

Therefore, impacts related to land use under the No Project Alternative would be significant and unavoidable, similar to the project.
l. Noise
Future development under the No Project Alternative would be subject to the adopted TCSP, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC. The No Project Alternative would not include outdoor performance uses in the AEN as this activity is not identified in the existing TCSP. Future development under the No Project Alternative would be subject to implementation of mitigation measures documented in the City’s General Plan for noise, which would reduce noise impacts to less than significant. Not allowing outdoor performance uses in the AEN under the No Project Alternative would avoid potentially significant noise impacts. Therefore, impacts related to noise under the No Project Alternative would be less than significant with mitigation and have less impacts compared to the project.
m. Population and Housing
Future development under the No Project Alternative would be located in areas that are already served by infrastructure as identified in the existing TCSP, and therefore would not induce population growth. The No Project Alternative would not displace a substantial number of people or housing. Therefore, impacts associated with population and housing would be less than significant, similar to the project.
n. Public Services
Future development under the No Project Alternative would be subject to the adopted TCSP land use plan and zoning, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC, and would not be subject to the development and design standards and conceptual designs provided in the updated TCSP.

Future development under the No Project Alternative would not result in increased demand to require construction of new fire protection, police protection, school, or library facilities, since each future development would pay its fair share toward anticipated facility needs. Construction of any future public service facilities would require a separate environmental review and approval.

Therefore, impacts associated with public services would be less than significant, similar to the project.
o. Recreation
Future development under the No Project Alternative would be subject to the adopted TCSP land use plan and zoning, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC, and would not be subject to the development and design standards and conceptual designs provided in the updated TCSP.

Future development under the No Project Alternative would not result in increased demand to require construction of new recreational facilities since each future development would pay its fair

9.0 Project Alternatives
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
9-9
share toward anticipated facility needs. Construction of any future public service facilities would require a separate environmental review and approval, implementing mitigation similar as proposed for the project. Therefore, impacts associated with recreation would be less than significant, similar to the project.
p. Transportation
Future development under the No Project Alternative would occur pursuant to the City’s adopted TCSP, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC. The No Project Alternative would not include the roadway improvements identified in the project as they are not included in the existing TCSP.

Future development would be designed consistent with established roadway design standards, and access to the existing roadway network would be configured consistent with established roadway design standards that would allow for emergency access. Because the No Project Alternative applies the same land use densities and intensities in the project area, including within those areas located outside transit priority areas, significant VMT impacts could occur. Therefore, impacts associated with transportation would be significant and unavoidable, similar to the project. q. Tribal Cultural Resources
Future development under the No Project Alternative would occur pursuant to the City’s adopted TCSP, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC. The No Project Alternative would not include the River Bridge, which is consistent with the existing TCSP. Future development under this alternative would be required to conduct tribal consultation consistent with the requirements of Assembly Bill (AB) 52. The No Project Alternative would not include the River Bridge which is located within an area identified for moderate potential to contain eligible buried archaeological sites, which may also be considered tribal cultural resources. As a result, the potential for tribal cultural resources impacts would be slightly reduced and impacts related to tribal cultural resources under the No Project Alternative would be less than significant with mitigation, slightly less than the project.
r. Utilities and Service Systems
Future development under the No Project Alternative would be subject to the adopted TCSP land use plan and zoning, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC, and would not be subject to the development and design standards and conceptual designs provided in the updated TCSP.

Development under the existing General Plan would increase demand for utilities and services.

Utility infrastructure improvements and relocations under the No Project Alternative would be evaluated as part of a future review for site-specific projects. Should separate utility extensions be required outside of the footprints of future site-specific projects, they would require an environmental review and compliance with regulations in existence at that time would address potential environmental impacts. The No Project Alternative would likely result in similar demand for water supply, wastewater treatment, and solid waste disposal compared to development proposed under the project. Therefore, impacts associated with utilities and service system would be less than significant, similar to as the project.
s. Wildfire
Future development under the No Project Alternative would be subject to the adopted TCSP land use plan and zoning, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC, and would not be subject to the development and design standards and conceptual designs provided in the updated TCSP.

This alternative does not propose any changes to the City’s existing circulation network, and no

9.0 Project Alternatives
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
9-10
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 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan specific hazard mitigation goals, objectives, and related actions.

Additionally, future development would be required to adhere to the City’s General Plan (Safety Element) policies including 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.11, and 4.12 which address emergency response and emergency evacuation. Future development located within the Wildland Urban Interface would comply with applicable California Fire Code and City General Plan requirements, and include enhanced fire protection measures as detailed in the City’s building and fire codes. Future development under this alternative would also be required to comply with applicable regulations and policies related to flooding, drainage patterns, and landslides. Therefore, impacts associated with wildfire under the No Project Alternative would be less than significant, similar to the project.

9.3.1.2 Conclusion Regarding the No Project Alternative As described above and summarized in Table 9-1, the No Project Alternative would result in similar impacts compared to the project, with none of the environmental resources seeing an increase in the severity of impacts. Under the No Project Alternative, updated development standards and conceptual development plans and design standards for Housing Element sites 16A, 16B, 20A, and 20B would not be adopted as part of the TCSP to guide future development within the TCSP area and future development would be required to adhere to existing state and local regulations and would be required to implement relevant mitigation measures set forth in the City’s General Plan EIR. Therefore, less than significant impacts (with and without mitigation) associated with aesthetics, agricultural resources, energy, geology and soils, GHGs, hydrology and water quality, population and housing, public services, recreation, utilities and service systems, and wildfire would be similar under the No Project Alternative compared to the project.

Impacts to biological resources and cultural resources would be slightly reduced under this alternative due to the absence of the River Bridge in and near areas of biological and cultural sensitivity. Impacts related to air quality, hazards, land use and planning, noise, and traffic would remain significant and unavoidable, similar to the project.

This alternative would partially meet some of the project objectives stated in Chapter 3.0, Project Description, as the adopted TCSP does provide for mobility needs, a variety of housing types and commercial and office/professional opportunities, including employment-supportive uses.

However, the proposed project is a comprehensive update to the adopted TCSP that addresses the future needs of the TCSP area and would better fulfill all of the project objectives. Buildout of the No Project Alternative would not include the River Bridge which would provide recreational opportunities and would be part of the open space system to unify areas north and south of the San Diego River within the AEN. Also, the No Project Alternative would not include the roadway improvements or conceptual designs for Housing Element sites 16A, 16B, 20A, and 20B which would improve the mobility needs of the TCSP area and would provide for improved housing development opportunities.

9.3.2 Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative
The Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative represents a modified update to the TCSP to avoid some of the biological impacts identified for the project. Under this alternative the land use designations for an approximately 6-acre undeveloped area in the northeastern part of the TCSP area would be changed from Residential TC-R-14 (14 to 22 dwelling units per acre [du/ac]) to Floodway/Open Space. The 6-acre area is bound by Park Center Drive and Park/Open Space areas to the west, Institutional land uses to the north, and Residential land use to the south. The eastern part of the 6-acre site is bound by Cottonwood Avenue. This change would avoid impacts

9.0 Project Alternatives
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
9-11
to 2.94 acres of biologically sensitive areas identified in the Biological Resources Technical Report (Appendix C). Also, the River Bridge over the San Diego River would not be included in the TCSP under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative, which would similarly avoid biologically sensitive areas in the TCSP area. The remaining aspects of the proposed TCSP, including the expansion of the TCSP area and AEN, updated development standards, proposed roadway network upgrades and roadway connections or associated pedestrian and bicycle improvements, and conceptual development plans and design standards for Housing Element sites 16A, 16B, 20A, and 20B, would remain as they are in the proposed project. While approximately 6 less acres of residential development would be available for development under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative, overall buildout of the TCSP area is assumed to be the same as the proposed project and as assumed in the City’s 6th Housing Element because development would likely be able to shift to other portions of residentially designated land, as needed.

9.3.2.1 Environmental Analysis of the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative a. Aesthetics
Under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative, development within the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites would be similar to the proposed TCSP under the project, except that an area in the northeastern part of the TCSP area would be changed from Residential to Floodway/Open Space land uses and the River Bridge would not be constructed across the San Diego River. Development under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would be subject to development review consistent with SMC Chapter 13.08 to ensure consistency with General Plan policies and applicable design and development review requirements including the proposed design guidelines in the proposed update to the TCSP. The development review process would ensure that future development would not degrade scenic vistas, scenic resources, or visual quality. Compliance with SMC standards related to light and glare (Chapter 13.08.070(G)), requiring that outdoor lighting be directed away from adjacent properties and set in a way to avoid any detriment to the surrounding area and lighting standards of the Community Enhancement Element would ensure that future development would not result in impacts related to light and glare. A mitigation measure identified to address potential impacts to the Edgemoor Polo Barn near Housing Element sites 20A and 20B (MM CUL-5) would be implemented under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative as there would be no changes to the project near Housing Element sites 20A and 20B, which are in the southeastern part of the TCSP area and AEN. Potentially significant aesthetics impacts under the No Project Alternative would be similar to the project as the potential for development of Housing Element sites 20A and 20B has the potential to damage views of an historic resource at the Edgemoor Polo Barn. b. Agricultural Resources
Under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative, development within the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites would be similar to the project, except that an area in the northeastern part of the TCSP area would be changed from Residential to Floodway/Open Space land uses and the River Bridge would not be identified across the San Diego River. Areas identified as Farmland of Local Importance in the TCSP area and AEN do not include the 6-acre site that would be changed to Floodway/Open Space and remaining areas would still be developed and similarly result in less than significant impacts. Therefore, impacts associated with agriculture and forestry resources under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would be less than significant and similar to the project.

