VOLUME II
Santee Town Center Specific
Plan Update
Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report
SCH# 2023090032
August December 2024
Prepared for:
City of Santee Planning &
Building Department
10601 Magnolia Ave.
Santee, CA 92071
Prepared by:
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
7578 El Cajon Boulevard
La Mesa, CA 91942
This page intentionally left blank
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Revised Draft EIR
i
Table of Contents
Section Page
S.0 Executive Summary ..................................................................................................S-1 S.1 Project Overview..............................................................................................S-1 S.1.1 Project Location and Setting.................................................................S-1 S.1.2 Project Objectives ................................................................................S-1 S.1.3 Project Description ...............................................................................S-2 S.2 Summary of Significant Effects and Mitigation Measures that Reduce or Avoid the Significant Effects.............................................................................S-3 S.3 Issues to be Addressed....................................................................................S-3 S.4 Issues to be Resolved by the Decision-Making Body .......................................S-3 S.5 Project Alternatives..........................................................................................S-4 S.5.1 No Project Alternative...........................................................................S-4 S.5.2 Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative................................................S-4 S.5.3 Increased Density Alternative...............................................................S-5 S.5.4 No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative.............................................S-5 S.5.5 Environmentally Superior Alternative....................................................S-6
1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................1-1
1.1 EIR Purpose and Legal Authority ......................................................................1-1
1.1.1 EIR Purpose..........................................................................................1-1
1.1.2 EIR Legal Authority ...............................................................................1-1
1.2 EIR Type, Scope, Organization, and Content....................................................1-2
1.2.1 Type of EIR ...........................................................................................1-2
1.2.2 EIR Scope.............................................................................................1-2
1.2.3 EIR Organization and Content...............................................................1-7
1.3 EIR Intended Use and Review Process ............................................................1-8
1.3.1 EIR Intended Use..................................................................................1-8
1.3.2 EIR Process ..........................................................................................1-8
1.3.3 Draft EIR ...............................................................................................1-9
1.3.4 Final EIR ...............................................................................................1-9
1.3.5 Subsequent Environmental Review.......................................................1-9
2.0 Environmental Setting ...............................................................................................2-1
2.1 Regional Setting ...............................................................................................2-1
2.2 Project Location ................................................................................................2-1
2.2.1 TCSP Area............................................................................................2-1
2.2.2 AEN.......................................................................................................2-3
2.2.3 Housing Element Sites ..........................................................................2-3
2.3 Existing Land Uses and Environmental Setting.................................................2-3
2.3.1 TCSP Area............................................................................................2-8
2.3.2 AEN.......................................................................................................2-8
2.3.3 Housing Element Sites ..........................................................................2-8 Table of Contents
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
ii
3.0 Project Description.....................................................................................................3-1
3.1 Project Location and TCSP Boundaries ............................................................3-1
3.2 Purpose and Objectives of the Proposed Town Center Specific Plan................3-4
3.2.1 Purpose.................................................................................................3-4
3.2.2 Community Outreach Process...............................................................3-4
3.2.3 Project Objectives .................................................................................3-6
3.3 Contents of Proposed Specific Plan..................................................................3-7
3.3.1 Summary of Major Changes Between the Adopted Specific Plan and the Proposed Specific Plan.........................................................3-265
3.3.2 Relationship to Other City Planning Documents ..................................3-26
3.4 Actions Associated with the Proposed Specific Plan .......................................3-26
3.4.1 Discretionary Actions...........................................................................3-26
3.4.2 Ministerial Projects ..............................................................................3-27
4.0 Environmental Analysis.............................................................................................4-1
4.1 Aesthetics.....................................................................................................4.1-1
4.1.1 Existing Conditions.............................................................................4.1-1
4.1.2 Regulatory Framework .......................................................................4.1-4
4.1.3 Significance Determination Thresholds ..............................................4.1-8
4.1.4 Methodology.......................................................................................4.1-8