9.0 Project Alternatives
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
9-12
c. Air Quality
The updated TCSP under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would be subject to the development standards in the updated TCSP, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC. While this alternative would reduce the amount of residential land uses at an approximately 6-acre area in the northeastern part of the TCSP area, it is not anticipated that overall residential development in the TCSP area would be decreased. As there would be no change in overall development under this alternative, the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would be consistent with the existing growth projections for which regional air quality standards (RAQs) are based. Development potential would be similar compared to the project as it is expected that residential development would not decrease under this alternative. Construction time frames and equipment for sitespecific development projects are not available at this time, and there is a potential for multiple development projects to be constructed at one time, resulting in significant construction-related emissions. While future development under this alternative would be required to implement air quality mitigation measures documented in the EIR, mitigation for air quality impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Therefore, impacts associated with air quality under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would be significant and unavoidable, similar to the project. d. Biological Resources
The updated TCSP under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would result in the redesignation of 6 acres of Residential land uses in the northeastern part of the TCSP area to Floodway/Open Space and would not include the proposed River Bridge. While this alternative would avoid impacts to some of the biologically sensitive areas in the TCSP area, development consistent with the updated TCSP could still occur within other areas that support sensitive biological resources.

Future development under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would be subject to implementation of mitigation measures documented in this EIR for biological resources, which would reduce impacts related to sensitive species, sensitive habitats, and wetlands to a level less than significant. Applicable federal, state, and local regulations would also apply, such as the FESA, MBTA, CFG Code, and San Diego County MSCP. Not constructing housing in a 2.94-acre biologically sensitive area in the northeastern part of the TCSP area and leaving it as an undeveloped site would reduce some of the biological resources impacts associated with the project. Also, not constructing the River Bridge would avoid potentially significant project impacts on biological resources along the San Diego River. Therefore, impacts related to biological resources under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would be less than significant with mitigation and would have slightly less impacts compared to the project. e. Cultural Resources
The updated TCSP under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would result in the redesignation of 6 acres of Residential land uses in the northeastern part of the TCSP area to Floodway/Open Space and would not include the proposed River Bridge. The 6-acre area that would be changed from Residential to Floodway/Open Space is not located in a culturally sensitive area; however, the River Bridge is located in a culturally sensitive area and while this alternative would avoid some potential cultural resources impacts, development consistent with the updated TCSP could still occur in other areas that could result in cultural resources impacts.

Future development under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would occur pursuant to the City’s adopted TCSP, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC. Future development under

9.0 Project Alternatives
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
9-13
this alternative would be required to implement mitigation measures documented in this EIR for cultural resources. As described in Section 4.5, the project would result in less than significant cultural resources impacts with mitigation incorporated. Both the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative and the proposed project would similarly result in potential impacts on historic resources due to the proximity of Housing Element sites 20A and 20B to the Edgemoor Polo Barn.

The Reduced Biological Impacts would not include the River Bridge which is located within an area identified for moderate potential to contain eligible buried archaeological sites, and the potential for cultural resources impacts would be slightly reduced. Therefore, impacts related to cultural resources under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would be less than significant with mitigation, slightly less than the project.
f. Energy
Future development under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would be subject to the updated TCSP land use plan and zoning, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC, and would be subject to the development and design standards and conceptual designs provided in the updated TCSP. Future development under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would not result in increased energy use compared to the project as no changes to overall buildout of the TCSP area are assumed. Therefore, impacts associated with energy would be less than significant, similar to the project.
g. Geology and Soils
Future development under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would be subject to the City’s updated development and design standards and conceptual designs provided in the updated TCSP, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC. The Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would support development consistent with the updated TCSP which could be subject to potential geologic hazards. Adherence to Safety Element policies, the SMC, and the California Building Code would ensure that future development under this alternative would not cause substantial adverse effects associated with fault rupture, ground shaking, liquefaction, landslide, or expansive soils, and impacts would be less than significant. Similarly, adherence to applicable SMC requirements would ensure that future development under this alternative would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil, and impacts would be less than significant.

Implementation of mitigation measures documented in this EIR for paleontological resources would reduce impacts related to paleontological resources to a level less than significant.

Therefore, impacts related to geology and soils under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would be mitigated to a level less than significant, similar to the project. h. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Future development under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would be subject to the City’s updated development and design standards and conceptual designs provided in the updated TCSP, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC. Future development under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would also be subject to implementation of the City’s Sustainable Santee Plan (Climate Action Plan). While residential land uses would be reduced under this alternative, buildout of the TCSP area is anticipated to be the same as the project. The project would result in less than significant GHG impacts with mitigation and impacts associated with GHG under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would also be less than significant with mitigation, similar to the project.

9.0 Project Alternatives
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
9-14
i. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The updated TCSP under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would result in the redesignation of 6 acres of Residential land uses in the northeastern part of the TCSP area to Floodway/Open Space and would not include the proposed River Bridge. Overall buildout and development intensity is anticipated to be the same under this alternative and the proposed project. Future development would be required to adhere to multiple regulations related to hazardous materials handling and transport, including applicable state and local regulatory measures. Citywide General Plan Safety Element policies would also support safe handling of hazardous materials. Future development under this alternative would be required to implement mitigation measures documented in this EIR for hazardous materials. Furthermore, applications for all future projects under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would be reviewed and approved by the Santee Fire Department prior to issuance of a building permit. Future development under this alternative located within the Gillespie Field and MCAS Miramar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans (ALUCPs) would be required to adhere to applicable City policies and regulations, as well as policies of the ALUCP. Similar to the project, future development under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative could be determined by the ALUC to not conform to density requirements for areas identified within ALUCPs as potentially hazardous due to the proximity to an airstrip. Because the ALUC may identify a hazard under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative, impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative may also be significant and unavoidable, similar to the project.
j. Hydrology and Water Quality
The updated TCSP under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would result in the redesignation of 6 acres of Residential land uses in the northeastern part of the TCSP area to Floodway/Open Space and would not include the proposed River Bridge. Overall buildout and development intensity is anticipated to be the same under this alternative and the proposed project. Future development under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative 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 Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plan, BMP Design Manual, NPDES General Construction Permit, as well as all regulations related to water quality. 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. Additionally, development under this alternative would be required to comply with City General Plan policies and regulations that prioritize infiltration and treatment of stormwater. Future development would also be required to implement applicable stormwater BMPs and erosion control measures 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. Development under this alternative would be required to adhere to all state and local development regulations including SMC (Chapter 11.36), which establishes Flood Damage Prevention standards. Therefore, impacts associated with hydrology and water quality under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would be less than significant, similar to the project.
k. Land Use and Planning
The updated TCSP under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would result in the redesignation of 6 acres of Residential land uses in the northeastern part of the TCSP area to

9.0 Project Alternatives
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
9-15
Floodway/Open Space and would not include the proposed River Bridge. Overall buildout and development intensity is anticipated to be the same under this alternative and the proposed project. Future development under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would be subject to the City’s updated development and design standards and conceptual designs provided in the updated TCSP, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC. All future development under this alternative would be subject to a site-specific review that considers consistency with all applicable plans, including the updated TCSP and ALUCP. The ALUC may determine a safety concern during future review of projects under the No Project Alternative and a significant land use conflict may result. Therefore, impacts related to land use under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would be significant and unavoidable, similar to the project. l. Noise
Future development under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would be subject to the updated TCSP, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC. The Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would not include residential development in a 6 acre area in the northeastern part of the TCSP area and would also not include the River Bridge spanning the San Diego River. Future development under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would be subject to implementation of mitigation measures documented in this EIR for noise, which would reduce noise impacts to less than significant. Removing residential land uses and the River Bridge under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would not avoid potentially significant noise impacts associated with construction and stationary sources and outdoor performances. Therefore, impacts related to noise under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would be less than significant with mitigation and have less impacts compared to the project. m. Population and Housing
Future development under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would be located in areas that are already served by infrastructure as identified in the existing TCSP, and therefore would not induce population growth. While there would be less Residential land uses in the TCSP area, buildout under this alternative would not be reduced compared to the project. The Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would not displace a substantial number of people or housing.

Therefore, impacts associated with population and housing would be less than significant, similar to the project.
n. Public Services
Future development under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would not result in increased demand to require construction of new fire protection, police protection, school, or library facilities, since each future development would pay its fair share toward anticipated facility needs. Construction of any future public service facilities would require a separate environmental review and approval. Therefore, impacts associated with public services would be less than significant, similar to the project.
o. Recreation
Future development under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would be located in areas that are already served by infrastructure as identified in the existing TCSP, and therefore would not result in increased demand to require construction of new recreational facilities since each incremental housing development would pay its fair share toward anticipated facility needs.

Construction of any future recreation facilities would require a separate environmental review and

9.0 Project Alternatives
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
9-16
approval. Therefore, impacts associated with recreation would be less than significant, similar to the project.
p. Transportation
Future development under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would occur pursuant to the City’s updated TCSP, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC. While there would be less Residential land uses in the TCSP area, buildout under this alternative would not be reduced compared to the project and traffic levels would not change. The Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would include the roadway improvements identified in the updated TCSP. Future development would be designed consistent with established roadway design standards, and access to the existing roadway network would be configured consistent with established roadway design standards that would allow for emergency access. Because the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative applies the same land use densities and intensities in the majority of the project area, including within those areas located outside transit priority areas, significant VMT impacts could occur. Therefore, impacts associated with transportation would be significant and unavoidable, similar to the project.
q. Tribal Cultural Resources
The updated TCSP under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would result in the redesignation of 6 acres of Residential land uses in the northeastern part of the TCSP area to Floodway/Open Space and would not include the proposed River Bridge. The 6-acre area that would be changed from Residential to Floodway/Open Space is not located in a culturally sensitive area; however, the River Bridge is located in a culturally sensitive area that could also be a tribal cultural resource. While this alternative would avoid some potential tribal cultural resources impacts, development consistent with the updated TCSP could still occur in other areas that could result in tribal cultural resources impacts.

Future development under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would occur pursuant to the City’s adopted TCSP, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC. Future development under this alternative would be required to implement mitigation measures documented in this EIR for tribal cultural resources. As described in Section 4.17, the project would result in less than significant tribal cultural resources impacts with mitigation incorporated. The Reduced Biological Impacts would not include the River Bridge which is located within an area identified for moderate potential to contain eligible buried archaeological sites, and the potential for tribal cultural resources impacts would be slightly reduced. Therefore, impacts related to tribal cultural resources under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would be less than significant with mitigation, slightly less than the project.
r. Utilities and Service Systems
Future development under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would be subject to the updated TCSP land use plan and zoning, development and design standards, and conceptual designs provided in the updated TCSP. Development under this alternative, like the project, would increase demand for utilities and services. Utility infrastructure improvements and relocations under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would be evaluated as part of a future review for site-specific projects. Should separate utility extensions be required outside of the footprints of future site-specific projects, they would require an environmental review and compliance with regulations in existence at that time would address potential environmental impacts. The Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would likely result in similar demand for water supply, wastewater

9.0 Project Alternatives
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
9-17
treatment, and solid waste disposal compared to development proposed under the project.

Therefore, impacts associated with utilities and service system would be less than significant, similar to the project.
s. Wildfire
Future development under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would be subject to the updated TCSP land use plan and zoning, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC, and would be subject to the development and design standards and conceptual designs provided in the updated TCSP. This alternative does not include land use changes that would impair implementation of or physically interfere with the City’s emergency response plan, evacuation routes, or conflict with any of the Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan specific hazard mitigation goals, objectives, and related actions. Additionally, future development would be required to adhere to the City’s General Plan (Safety Element) policies including 4.2, 4.3, 4.4,

4.11, and 4.12 which address emergency response and emergency evacuation. Future development under this alternative would also be required to comply with applicable regulations and policies related to flooding, drainage patterns, and landslides. Therefore, impacts associated with wildfire under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would be less than significant, similar to the project.

9.3.2.2 Conclusion Regarding the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative As described above and summarized in Table 9-1, the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would result in similar impacts compared to the project, with none of the environmental resources seeing an increase in the severity of impacts. Under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative, most of the updated TCSP under the project would be similar; however, the land use designations for an approximately 6-acre undeveloped area in the northeastern part of the TCSP area would be changed from Residential TC-R-14 (14 to 22 du/ac) to Floodway/Open Space and the River Bridge would not be included. Therefore, less than significant impacts (with and without mitigation) associated with aesthetics, agricultural resources, energy, geology, and soils, GHGs, hydrology and water quality, population and housing, public services, recreation, utilities and service systems, and wildfire would be similar under the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative compared to the project. Impacts to biological resources and cultural resources would be slightly reduced under this alternative due to the redesignation of 6 acres from Residential to Floodway/Open Space and the removal of the River Bridge in and near areas of biological and cultural sensitivity. Impacts related to air quality, hazards, land use and planning, noise, and traffic would remain significant and unavoidable, similar to the project. This alternative would partially meet some of the project objectives stated in Chapter 3.0, Project Description, as this alternative does provide for mobility needs, a variety of housing types and commercial and office/professional opportunities, including employment-supportive uses. Buildout of the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative would not include the River Bridge which would provide recreational opportunities and would be part of the open space system to unify areas north and south of the San Diego River within the AEN and would better meet the project objectives.

9.3.3 Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative The Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative represents a modified update to the TCSP to further support the City’s goals to provide additional affordable housing opportunities in the City and within a transit priority area (TPA). Under this alternative, the Trolley Commercial land use designations near the center of the TCSP area and AEN would be revised to allow transit oriented development. Specifically, this alternative would allow residential development up to 36

9.0 Project Alternatives
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
9-18
du/ac consistent with the Residential TC-R-3030 (30 to 36 du/ac) land use designation in the TCSP. For the purposes of this alternatives analysis, potential increases in residential development are estimated at an additional 1,515 du in the TCSP area and AEN at a density of 34 du/ac. The remaining aspects of the proposed TCSP, including the expansion of the TCSP area and AEN, updated development standards, proposed roadway network upgrades and roadway connections or associated pedestrian and bicycle improvements, and conceptual development plans and design standards for Housing Element sites 16A, 16B, 20A, and 20B, would remain as they are in the proposed project.

9.3.3.1 Environmental Analysis of the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative
a. Aesthetics
Under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative, development within the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites would be similar to the proposed TCSP under the project, except that the Trolley Commercial land use designations near the center of the TCSP area and AEN would be revised to allow increased density, transit oriented development. Development under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would be subject to development review consistent with SMC Chapter 13.08 to ensure consistency with General Plan policies and applicable design and development review requirements including the proposed design guidelines in the proposed update to the TCSP. The development review process would ensure that future development would not degrade scenic vistas, scenic resources, or visual quality.

Compliance with SMC standards related to light and glare (Chapter 13.08.070(G)), requiring that outdoor lighting be directed away from adjacent properties and set in a way to avoid any detriment to the surrounding area and lighting standards of the Community Enhancement Element would ensure that future development would not result in impacts related to light and glare. This alternative does not propose changes to the Housing Element sites, and a mitigation measure identified to address potential impacts to the Edgemoor Polo Barn near Housing Element sites 20A and 20B (MM CUL-5) would be implemented under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative as there would be no changes to the project near Housing Element sites 20A and 20B. Potentially significant aesthetics impacts under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would be similar to the project as the potential for development of Housing Element sites 20A and 20B still has the potential to damage views of an historic resource at the Edgemoor Polo Barn.
b. Agricultural Resources
Under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative, development within the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites would be similar to the project, except Trolley Commercial land use designations near the center of the TCSP area and AEN would be revised to allow increased density, transit oriented development. Areas identified as Farmland of Local Importance in the TCSP area and AEN would still be developed and similarly result in less than significant impacts as these areas are identified for development and do not contain active agricultural uses.

Therefore, impacts associated with agriculture and forestry resources under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would be less than significant and similar to the project.

9.0 Project Alternatives
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
9-19
c. Air Quality
The updated TCSP under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would be subject to the development standards in the updated TCSP, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC. This alternative would increase the amount of residential land uses within the Trolley Commercial land uses in the central part of the TCSP area and AEN by an additional 1,515 du.

As there would be an increase in overall development under this alternative, the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would not be consistent with the existing growth projections for which regional air quality standards (RAQs) are based. Construction time frames and equipment for site-specific development projects are not available at this time, and there is a potential for multiple development projects to be constructed at one time, resulting in significant construction-related emissions. As future development under this alternative would be required to implement mitigation measures documented in this EIR, mitigation for air quality impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Because there would be more development under this alternative, impacts associated with air quality under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would be significant and unavoidable, and greater than the project. d. Biological Resources
The updated TCSP under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would result in an increase in the amount of residential land uses within the Trolley Commercial land uses in the central part of the TCSP area and AEN by an additional 1,515 du. This alternative would not avoid impacts to biologically sensitive areas and development under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative still occur within areas that support sensitive biological resources.

Future development under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would be subject to implementation of mitigation measures documented in this EIR for biological resources, which would reduce impacts related to sensitive species, sensitive habitats, and wetlands to a level less than significant. Applicable federal, state, and local regulations would also apply, such as the FESA, MBTA, CFG Code, and San Diego County MSCP. Adding housing in the Trolley Commercial land uses would not reduce any of the biological resources impacts associated with the project. Therefore, impacts related to biological resources under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would be less than significant with mitigation and would have similar impacts compared to the project.
e. Cultural Resources
The updated TCSP under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would result in an increase in the amount of residential land uses within the Trolley Commercial land uses in the central part of the TCSP area and AEN by an additional 1,515 du. This alternative would not avoid impacts to culturally sensitive areas and development under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative still occur within areas that support sensitive cultural resources.