4.1.5 Issue 1: Scenic Vistas ........................................................................4.1-8
4.1.6 Issue 2: Scenic Resources ...............................................................4.1-12
4.1.7 Issue 3: Visual Character or Quality .................................................4.1-14
4.1.8 Issue 4: Light or Glare ......................................................................4.1-16
4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ..........................................................4.2-1
4.2.1 Existing Conditions.............................................................................4.2-1
4.2.2 Regulatory Framework .......................................................................4.2-2
4.2.3 Significance Determination Thresholds ..............................................4.2-5
4.2.4 Methodology.......................................................................................4.2-6
4.2.5 Issue 1: Conversion of Important Farmland........................................4.2-6
4.2.6 Issue 2: Conflict with Agricultural Zoning ............................................4.2-6
4.2.7 Issue 3: Conflict with Timberland Zoning ............................................4.2-7
4.2.8 Issue 4: Loss or Conversion of Forest Land .......................................4.2-8
4.2.9 Issue 5: Other Conversion of Farmland or Forest Land ......................4.2-8
4.3 Air Quality.....................................................................................................4.3-1
4.3.1 Existing Conditions.............................................................................4.3-1
4.3.2 Regulatory Framework .......................................................................4.3-5
4.3.3 Significance Determination Thresholds ..............................................4.3-9
4.3.4 Methodology.......................................................................................4.3-9
4.3.5 Issue 1: Consistency with Air Quality Plans ......................................4.3-13
4.3.6 Issue 2: Cumulative Net Increases of Criteria Pollutants ..................4.3-15
4.3.7 Issue 3: Sensitive Receptors ............................................................4.3-19
4.3.8 Issue 4: Odors..................................................................................4.3-22
4.4 Biological Resources...................................................................................4.4-1
4.4.1 Existing Conditions.............................................................................4.4-1
4.4.2 Regulatory Framework .....................................................................4.4-11
4.4.3 Significance Determination Thresholds ............................................4.4-16
4.4.4 Methodology.....................................................................................4.4-16 Table of Contents
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
iii
4.4.5 Issue 1: Sensitive Species................................................................4.4-17
4.4.6 Issue 2: Sensitive Vegetation Communities......................................4.4-31
4.4.7 Issue 3: Wetlands.............................................................................4.4-35
4.4.8 Issue 4: Wildlife Corridors.................................................................4.4-36
4.4.9 Issue 5: Habitat Conservation Planning............................................4.4-37
4.4.10 Issue 6: Policies and Ordinances Protecting Biological Resources...4.4-38
4.5 Cultural Resources......................................................................................4.5-1
4.5.1 Existing Conditions.............................................................................4.5-1
4.5.2 Regulatory Framework ...................................................................4.5-178
4.5.3 Significance Determination Thresholds ........................................4.5-1920
4.5.4 Methodology.....................................................................................4.5-20
4.5.5 Issue 1: Historic Resources..............................................................4.5-20
4.5.6 Issues 2: Archaeological Resources.................................................4.5-24
4.5.7 Issue 3: Human Remains .................................................................4.5-25
4.6 Energy ..........................................................................................................4.6-1
4.6.1 Existing Conditions.............................................................................4.6-1
4.6.2 Regulatory Framework .......................................................................4.6-2
4.6.3 Significance Determination Thresholds ..............................................4.6-8
4.6.4 Methodology.......................................................................................4.6-8
4.6.5 Issue 1: Energy Consumption...........................................................4.6-10
4.6.6 Issue 2: State or Local Plans............................................................4.6-13
4.7 Geology and Soils........................................................................................4.7-1
4.7.1 Existing Conditions.............................................................................4.7-1
4.7.2 Regulatory Framework .......................................................................4.7-5
4.7.3 Significance Determination Thresholds ..............................................4.7-9
4.7.4 Methodology.....................................................................................4.7-10
4.7.5 Issues 1 and 3: Seismic Hazards and Unstable Geology..................4.7-10
4.7.6 Issue 2: Soil Erosion.........................................................................4.7-12
4.7.7 Issue 4: Expansive Soils...................................................................4.7-13
4.7.8 Issue 5: Septic Tanks or Alternative Wastewater Disposal ...............4.7-14
4.7.89 Issue 6: Paleontological Resources and Unique Geology.................4.7-14
4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions........................................................................4.8-1
4.8.1 Existing Conditions.............................................................................4.8-1
4.8.2 Regulatory Framework .......................................................................4.8-4
4.8.3 Significance Determination Thresholds ............................................4.8-15
4.8.4 Modeling Methodology .....................................................................4.8-16
4.8.5 Issue 1: Greenhouse Gas Emissions................................................4.8-19
4.8.6 Issue 2: Policies, Plans, and Regulations Intended to Reduce GHG Emissions................................................................................4.8-24