Future development under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would occur pursuant to the City’s adopted TCSP, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC. Future development under this alternative would be required to implement mitigation measures documented in this EIR for cultural resources. As described in Section 4.5, the project would result in less than significant cultural resources impacts with mitigation incorporated. Both the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative and the proposed project would similarly result in potential impacts on historic resources due to the proximity of Housing Element sites 20A and

9.0 Project Alternatives
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
9-20
20B to the Edgemoor Polo Barn. Therefore, impacts related to cultural resources under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would be less than significant with mitigation, similar to the project.
f. Energy
Future development under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would be subject to the updated TCSP land use plan and zoning, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC, and would be subject to the development and design standards and conceptual designs provided in the updated TCSP. Future development under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would result in some increased energy use compared to the project as overall buildout of the TCSP area would increase by 1,515 du; however, the increase in development would occur near transit and urban uses and would not conflict with energy plans or result in wasteful or inefficient energy use. Impacts associated with energy would be less than significant, similar to the project.
g. Geology and Soils
Future development under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would be subject to the City’s updated development and design standards and conceptual designs provided in the updated TCSP, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC. The Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would support development consistent with the updated TCSP which could be subject to potential geologic hazards. Adherence to Safety Element policies, the SMC, and the California Building Code would ensure that future development under this alternative would not cause substantial adverse effects associated with fault rupture, ground shaking, liquefaction, landslide, or expansive soils, and impacts would be less than significant. Similarly, adherence to applicable SMC requirements would ensure that future development under this alternative would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil, and impacts would be less than significant. Implementation of mitigation measures documented in this EIR for paleontological resources would reduce impacts related to paleontological resources to a level less than significant. Therefore, impacts related to geology and soils under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would be mitigated to a level less than significant, similar to the project.
h. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Future development under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would be subject to the City’s updated development and design standards and conceptual designs provided in the updated TCSP, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC. Future development under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would also be subject to implementation of the City’s Sustainable Santee Plan (Climate Action Plan). Transit-oriented residential land uses would be increased under this alternative and buildout of the TCSP area is anticipated to include 1,515 du more than the project. The project would result in less than significant GHG impacts with mitigation and impacts associated with GHG under the Increased Density /Transit Oriented Design Alternative would also be less than significant with mitigation, and similar to the project.
i. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The updated TCSP under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would include an anticipated 1,515 additional du in the Trolley Commercial land uses in the central part

9.0 Project Alternatives
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
9-21
of the TCSP area and AEN. Future development would be required to adhere to multiple regulations related to hazardous materials handling and transport, including applicable state and local regulatory measures. Citywide General Plan Safety Element policies would also support safe handling of hazardous materials. Future development under this alternative would be required to implement mitigation measures documented in this EIR for hazardous materials.

Furthermore, applications for all future projects under the Increased Density /Transit Oriented Design Alternative would be reviewed and approved by the Santee Fire Department prior to issuance of a building permit. Future development under this alternative located within the Gillespie Field and MCAS Miramar ALUCPs could increase the potential for land use compatibility issues related to aircraft overflight hazards and like the proposed project, developments allowed under this alternative would be required to adhere to applicable City policies and regulations, as well as policies of the ALUCP and FAA and may result in similar safety conflicts during ALUC review. Therefore, impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would be significant and unavoidable, similar to the project.
j. Hydrology and Water Quality
The updated TCSP under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would result in the addition of residential development within the Trolley Commercial land uses in the central part of the TCSP area and AEN. Overall buildout and development intensity is anticipated to increase by 1,515 du compared to the proposed project. Future development under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative 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 Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plan, BMP Design Manual, NPDES General Construction Permit, as well as all regulations related to water quality. 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.

Additionally, development under this alternative would be required to comply with City General Plan policies and regulations that prioritize infiltration and treatment of stormwater. Future development would also be required to implement applicable stormwater BMPs and erosion control measures 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.

Development under this alternative would be required to adhere to all state and local development regulations including the SMC (Chapter 11.36), which establishes Flood Damage Prevention standards. Therefore, impacts associated with hydrology and water quality under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would be less than significant, similar to the project. k. Land Use and Planning
The updated TCSP under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would result in allowing residential development in the Trolley Commercial land use with a zoning designation of Residential TC-R-3030 (30 to 36 du/ac). This alternative is estimated to result in an additional 1,515 du in the TCSP area and AEN compared to the project which would not allow residential in the Trolley Commercial land use. Future development under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would be subject to the City’s updated development and design standards and conceptual designs provided in the updated TCSP, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC. All future development under this alternative would be subject to a site-specific review that considers consistency with all applicable plans, including the updated TCSP and ALUCP. The ALUC may determine a safety concern during future review of projects under the

9.0 Project Alternatives
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
9-22
Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative and a significant land use conflict may result. Therefore, impacts related to land use under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would be significant and unavoidable, similar to the project. l. Noise
Future development under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would be subject to the updated TCSP, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC. This alternative is estimated to result in an additional 1,515 du in the TCSP area and AEN compared to the project, which would not allow residential in the Trolley Commercial land use. Future development under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would be subject to implementation of mitigation measures documented in this EIR for noise, which would reduce noise impacts to less than significant. Allowing residential development in the Trolley Commercial land use under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would not increase noise; however, it would also not avoid potentially significant noise impacts associated with construction and stationary sources and outdoor performances. Therefore, impacts related to noise under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would be significant and unavoidable with mitigation and have similar impacts compared to the project. m. Population and Housing
Future development under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would be located in areas that are already served by infrastructure as identified in the existing TCSP, and therefore would not induce population growth. While there would be increased residential development in the TCSP area, the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would not displace a substantial number of people or housing as the Trolley Commercial area does not include residential development under existing conditions. Therefore, impacts associated with population and housing would be less than significant, similar to the project. n. Public Services
Future development under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would not result in increased demand to require construction of new fire protection, police protection, school, or library facilities, since each future development would pay its fair share toward anticipated facility needs. Construction of any future public service facilities would require a separate environmental review and approval. Therefore, impacts associated with public services would be less than significant, similar to the project.
o. Recreation
Future development under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would be located in areas that are already served by infrastructure as identified in the existing TCSP, and therefore would not result in increased demand to require construction of new recreational facilities since each incremental housing development would pay its fair share toward anticipated facility needs. Construction of any future recreation facilities would require a separate environmental review and approval. Therefore, impacts associated with recreation would be less than significant, similar to the project.

9.0 Project Alternatives
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
9-23
p. Transportation
Future development under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would occur pursuant to the City’s updated TCSP, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC. While there would be more residential development in the TCSP area, the additional development is located near transit and would be within a TPA. The Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would include the roadway improvements identified in the updated TCSP. Future development would be designed consistent with established roadway design standards, and access to the existing roadway network would be configured consistent with established roadway design standards that would allow for emergency access. Although the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would provide more transit oriented development opportunities in TPAs located within the TCSP, this alternative applies the same land use densities and intensities in the majority of the project area, including within those in areas outside of TPAs, resulting in a similar potential for VMT impacts to occur. Therefore, impacts associated with transportation under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would be significant and unavoidable, similar to the project.
q. Tribal Cultural Resources
The Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would result in additional residential development in the Trolley Commercial land use designation in the southern part of the TCSP area and AEN. The Trolley Commercial land use is in a culturally sensitive area that could also be a tribal cultural resource. Development consistent with the updated TCSP could still occur in other culturally sensitive areas that could result in tribal cultural resources impacts. Future development under this alternative would be required to implement mitigation measures documented in this EIR for tribal cultural resources. As described in Section 4.17, the project would result in less than significant tribal cultural resources impacts with mitigation incorporated.

Therefore, impacts related to tribal cultural resources under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would be less than significant with mitigation, similar to the project. r. Utilities and Service Systems
Future development under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would be subject to the updated TCSP land use plan and zoning, development and design standards, and conceptual designs provided in the updated TCSP. Development under this alternative would involve 1,515 du more than the project and would result in some increase demand for utilities and services. Utility infrastructure improvements and relocations under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would be evaluated as part of a future review for site-specific projects.

Should separate utility extensions be required outside of the footprints of future site-specific projects, they would require an environmental review and compliance with regulations in existence at that time would address potential environmental impacts. The Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would likely result in some increase in demand for water supply, wastewater treatment, and solid waste disposal compared to development proposed under the project. Therefore, impacts associated with utilities and service system would be less than significant, greater than the project.
s. Wildfire
Future development under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would be subject to the updated TCSP land use plan and zoning, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC, and would be subject to the development and design standards and conceptual designs

9.0 Project Alternatives
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
9-24
provided in the updated TCSP. This alternative does not include land use changes that would impair implementation of or physically interfere with the City’s emergency response plan, evacuation routes, or conflict with any of the Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan specific hazard mitigation goals, objectives, and related actions. Additionally, future development would be required to adhere to the City’s General Plan (Safety Element) policies including 4.2, 4.3, 4.4,

4.11, and 4.12 which address emergency response and emergency evacuation. Future development located within the Wildland Urban Interface would comply with applicable California Fire Code and City General Plan requirements and include enhanced fire protection measures as detailed in the City’s building and fire codes. Future development under this alternative would also be required to comply with applicable regulations and policies related to flooding, drainage patterns, and landslides. Therefore, impacts associated with wildfire under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would be less than significant, similar to the project.