4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ..............................................................4.9-1
4.9.1 Existing Conditions.............................................................................4.9-1
4.9.2 Regulatory Framework .....................................................................4.9-10
4.9.3 Significance Determination Thresholds ............................................4.9-15
4.9.4 Methodology.....................................................................................4.9-16
4.9.5 Issues 1, 2, and 3: Hazardous Materials—Use, Transport, Disposal, Accidental Release, and Emissions Near a School...........4.9-16 Table of Contents
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
iv
4.9.6 Issue 4: Hazardous Materials – Sites ...............................................4.9-20
4.9.7 Issue 5: Airport Hazards ...................................................................4.9-20
4.9.8 Issue 6: Emergency Response.........................................................4.9-24
4.9.9 Issue 7: Wildland Fires .....................................................................4.9-25
4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality....................................................................4.10-1
4.10.1 Existing Conditions...........................................................................4.10-1
4.10.2 Regulatory Framework .....................................................................4.10-6
4.10.3 Significance Determination Thresholds ..........................................4.10-16
4.10.4 Methodology...................................................................................4.10-16
4.10.5 Issues 1 and 5: Water Quality.........................................................4.10-17
4.10.6 Issue 2: Groundwater .....................................................................4.10-18
4.10.7 Issue 3: Drainage Patterns/Stormwater Runoff...............................4.10-19
4.10.8 Issue 4: Flood Hazard/Tsunami Inundation ....................................4.10-21
4.11 Land Use and Planning .............................................................................4.11-1
4.11.1 Existing Conditions...........................................................................4.11-1
4.11.2 Regulatory Framework .....................................................................4.11-3
4.11.3 Significance Determination Thresholds ............................................4.11-7
4.11.4 Methodology.....................................................................................4.11-7
4.11.5 Issue 1: Physically Divide an Established Community ......................4.11-7
4.11.6 Issue 2: Conflicts with Plans and Policies.........................................4.11-8
4.12 Noise...........................................................................................................4.12-1
4.12.1 Existing Conditions...........................................................................4.12-1
4.12.2 Regulatory Framework .....................................................................4.12-5
4.12.3 Significance Determination Thresholds ..........................................4.12-11
4.12.4 Methodology...................................................................................4.12-12
4.12.5 Issue 1: Noise Standards ...............................................................4.12-13
4.12.6 Issue 2: Groundborne Noise and Vibration.....................................4.12-22
4.12.7 Issue 3: Airport Noise .....................................................................4.12-24
4.13 Population and Housing............................................................................4.13-1
4.13.1 Existing Conditions...........................................................................4.13-1
4.13.2 Regulatory Framework .....................................................................4.13-2
4.13.3 Significance Determination Thresholds ............................................4.13-4
4.13.4 Methodology.....................................................................................4.13-4
4.13.5 Issue 1: Induce Unplanned Population Growth.................................4.13-4
4.13.6 Issue 2: Displace People or Housing................................................4.13-5
4.14 Public Services ..........................................................................................4.14-1
4.14.1 Existing Conditions...........................................................................4.14-1
4.14.2 Regulatory Framework .....................................................................4.14-6
4.14.3 Significance Determination Thresholds ............................................4.14-8
4.14.4 Methodology.....................................................................................4.14-9
4.14.5 Issue 1a: Fire Service.......................................................................4.14-9
4.14.6 Issue 1b: Police Protection .............................................................4.14-10
4.14.7 Issue 1c: Schools ...........................................................................4.14-11
4.14.8 Issue 1d: Library Services ..............................................................4.14-12
4.14.9 Issues 1e: Parks Facilities ..............................................................4.14-13 Table of Contents
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
v
4.15 Recreation ..................................................................................................4.15-1
4.15.1 Existing Conditions...........................................................................4.15-1
4.15.2 Regulatory Framework .....................................................................4.15-4
4.15.3 Significance Determination Thresholds ............................................4.15-7
4.15.4 Methodology.....................................................................................4.15-8
4.15.5 Issue 1: Existing Recreational Facilities............................................4.15-8
4.15.6 Issue 2: New Recreational Facilities .................................................4.15-9
4.16 Transportation ...........................................................................................4.16-1
4.16.1 Existing Conditions...........................................................................4.16-1
4.16.2 Regulatory Framework .....................................................................4.16-7
4.16.3 Significance Determination Thresholds ..........................................4.16-11
4.16.4 Methodology...................................................................................4.16-12