9.3.3.2 Conclusion Regarding the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative
As described above and summarized in Table 9-1, the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative would result in similar impacts compared to the project, with a slight increase in the severity of impacts for air quality, GHGs, and utilities and service systems. Under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative, most of the updated TCSP under the project would be the same; however, the Trolley Commercial land use areas in the central part of the TCSP area and AEN would include residential development estimated to include 1,515 du. Therefore, less than significant impacts (with and without mitigation) associated with aesthetics, agricultural resources, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, population and housing, public services, recreation, tribal cultural resources, utilities and service systems, and wildfire would be similar under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative compared to the project. Impacts related to air quality, hazards and hazardous materials, land use and planning, noise, and traffic would remain significant and unavoidable, greater than the project. This alternative would partially meet some of the project objectives stated in Chapter 3.0, Project Description, as this alternative does provide for mobility needs, a variety of housing types and commercial and office/professional opportunities, including employmentsupportive uses. However, this alternative would not substantially avoid or reduce the project’s environmental impacts.

9.3.4 No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative
The No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative represents a modified update to the TCSP to avoid some of the noise impacts identified for the project. Under this alternative outdoor performance uses would not be allowed within the Commercial Entertainment areas of the TCSP, north of the Town Center Transit Station, and would avoid an operational noise impact associated with outdoor gatherings of people for artistic, cinematic, theatrical, musical, sporting events, cultural, education or civic purposes. The remaining aspects of the proposed TCSP, including the expansion of the TCSP area and AEN, updated development standards, proposed roadway network upgrades and roadway connections or associated pedestrian and bicycle improvements, and conceptual development plans and design standards for Housing Element sites 16A, 16B, 20A, and 20B, would remain as they are in the proposed project.

9.0 Project Alternatives
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
9-25

9.3.4.1 Environmental Analysis of the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative a. Aesthetics
Under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative, development within the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites would be similar to the proposed TCSP under the project, except that outdoor performance uses would not be allowed within the Commercial Entertainment areas of the TCSP, north of the Town Center Transit Station. All other requirements related to aesthetics as discussed throughout this section for the other alternatives would apply to this alternative, and a mitigation measure identified to address potential impacts to the Edgemoor Polo Barn near Housing Element sites 20A and 20B (MM CUL-5) would be implemented under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative as there would be no changes to the project near Housing Element sites 20A and 20B. Potentially significant aesthetics impacts under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would be similar to the project as the potential for development of Housing Element sites 20A and 20B has the potential to damage views of an historic resource at the Edgemoor Polo Barn.
b. Agricultural Resources
Under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative, development within the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites would be similar to the proposed TCSP under the project, except that outdoor performance uses would not be allowed within the Commercial Entertainment areas of the TCSP, north of the Town Center Transit Station. Areas identified as Farmland of Local Importance in the TCSP area and AEN would still be developed and similarly result in less than significant impacts as these areas are identified for development and do not contain active agricultural uses. Therefore, impacts associated with agriculture and forestry resources under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would be less than significant and similar to the project. c. Air Quality
The updated TCSP under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would be subject to the development standards in the updated TCSP, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC. As there would be no change in overall development under this alternative, the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would be consistent with the existing growth projections for which regional air quality standards (RAQs) are based. Development potential would be similar compared to the project. Construction time frames and equipment for site-specific development projects are not available at this time, and there is a potential for multiple development projects to be constructed at one time, resulting in significant construction-related emissions. While future development under this alternative would be required to implement air quality mitigation measures documented in the EIR, mitigation for air quality impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Therefore, impacts associated with air quality under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would be significant and unavoidable, similar to the project. d. Biological Resources
Under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative, development within the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites would be similar to the proposed TCSP under the project, except that outdoor performance uses would not be allowed within the Commercial Entertainment areas of the TCSP, north of the Town Center Transit Station.

9.0 Project Alternatives
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
9-26
Future development under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would be subject to implementation of mitigation measures documented in this EIR for biological resources, which would reduce impacts related to sensitive species, sensitive habitats, and wetlands to a level less than significant. Applicable federal, state, and local regulations would also apply, such as the FESA, MBTA, CFG Code, and San Diego County MSCP. Restricting outdoor performance use would reduce noise levels in the TCSP area and would reduce the potential for noise to result in biological resources impacts associated with outdoor performances. Therefore, impacts related to biological resources under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would be less than significant with mitigation and would have less impacts compared to the project. e. Cultural Resources
The updated TCSP under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would result in not allowing outdoor performance uses within the Commercial Entertainment areas of the TCSP, north of the Town Center Transit Station. This alternative would not avoid impacts to culturally sensitive areas and development under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative still occur within areas that support sensitive cultural resources.

Future development under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would occur pursuant to the City’s adopted TCSP, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC. Future development under this alternative would be required to implement mitigation measures documented in this EIR for cultural resources. As described in Section 4.5, the project would result in less than significant cultural resources impacts with mitigation incorporated. Both the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative and the proposed project would similarly result in potential impacts on historic resources due to the proximity of Housing Element sites 20A and 20B to the Edgemoor Polo Barn.

Therefore, impacts related to cultural resources under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would be less than significant with mitigation, similar to the project. f. Energy
Future development under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would be subject to the updated TCSP land use plan and zoning, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC, and would be subject to the development and design standards and conceptual designs provided in the updated TCSP. Future development under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would not result in increased energy use compared to the project as overall buildout of the TCSP area would remain and would not conflict with energy plans or result in wasteful or inefficient energy use. Impacts associated with energy would be less than significant, similar to the project. g. Geology and Soils
Future development under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would be subject to the City’s updated development and design standards and conceptual designs provided in the updated TCSP, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC. The No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would support development consistent with the updated TCSP which could be subject to potential geologic hazards. Adherence to Safety Element policies, the SMC, and the California Building Code would ensure that future development under this alternative would not cause substantial adverse effects associated with fault rupture, ground shaking, liquefaction, landslide, or expansive soils, and impacts would be less than significant. Similarly, adherence to applicable SMC requirements would ensure that future development under this alternative would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil, and impacts would be less than significant.

Implementation of mitigation measures documented in this EIR for paleontological resources

9.0 Project Alternatives
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
9-27
would reduce impacts related to paleontological resources to a level less than significant.

Therefore, impacts related to geology and soils under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would be mitigated to a level less than significant, similar to the project. h. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Future development under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would result in a similar level and type of development throughout the TCSP, except outdoor performances would not be allowed within the Commercial Entertainment areas of the TCSP. Like the proposed project, development would be subject to the City’s updated development and design standards and conceptual designs provided in the updated TCSP, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC.

Future development under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would also be subject to implementation of the City’s Sustainable Santee Plan (Climate Action Plan). The project would result in less than significant GHG impacts with mitigation and impacts associated with GHG under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would also be less than significant with mitigation, similar to the project.
i. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The updated TCSP under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would result in not allowing outdoor performance uses within the Commercial Entertainment areas of the TCSP, north of the Town Center Transit Station. Like the pr[posed project, all other future development would be required to adhere to multiple regulations related to hazardous materials handling and transport, including applicable state and local regulatory measures. Citywide General Plan Safety Element policies would also support safe handling of hazardous materials. Future development under this alternative would be required to implement mitigation measures documented in this EIR for hazardous materials. Future development under this alternative located within the Gillespie Field and MCAS Miramar ALUCPs would be required to adhere to applicable City policies and regulations, as well as policies of the ALUCP. Furthermore, applications for all future projects under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would be reviewed and approved by the Santee Fire Department prior to issuance of a building permit. Therefore, impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would be mitigated to a level less than significant, similar to the project. j. Hydrology and Water Quality
The updated TCSP under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would result in not allowing outdoor performance uses within the Commercial Entertainment areas of the TCSP, north of the Town Center Transit Station. Overall buildout and development intensity is anticipated to be the same as the proposed project. Future development under the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative 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 Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plan, BMP Design Manual, NPDES General Construction Permit, as well as all regulations related to water quality. 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. Additionally, development under this alternative would be required to comply with City General Plan policies and regulations that prioritize infiltration and treatment of stormwater. Future development would also be required to implement applicable stormwater BMPs and erosion control measures 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

9.0 Project Alternatives
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
9-28
streets, or infiltration basins which also serve as a means for pollutant removal. Development under this alternative would be required to adhere to all state and local development regulations including SMC (Chapter 11.36), which establishes Flood Damage Prevention standards.

Therefore, impacts associated with hydrology and water quality under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would be less than significant, similar to the project. k. Land Use and Planning
The updated TCSP under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would result in the prohibition of outdoor performance uses in the TCSP area and AEN. Overall buildout and development intensity is anticipated to be the same under this alternative and the proposed project. Future development under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would be subject to the City’s updated development and design standards and conceptual designs provided in the updated TCSP, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC. All future development under this alternative would be subject to a site-specific review that considers consistency with all applicable plans, including the updated TCSP and ALUCP. The ALUC may determine a safety concern during future review of projects under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative and a significant land use conflict may result. Therefore, impacts related to land use under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would be significant and unavoidable, similar to the project. l. Noise
The updated TCSP under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would not allow outdoor performance uses within the Commercial Entertainment areas of the TCSP, north of the Town Center Transit Station. Future development under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would be subject to the updated TCSP, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC. Future development under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would be subject to implementation of mitigation measures documented in this EIR for noise, which would reduce noise impacts to less than significant. Restricting outdoor performance uses under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would avoid potentially significant noise impacts associated with outdoor performances (NOI-3). Other noise impacts under the project would remain under this alternative. Therefore, impacts related to noise under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would be less than significant with mitigation and have reduced impacts compared to the project.
m. Population and Housing
Future development under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would be located in areas that are already served by infrastructure as identified in the existing TCSP, and therefore would not induce population growth. Buildout under this alternative would not be reduced compared to the project. The No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would not displace a substantial number of people or housing. Therefore, impacts associated with population and housing would be less than significant, similar to the project. n. Public Services
Future development under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would not result in increased demand to require construction of new fire protection, police protection, school, or library facilities, since each future development would pay its fair share toward anticipated facility needs. Construction of any future public service facilities would require a separate environmental

9.0 Project Alternatives
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
9-29
review and approval. Therefore, impacts associated with public services would be less than significant, similar to the project.
o. Recreation
Future development under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would be located in areas that are already served by infrastructure as identified in the existing TCSP, and therefore would not result in increased demand to require construction of new recreational facilities since each incremental housing development would pay its fair share toward anticipated facility needs.