4.16.5 Issue 1: Circulation System ............................................................4.16-14
4.16.6 Issue 2: Vehicle Miles Traveled ......................................................4.16-15
4.16.7 Issue 3: Hazards Due to a Design Feature.....................................4.16-20
4.16.8 Issue 4: Emergency Access ...........................................................4.16-21
4.17 Tribal Cultural Resources .........................................................................4.17-1
4.17.1 Existing Conditions...........................................................................4.17-1
4.17.2 Regulatory Framework .....................................................................4.17-2
4.17.3 Significance Determination Thresholds ............................................4.17-4
4.17.4 Methodology.....................................................................................4.17-5
4.17.5 Issue 1: Historical Resources ...........................................................4.17-5
4.17.6 Issue 2: Significant Resource per PRC Section 5024.1 ....................4.17-6
4.18 Utilities and Service Systems ...................................................................4.18-1
4.18.1 Existing Conditions...........................................................................4.18-1
4.18.2 Regulatory Framework .....................................................................4.18-5
4.18.3 Significance Determination Thresholds ..........................................4.18-12
4.18.4 Methodology...................................................................................4.18-13
4.18.5 Issue 1: Utility Infrastructure ...........................................................4.18-13
4.18.6 Issue 2: Water Supply ....................................................................4.18-15
4.18.7 Issue 3: Wastewater Treatment......................................................4.18-18
4.18.8 Issues 4 and 5: Solid Waste ...........................................................4.18-19
4.19 Wildfire .......................................................................................................4.19-1
4.19.1 Existing Conditions...........................................................................4.19-1
4.19.2 Regulatory Framework .....................................................................4.19-2
4.19.3 Significance Determination Thresholds ............................................4.19-6
4.19.4 Methodology.....................................................................................4.19-6
4.19.5 Issue 1: Emergency Response Plans ...............................................4.19-6
4.19.6 Issue 2: Wildfire................................................................................4.19-8
4.19.7 Issue 3: Infrastructure.......................................................................4.19-9
4.19.8 Issue 4: Flooding or Landslides ........................................................4.19-9
5.0 Significant Unavoidable Environmental Effects/Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes.............................................................................................5-1
5.1 Significant Environmental Effects Which Cannot Be Avoided if the Project is Implemented .................................................................................................5-1 Table of Contents
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
vi
5.2 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes Which Would Result if the Project is Implemented......................................................................................5-1
5.2.1 Non-renewable Resources ....................................................................5-1
5.2.2 Secondary Impacts................................................................................5-3
5.2.3 Environmental Accidents .......................................................................5-3
6.0 Growth Inducement....................................................................................................6-1
6.1 Population and Housing Growth........................................................................6-1
6.2 Removal of an Impediment to Growth...............................................................6-1
6.3 Foster Economic or Employment Growth..........................................................6-2
6.4 Conclusion........................................................................................................6-2
7.0 Cumulative Impacts....................................................................................................7-1
7.1 Cumulative Analysis Setting and Methodology..................................................7-1
7.1.1 Plans and Programs Evaluated for Determination of Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................................7-2
7.2 Cumulative Effect Analysis................................................................................7-2
7.2.1 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ......................................................7-2
7.2.2 Aesthetics..............................................................................................7-3
7.2.3 Air Quality..............................................................................................7-4
7.2.4 Biological Resources.............................................................................7-5
7.2.5 Cultural Resources................................................................................7-5
7.2.6 Energy...................................................................................................7-6
7.2.7 Geology and Soils .................................................................................7-6
7.2.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions..................................................................7-7
7.2.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.........................................................7-7
7.2.10 Hydrology and Water Quality.................................................................7-8
7.2.11 Land Use and Planning .........................................................................7-9
7.2.12 Noise.....................................................................................................7-9
7.2.13 Population and Housing ........................................................................7-9
7.2.14 Public Services....................................................................................7-10
7.2.15 Recreation...........................................................................................7-10
7.2.16 Transportation .....................................................................................7-10