Construction of any future recreation facilities would require a separate environmental review and approval. Therefore, impacts associated with recreation would be less than significant, similar to the project.
p. Transportation
Future development under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would occur pursuant to the City’s updated TCSP, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC. While there would be outdoor performance uses, buildout under this alternative would not be reduced compared to the project and traffic levels would not change. The No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would include the roadway improvements identified in the updated TCSP. Future development would be designed consistent with established roadway design standards, and access to the existing roadway network would be configured consistent with established roadway design standards that would allow for emergency access. Because the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative applies the same land use densities and intensities in the majority of the project area, including within those areas located outside of transit priority areas, significant VMT impacts could occur.

Therefore, impacts associated with transportation would be significant and unavoidable, similar to the project.
q. Tribal Cultural Resources
The updated TCSP under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would result in not allowing outdoor performance uses within the Commercial Entertainment areas of the TCSP, north of the Town Center Transit Station. Future development under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would occur pursuant to the City’s adopted TCSP, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC. Future development under this alternative would be required to implement mitigation measures documented in this EIR for tribal cultural resources. As described in Section

4.17, the project would result in less than significant tribal cultural resources impacts with mitigation incorporated. The No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would not include the River Bridge which is located within an area identified for moderate potential to contain eligible buried archaeological sites, and the potential for tribal cultural resources impacts would be slightly reduced. Therefore, impacts related to tribal cultural resources under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would be less than significant with mitigation, similar to the project. r. Utilities and Service Systems
Future development under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would be subject to the updated TCSP land use plan and zoning, development and design standards, and conceptual designs provided in the updated TCSP. Development under this alternative, like the project, would increase demand for utilities and services. Utility infrastructure improvements and relocations under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would be evaluated as part of a future review for site-specific projects. Should separate utility extensions be required outside of the footprints

9.0 Project Alternatives
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
9-30
of future site-specific projects, they would require an environmental review and compliance with regulations in existence at that time would address potential environmental impacts. The No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would likely result in similar demand for water supply, wastewater treatment, and solid waste disposal compared to development proposed under the project. Therefore, impacts associated with utilities and service system would be less than significant, similar to the project.
s. Wildfire
Future development under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would be subject to the updated TCSP land use plan and zoning, as well as the City’s General Plan and SMC, and would be subject to the development and design standards and conceptual designs provided in the updated TCSP. This alternative does not include land use changes that would impair implementation of or physically interfere with the City’s emergency response plan, evacuation routes, or conflict with any of the Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan specific hazard mitigation goals, objectives, and related actions. Additionally, future development would be required to adhere to the City’s General Plan (Safety Element) policies including 4.2, 4.3, 4.4,

4.11, and 4.12 which address emergency response and emergency evacuation. Future development located within the Wildland Urban Interface would comply with applicable California Fire Code and City General Plan requirements and include enhanced fire protection measures as detailed in the City’s building and fire codes. Future development under this alternative would also be required to comply with applicable regulations and policies related to flooding, drainage patterns, and landslides. Therefore, impacts associated with wildfire under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would be less than significant, similar to the project.

9.3.4.2 Conclusion Regarding the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative As described above and summarized in Table 9-1, the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would result in similar impacts compared to the project, with none of the environmental resources seeing an increase in the severity of impacts. Under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative, most of the updated TCSP under the project would be similar; however, the updated TCSP would not allow outdoor performance uses within the Commercial Entertainment areas of the TCSP, north of the Town Center Transit Station.

Therefore, less than significant impacts (with and without mitigation) associated with aesthetics, agricultural resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, GHGs, hydrology and water quality, population and housing, public services, recreation, tribal cultural resources, utilities and service systems, and wildfire would be similar under the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative compared to the project. Impacts to biological resources would be slightly reduced under this alternative due to the elimination of outdoor performance uses near areas of biological sensitivity and a significant noise impact associated with outdoor performances would be avoided. Impacts related to air quality, hazards and hazardous materials, land use and planning, noise, and traffic would remain significant and unavoidable, similar to the project. This alternative would partially meet some of the project objectives stated in Chapter 3.0, Project Description, as this alternative does provide for mobility needs, a variety of housing types and commercial and office/professional opportunities, including employment-supportive uses. This alternative would not fully meet the project objectives to create a variety of commercial services to establish the TCSP area as an activity center of the community and to create community-serving public and civic uses within the TCSP as it would reduce opportunities to provide outdoor activities.

9.0 Project Alternatives
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
9-31

9.3.5 Environmentally Superior Alternative
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2) requires an EIR to identify the environmentally superior alternative. If the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, the EIR must identify an environmentally superior alternative from the other alternatives. The project itself may not be identified as the environmentally superior alternative. The No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative because it would incrementally reduce significant impacts associated with biological resources and would avoid a noise impact compared to the project. Although this alternative would provide less flexibility for potential outdoor uses, the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative would ultimately result in development of the same amount of residential and non-residential development as the project as no other aspects of the TCSP would be altered. The No Outdoor Performance Use would meet most project objectives; however, it might not as fully meet the project objective to allow for community-serving, civic, and public uses within the TCSP area to become focal points for residents and visitors to enjoy.

9.0 Project Alternatives
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
9-32
This page intentionally left blank

10.0 References
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
10-1

10.0 References

2.0 Environmental Setting
Santee, City of (City). 2019a. Sustainable Santee Plan EIR. December. Available at:
https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/departments/city-clerk/document-central/cityclerk%5Ccouncil-agendas%5C2020%5C2020-01-08-climate-action-plan-eirattachment.pdf.

United States Census Bureau. 2024. QuickFacts, Santee, California. Accessed August 2024.

Available at:
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/santeecitycalifornia/PST045222.

3.0 Project Description
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2024. FEMA Flood Map Service Center.

Accessed February 2024. Available at:
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=santee%2C%20ca.

RRM Design Group. 2024a. TCSP Development Potential. July. 2024b. TCSP Key Areas Map. July. Santee, City of (City). 2022a. 2021-2029 Sixth Cycle Housing Element. May. Available at:
https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/documents/planning-building/general-plan/gp-housingelement.pdf.

Santee, City of (City).1986. Town Center Specific Plan. October. Available at:
https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/documents/planning-building/plans/town-center-specificplan/4-land-use-plan.pdf.

4.1 Aesthetics
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2018. California State Scenic Highway System Map. Accessed February 2024. Available at:
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8 e8057116f1aacaa.

Santee, City of (City). 2003a. City of Santee General Plan 2000-2020 Community Enhancement Element. August. Available at: https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/government/planning-andbuilding/land-use-code/general-plan. 2003b City of Santee General Plan 2000-2020 Community Enhancement Element.

August. Available at: https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/departments/cityclerk/document-central/planning-building/general-plan/gp-communityenhancement-element.pdf. 1986 Town Center Specific Plan. October. Available at:
https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/documents/planning-building/plans/town-centerspecific-plan/4-land-use-plan.pdf.

10.0 References
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
10-2

4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2022. California Important Farmland Finder.

Accessed February 2024. Available at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2024. California Vegetation – WHR13 Types. Accessed February 2024. Available at: https://hub-calfireforestry.hub.arcgis.com/maps/b7ec5d68d8114b1fb2bfbf4665989eb3/explore?location=3

2.841023%2C-116.970180%2C13.45.

San Diego, County of (County). 2023a. Agriculture Flourishes in New Crop Report, Nears $1.8 Billion. Accessed August 2024. Available at:
https://www.countynewscenter.com/agriculture-flourishes-in-new-crop-report-nears-1-8- billion/.
2011 San Diego County General Plan. August. Available at:
https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/pds/generalplan.html.

Santee, City of (City). 2024a. Santee: A Look at the Past. Accessed February 2024. Available at:
https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/our-community/aboutsantee/history#:~:text=Cowles%20(Kohls)%2C%20a%20founding,Cuyamaca%20Railro ad%20at%20Cowles%20Station.
2023 Title 13, Zoning. Accessed February 2024. Available at:
https://ecode360.com/43755273.
2003c City of Santee General Plan Land Use Element. August. Available at:
https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/departments/city-clerk/documentcentral/planning-building/general-plan/gp-land-use-element.pdf.

Santee Historical Society. 2024. History of Edgemoor Stock Farm. Accessed February 2024.

Available at: https://santeehistoricalsociety.org/historyof-santee/edgemoor-history/.

4.3 Air Quality
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2024a. iADAM Air Quality Data Statistics: Top 4 Summary. Accessed February 2024. Available at:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfour1.php.
2016 Ambient Air Quality Standards. May 4. Available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-03/aaqs2_0.pdf. 2005 Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective.

Available: https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/californiaair-resources-board-air-quality-and-land-use-handbook-a-community-healthperspective.pdf. Accessed February 2024.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2024. Traffic Census Program. Available:
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic-operations/census. Accessed February.

10.0 References
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
10-3
Intersecting Metrics. 2024. Santee Town Center Specific Plan Proposed Project Trip Generation. March
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD). 2016. Program Level Analysis of General Plans and Area Plans. Accessed February 2024. Available at http://www.airquality.org/LandUseTransportation/Documents/Ch9ProgramLevelFINAL8- 2016.pdf.

San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD). 2024. Air Toxics “Hot Spots” and Emissions Inventory Programs. Accessed February 2024. Available at:
https://www.sdapcd.org/content/sdapcd/permits/toxics-emissions.html. 2023 2022 Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS). Available at:
https://www.sdapcd.org/content/dam/sdapcd/documents/grants/planning/Att.%20 A%20-%202022%20RAQS.pdf.
2021 2021 Annual Air Quality Report. Accessed February 2024. Available:
https://www.sdapcd.org/content/dam/sdapcd/documents/community/annual-airquality-reports/2021%20Annual%20Air%20Quality%20Report.pdf. 2020 Final Ozone Attainment Plan for San Diego County. Updated October. Available at: https://www.sdapcd.org/content/sdapcd/planning.html. 2019 Rule 20.2 New Source Review Non-Major Stationary Sources. Revised June 26.

Available at:
https://www.sdapcd.org/content/dam/sdapcd/documents/rules/current-rules/Rule20.2.pdf.

San Diego, County of (County). 2007. County of San Diego Guidelines for Determining Significance and Report Format and Content Requirements, Air Quality. March 19 United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2024a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Website Criteria Air Pollutants. Available at:
https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants. Accessed February 2024.

4.4 Biological Resources
California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC). 2024. The Cal-IPC Inventory. Accessed February 2024. Available at: https://www.cal-ipc.org/plants/inventory/.

HELIX Environmental Planning (HELIX). 2024a. Santee Town Center Specific Plan Amendment Draft Biological Technical Report. March.

San Diego, County of (County). 1998. Multiple Species Conservation Program. August.

Available at: https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/sdc/pds/mscp/sc.html.

4.5 Cultural Resources
HELIX Environmental Planning (HELIX). 2024b. Santee Town Center Specific Plan Amendment Cultural Resources Report.

10.0 References
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
10-4
Padre Dam Municipal Water District (PDMWD). 2024. History. Accessed March 2024. Available at: https://www.padredam.org/95/History.

Santee, City of (City). 2024a. Santee: A Look at the Past. Accessed February 2024. Available at:
https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/how-do-i/santee-s-history. 2020a. Fanita Ranch EIR. EIR Page 4.4-7. May. Available at:
https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/departments/city-clerk/document-central/planningbuilding/active-projects/final-revised-eir-fanita-ranch/draft-revised-fanita-ranch-eirvolume-i. 2003a City of Santee General Plan 2000-2020 Community Enhancement Element.

August. Available at: https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/government/planning-andbuilding/land-use-code/general-plan. 2003b City of Santee General Plan 2000-2020 Conservation Element. August. Available at: https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/departments/city-clerk/document-central/planningbuilding/general-plan/gp-conservation-element.pdf.

Santee Historical Society. 2024. History of Edgemoor Stock Farm. Accessed February 2024.

Available at: https://santeehistoricalsociety.org/historyof-santee/edgemoor-history/.

4.6 Energy
California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). 2024. DMV Statistics. Accessed January 2024.

Available at: https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/news-and-media/dmv-statistics/.

California Department of Tax and Fee Administration. 2024. Motor Vehicle Fuel 10 Year Reports.

Accessed January 12, 2024 and available at: https://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/taxes-andfees/spftrpts.htm.

California Energy Commission (CEC). 2022. CCR Title 24 Part 6, 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards Summary. Available at:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-
08/CEC_2022_EnergyCodeUpdateSummary_ADA.pdf.
2020 2020 Power Content Label - Southern California Edison. Available at:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/filebrowser/download/3902.
2021 Final 2020 Integrated Energy Policy Report Update. Accessed January 12, 2024.

Available at: https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/reports/integrated-energypolicy-report/2020-integrated-energy-policy-report-update. 2018 California Energy Demand 2018-2030 Revised Forecast. Accessed January 12, 2024. Available at: https://www.energy.ca.gov/publications/2018/californiaenergy-demand-2018-2030-revised-forecast. 2014 California Energy Demand Updated Forecast, 2015-2025. Accessed January 12, 2024. Available at:
https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/pds/ceqa/JVR/AdminRecord/In corporatedByReference/Section-3-1-2---Energy-References/CEC%202015a.pdf.

10.0 References
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
10-5
California Gas and Electric Utilities. 2020. 2020 California Gas Report. Accessed January 12, 2024. Available at: https://www.socalgas.com/sites/default/files/2020- 10/2020_California_Gas_Report_Joint_Utility_Biennial_Comprehensive_Filing.pdf.

California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). 2023. Natural Gas and California. Accessed January 12, 2024. Available at: https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/natural_gas/. 2016 Accessed January 12, 2024 and available at: https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/- /media/cpuc-website/divisions/office-of-governmental-affairsdivision/reports/2016/2016-oga-reports/final12302015section913_6report.pdf.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). 2022. Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards for Model Years 2024-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks.

Accessed January 12, 2024 and available at:
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/05/02/2022-07200/corporate-averagefuel-economy-standards-for-model-years-2024-2026-passenger-cars-and-light-trucks.

San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E). 2024. Our Company. Accessed February 2024. Available at: https://www.sdge.com/more-information/our-company.
2022 2022 Individual Integrated Resource Plan of San Diego Gas & Electric Company.

Accessed January 12, 2024 and available at:
https://www.sdge.com/sites/default/files/regulatory/SDG%26E%202022%20Indivi dual%20Integrated%20Resource%20Plan%20%28PUBLIC%29_0.pdf.

Santee, City of (City). 2019b. Sustainable Santee Plan. December. Available at:
https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/documents/planning-building/sustainable-santeeplan.pdf. 2017 City of Santee General Plan Mobility Element. October. Available at:
https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/documents/planning-building/general-plan/gpmobility-element.pdf.

U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). 2020. Legislation, Regulations, and Guidance:

Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 Information. Accessed January 12, 2024. Available at:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/public_involvement/archive/legislation/istea.cfm.

4.7 Geology and Soils
Deméré, Thomas A., and Stephen L. Walsh. 1993. Paleontological Resources, County of San Diego. San Diego Natural History Museum, Department of Paleontology.

San Diego, County of (County). 2009. Guidelines for Determining Significance, Paleontological Resources. January. Available at: https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/dplu/docs/PaleoGuidelines.pdf.

Santee, City of (City). 2020a. Fanita Ranch EIR. May. Available at:
https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/departments/city-clerk/document-central/planningbuilding/active-projects/final-revised-eir-fanita-ranch/draft-revised-fanita-ranch-eirvolume-i.

10.0 References
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
10-6
Santee, City of (City) (cont.)
2003d City of Santee General Plan Safety Element. August. Available at:
https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/documents/planning-building/general-plan/gpsafety-element.pdf.

4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2024b. Clean Car Standards – Pavley, Assembly Bill 1493. Accessed December. Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ccms/ccms.htm.

Accessed January 29.
2024c Current California GHG Emission Inventory Data. 2000-2020 GHG Inventory (2023 Edition). Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-inventory-data. Accessed January 29.
2022 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality. November 16. Available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/ab-32-climate-change-scopingplan/2022-scoping-plan-documents. 2007 1990-2004 Greenhouse Gas Inventory – By Economic Sector. November 19.

Available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/ghg_inventory_sector_all_90- 04_AR4.pdf.

California Building Standards Commission (CBSC). 2022. CALGreen (CCR Title 24, Part 11).

Available at: https://www.dgs.ca.gov/en/BSC/CALGreen.

California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2019. California’s Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy.
https://calrecycle.ca.gov/organics/slcp/.

California Energy Commission (CEC). 2022. CCR Title 24 Part 6, 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards Summary. Available at:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-
08/CEC_2022_EnergyCodeUpdateSummary_ADA.pdf.

California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA). 2009. Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action: Amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines Addressing Analysis and Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Pursuant to SB 97. December 2009.

Climate Watch. 2024. Historical GHG Emissions. Available at:
https://www.climatewatchdata.org/ghgemissions?end_year=2022&source=PIK&start_year=1850. Accessed March 3.

Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. 2008. CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review.

10.0 References
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
10-7
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2014. Mitigation of Climate Change.

Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Available at:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg3/.
2013 Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Available at:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/WG1AR5_SummaryVolume_FI NAL.pdf.
2007 Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policy Makers (Working Group Fourth Assessment Report). February. Available at:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar4/wg1/.