7.2.17 Tribal Cultural Resources ....................................................................7-11
7.2.18 Utilities and Service Systems ..............................................................7-11
7.2.19 Wildfire ................................................................................................7-12
8.0 Effects Found Not To Be Significant.........................................................................8-1
8.1 Mineral Resources............................................................................................8-1
9.0 Project Alternatives....................................................................................................9-1
9.1 Selection of Alternatives....................................................................................9-1
9.2 Alternatives Considered But Rejected...............................................................9-3
9.3 Project Alternatives...........................................................................................9-3
9.3.1 No Project Alternative............................................................................9-4
9.3.2 Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative...............................................9-10
9.3.3 Increased Density Alternative..............................................................9-17
9.3.4 No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative............................................9-24
9.3.5 Environmentally Superior Alternative...................................................9-31
10.0 References................................................................................................................10-1 Table of Contents
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
vii
LIST OF APPENDICES
A Notice of Preparation (NOP) and NOP Comments
B Air Quality Technical Report
C Biological Technical Report
D Cultural Resources Sensitivity Analysis
E Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report
F Noise Technical Report
G Construction and Operational Energy Use Calculations
H Water Supply Assessment
LIST OF FIGURES
No. Title Page
2-1 USGS Map ................................................................................................................2-2 2-2 Aerial Photograph of Housing Element Site 16A........................................................2-4 2-3 Aerial Photograph of Housing Element Site 16B........................................................2-5 2-4 Aerial Photograph of Housing Element Site 20A........................................................2-6 2-5 Aerial Photograph of Housing Element Site 20B........................................................2-7 3-1 Regional Location......................................................................................................3-2 3-2 Project Boundaries ....................................................................................................3-3 3-3 Proposed Neighborhoods ..........................................................................................3-5 3-4 TCSP Land Uses.....................................................................................................3-13 3-5 TCSP Multi-Use Pathways ......................................................................................3-16 3-6 TCSP Bicycle Network.............................................................................................3-17 3-7 TCSP Roadway Network .........................................................................................3-19 3-8 TCSP Potential Parking Garage Locations ..............................................................3-21
4.2-1 Important Farmland Within the TCSP Area.............................................................4.2-3
4.4-1 Vegetation and Sensitive Resources/Impacts.........................................................4.4-3
4.4-2 Potential Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters .........................................................4.4-9
4.5-1 Archaeological Resource Sensitivity Map .............................................................4.5-10
4.7-1 TCSP Soil Types ....................................................................................................4.7-2
4.7-2 TCSP Geologic Formations ....................................................................................4.7-3
4.9-1 Hazardous Waste Sites ..........................................................................................4.9-3
4.9-2a Airport Compatibility Zones.....................................................................................4.9-4
4.9-2b Airport Compatibility Zones.....................................................................................4.9-5
4.9-3 Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone and Wiland-Urban Interface .........................4.9-9
4.10-1 Waterways and Drainage Basins..........................................................................4.10-2
4.10-2 FEMA Floodplains/Floodways ..............................................................................4.10-5
4.10-3a Dam Inundation Areas – San Vicente Dam...........................................................4.10-7
4.10-3b Dam Inundation Areas – Dam El Capitan Dam.....................................................4.10-8
4.10-3c Dam Inundation Areas – Chet Harritt Dam............................................................4.10-9
4.12-1 Transportation Noise Contours (No Project) .......................................................4.12-16
4.12-2 Transportation Noise Contours (With Project).....................................................4.12-17
4.16-1 TCSP Transit Area Network..................................................................................4.16-4
4.16-2 Transit Priority Areas ............................................................................................4.16-6 Table of Contents
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
viii
LIST OF TABLES
No. Title Page
S-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts .........................................................................S-7 1-1 NOP Comment Letter Issue Areas.............................................................................1-4 3-1 TCSP Buildout Summary...........................................................................................3-7 3-2 Arts and Entertainment Neighborhood Buildout Summary .........................................3-8 3-3 Four Housing Element Sites Buildout Summary ......................................................3-10 3-4 Land Use Designations and Applicable Zoning........................................................3-14