Intersecting Metrics. 2024. Santee Town Center Specific Plan Proposed Project Trip Generation. March
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Goddard Institute for Space Studies (NASA). 2024. Global Temperature. Available at: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/globaltemperature/#:~:text=Earth’s%20global%20average%20surface%20temperature,averag e%20from%201951%20to%201980. Accessed March 3.

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD). 2020. Program Level Analysis of General Plans and Area Plans. Available at
https://www.airquality.org/LandUseTransportation/Documents/Ch9ProgramLevel4-30- 2020.pdf.

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2021a. The 2021 Regional Plan. Available at: https://sdforward.com/mobility-planning/2021-regional-plan.

Santee, City of. 2019b. Sustainable Santee Action Plan. December.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2024b. Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act. Last updated April 4, 2023. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/climate-change/endangerment-and-cause-orcontribute-findings-greenhouse-gases-under-section-202a. Accessed January 29. 2024c Draft Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2022 U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 430-D-24-001. February 14. Available at:
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/draft-inventory-us-greenhouse-gasemissions-and-sinks-1990-2022.

4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2008. Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. Accessed February 2024. Available at: https://calfireforestry.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=988d431a42b242b29d8959 7ab693d008.

10.0 References
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
10-8
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2024. EnviroStor. Accessed February 2024.

Available at: https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/ San Diego, County of (County). 2023b. Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. Available at:
https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/oes/emergency_management/oes_jl_mitplan.html#:~:te xt=The%20MultiJurisdictional%20Hazard%20Mitigation%20Plan%20is%20a%20countywide,to%20mini mize%20damage%20by%20natural%20and%20human-caused%20disasters. 2005. Gillespie Field Airport Layout Plan Update. Available at:
https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/dpw/AIRPORTS/gillespie/documents/ NarrativeReport.pdf. Accessed February 2024.

San Diego County Regional Airport Authority (SDCRAA). 2011. MCAS Miramar ALUCP.

November. Available at:
https://www.san.org/DesktopModules/Bring2mind/DMX/API/Entries/Download?EntryId=1 6128&Command=Core_Download&language=en-US&PortalId=0&TabId=807. 2010 Gillespie Field Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. December. Available at:
https://www.san.org/DesktopModules/Bring2mind/DMX/API/Entries/Download?E ntryId=16146&Command=Core_Download&language=enUS&PortalId=0&TabId=807.

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2024. GeoTracker. Accessed February 2024.

Available at: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/.

4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
BSI Consultants. 1990. City of Santee Citywide Drainage Study. February.

California, State of, Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2021 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). https://water.ca.gov/sgma.

Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). 2021. San Diego Region – The Basin Plan.

September. Available at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sandiego/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/.

Santee, City of (City). 2021. 2022 to 2026 Capital Improvement Program. Available at:
https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/21446/63766631806765 0666.
2003d City of Santee General Plan Safety Element. August. Available at:
https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/7205/636336570 205470000.

4.11 Land Use and Planning
Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). 2024. ALUCP Mapping Tool. Accessed February 2024.

Available at: https://sdcraaaluc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=945b3a6b12a34b158d8c9022 251542e3.

10.0 References
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
10-9
Santee, City of (City). 2003e. City of Santee General Plan. Available at:
https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/government/planning-and-building/land-usecode/general-plan. 1986 Town Center Specific Plan. October. Available at:
https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/planning/town-center-specificplan#:~:text=In%20October%201986%2C%20the%20City,along%20the%20San %20Diego%20River.

4.12 Noise
California Code of Regulations (CCR). 2022. 2022 California Building Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Chapter 12 Interior Environment, Section 1206.4, Sound Transmission. Available at: http://www.bsc.ca.gov/codes.aspx.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2020. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. April.
2013 Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. September Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2022. What Noises Cause Hearing Loss? November. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/hearingloss/causes/?CDC_AAref_Val=https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/hearing_loss/what_noises_cau se_hearing_loss.html.

Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2006 Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment.

Office of Planning and Environment. FTA-VA-90-1003-06. May Intersecting Metrics. 2024. Santee Town Center Specific Plan Proposed Project Trip Generation. March
Santee, City of (City). 2003f. City of Santee General Plan Noise Element. Available at:
https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/documents/planning-building/general-plan/gp-noiseelement.pdf.

U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). 2008. Roadway Construction Noise Model.

Version 1.1. December 8
2004 California Department of Transportation, Traffic Noise Model (TNM) Version 2.5

4.13 Population and Housing
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2021b. San Diego 2021 Regional Plan.

Available at: https://www.sandag.org/regional-plan/2021-regional-plan/final-2021- regional-plan.

Santee, City of (City). 2022a. 2021-2029 Sixth Cycle Housing Element. May. Available at:
https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/documents/planning-building/general-plan/gp-housingelement.pdf.

10.0 References
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
10-10

4.14 Public Services
Grossmont Union High School District (GUHSD). Pay Fees. Accessed August 2024. Available at: https://www.guhsd.net/Departments/Business-Services/Facilities-andConstruction/Building-Fees/Pay-Fees/index.html.

Marine Corps Air Station Miramar (MCAS). 2021. Stowe Trail Permit Application and Access. https://www.miramar.marines.mil/Resources/StoweTrail/.

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2023. 43 Years of Crime in the San Diego Region: 1980 Through 2022. May. Available at: https://www.sandag.org/- /media/SANDAG/Documents/PDF/data-and-research/criminal-justice-and-publicsafety/criminal-justice-research-clearinghouse/cj-bulletin/cj-bulletin-43-years-of-crimesan-diego-region-2023-05-03.

San Diego, County of (County). 2021 San Diego County Sheriff’s Department, Santee Station.

Accessed February 2024. Available at:
https://www.sdsheriff.gov/Home/Components/FacilityDirectory/FacilityDirectory/42/34?n page=2.
2011 Final Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the General Plan Update.

EIR Page 2.13-11. August.

Santee, City of (City). 2022b. City of Santee Housing Element Rezone Program Implementation PEIR. EIR Page 4.12-3. June. Available at: https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2021100263/2 2021. Fire and Life Safety Services, Department Overview. Accessed February 2024.

Available at: https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/government/firedepartment/department-overview. 2017b Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update. April.
https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/documents/community-services/parks-and-recmaster-plan.pdf. 2003d City of Santee General Plan Safety Element. August. Available at:
https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/documents/planning-building/general-plan/gpsafety-element.pdf. 2003c City of Santee General Plan Land Use Element. August. Available at:
https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/documents/planning-building/general-plan/gpland-use-element.pdf. 2003g City of Santee General Plan Recreation Element. Available at:
https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/documents/planning-building/general-plan/gprecreation-element.pdf.

Santee School District (SSD). Developer Fees. Accessed August 2024. Available at:
https://www.santeesd.net/cms/One.aspx?portalId=27050397&pageId=29188419.

10.0 References
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
10-11

4.15 Recreation
Marine Corps Air Station Miramar (MCAS). 2021. Stowe Trail Permit Application and Access. https://www.miramar.marines.mil/Resources/StoweTrail/.

Santee, City of (City). 2024b. City of Santee Development Impact Fees (Residential). Available at: https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/documents/engineering/fees/developer-impact-feesresidential.pdf. 2020b Population and Demographics. Accessed February 2024. Available at:
https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/business/economic-development/population-- demographics.
2017b Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update. April.
https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/documents/community-services/parks-and-recmaster-plan.pdf.

4.16 Transportation
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2021b. San Diego Forward. https://sdforward.com/mobility-planning/2021-regional-plan.

Santee, City of (City). 2022d. City of Santee VMT Analysis Guidelines. April. 2017a. City of Santee General Plan Mobility Element. October. Available at:
https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/documents/planning-building/plans/mobility-element.pdf.

4.17 Tribal Cultural Resources
HELIX Environmental Planning (HELIX). 2024b. Santee Town Center Specific Plan Amendment Cultural Resources Report.

4.18 Utilities and Service Systems
Padre Dam Municipal Water District (PDMWD). 2024. Padre Dam Municipal Water District Water Supply Assessment, July 2024, Town Center Specific Plan. July. 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June. Available at:
https://www.padredam.org/DocumentCenter/View/5620/2020-Urban-WaterManagement-Plan. 2020 Water Shortage Contingency Plan. Available at:
https://www.padredam.org/DocumentCenter/View/5556/PadreDamWSCP2020?bi dId=.

Padre Dam Municipal Water District (PDMWD) (cont.)
2019 Sewer System Management Plan. April. Available at:
https://padredam.org/DocumentCenter/View/3555/SSMP-April-2019.

10.0 References
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
10-12
San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB). 2024. San Diego Municipal Storm Water Permit. Accessed March 2024. Available at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sandiego/water_issues/programs/stormwater/sd_storm water.html.

Santee, City of (City). 2020a. Fanita Ranch EIR. May. Available at:
https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/departments/city-clerk/document-central/planningbuilding/active-projects/final-revised-eir-fanita-ranch/draft-revised-fanita-ranch-eirvolume-i. 2015 Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management Program. June.

4.19 Wildfire
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2024. Fire Statistics. https://www.fire.ca.gov/our-impact/statistics.
2018 Strategic Fire Plan for California. August. Available at:
https://bof.fire.ca.gov/media/0yeg2vnm/2018-strategic-fire-plan-approved08_22_18.pdf.

San Diego, County of (County). 2023b. Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. Available at:
https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/sdc/oes/emergency_management/oes_jl_mitpla n.html.