4.2-1 Important Farmland Within The Project Area..........................................................4.2-2
4.3-1 Air Quality Measurements – El Cajon Monitoring Station........................................4.3-4
4.3-2 Ambient Air Quality Standards................................................................................4.3-6
4.3-3 Air Quality Impact Screening Levels .......................................................................4.3-9
4.3-4 Land Use Profile – First Year of Construction .......................................................4.3-11
4.3-5 Housing Element Sites Anticipated Construction Schedule ..................................4.3-11
4.3-6 Housing Element Sites Construction Equipment Assumptions..............................4.3-12
4.3-7 Maximum Daily Program Construction Emissions.................................................4.3-16
4.3-8 Maximum Daily HE Site Construction Emissions ..................................................4.3-16
4.3-9 Maximum Daily Program Operational Emissions ..................................................4.3-17
4.3-10 Maximum Daily Housing Element Site Operational Emissions..............................4.3-18
4.3-11 Maximum Daily Program Operational Emissions With Mitigation ..........................4.3-19
4.4-1 Vegetation Communities By Project Location .........................................................4.4-1
4.4-2 Aquatic Resources Within The Jurisdictional Delineation Review Area.................4.4-10
4.4-3 Vegetation Community/Land Use Types Impacts And Mitigation Requirements .......................................................................................................4.4-18
4.4-4 Impacts To Jurisdictional Waters (River Parkways Project) ..................................4.4-33
4.5-1 Previously Recorded Historical Resources ...........................................................4.5-11
4.5-2 Previously Recorded Prehistoric Resources .........................................................4.5-14
4.6-1 Construction Energy Use......................................................................................4.6-11
4.6-2 Operational Energy Use .......................................................................................4.6-12
4.7-1 Faults in the Vicinity of the City...............................................................................4.7-4
4.7-2 Geotechnical Studies Required ..............................................................................4.7-8
4.8-1 Global Warming Potentials and Atmospheric Lifetimes...........................................4.8-2
4.8-2 California Greenhouse Gas Emissions By Sector...................................................4.8-3
4.8-3 2013 City of Santee Greenhouse Gas Inventory.....................................................4.8-4
4.8-4 Land Use Profile – First Year of Construction .......................................................4.8-17
4.8-5 Housing Element Sites Anticipated Construction Schedule ..................................4.8-17
4.8-6 Housing Element Sites Construction Equipment Assumptions..............................4.8-18
4.8-7 Construction GHG Emissions ...............................................................................4.8-20
4.8-8 Operational GHG Emissions.................................................................................4.8-20
4.8-9 Project Consistency with Sustainable Santee Plan Measures...............................4.8-22 4-12.1 Noise Monitoring Results......................................................................................4.12-4
4.12-2 Exterior Land Use/Noise Compatibility Guidelines ................................................4.12-7 4-12.3 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels ....................................................4.12-13 4-12.4 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels – 250 Feet ..................................4.12-14 4-12.5 Traffic Noise Levels – 2050 Horizon Year...........................................................4.12-18
4.13-1 Regional and Local Population Growth.................................................................4.13-1
4.13-2 Regional and Local Housing.................................................................................4.13-2
4.13-3 Regional and Local Jobs ......................................................................................4.13-2
4.14-1 Existing Parks and Recreational Facilities In The City of Santee ..........................4.14-4 Table of Contents
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
ix
4.15-1 Existing Parks and Recreational Facilities In The City of Santee ..........................4.15-2
4.16-1 City of Santee VMT Significance Thresholds ......................................................4.16-12
4.16-2 VMT Analysis– TCSP Area.................................................................................4.16-16
4.16.3 VMT Analysis– Housing Element Sites 20A and 20B .........................................4.16-17
4.18-1 Retail: Demand for Potable and Non-Potable Water.............................................4.18-1
4.18-2 Retail: Water Supplies – Actual ............................................................................4.18-2
4.18-3 Retail: Water Supplies – Projected .......................................................................4.18-3
4.18-4 Recycled Water Use in the PDMWD Service Area ...............................................4.18-4 9-1 Matrix Comparison of the Project and Alternatives Impacts .......................................9-2 Table of Contents
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
x
This page intentionally left blank
Executive Summary
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
S-1
S.0 Executive Summary
S.1 Project Overview
This summary provides a brief synopsis of: (1) the proposed project; (2) the results of the environmental analysis contained within this Environmental Impact Report (EIR); (3) the major areas of controversy and issues to be resolved by decision-makers; and (4) the alternatives to the project that were considered. This summary does not contain the extensive background and analysis found in the document. Therefore, the reader should review the entire document to fully understand the project and its environmental consequences.
S.1.1 Project Description
The project analyzed in this Draft EIR is the comprehensive update to the Santee Town Center Specific Plan (TCSP), which was originally approved in October of 1986 and last amended in 2019. As the TCSP area is partially developed, the analysis focuses on updated development standards and impacts associated with potential future development and redevelopment within the TCSP. The proposed TCSP establishes five neighborhoods (Arts and Entertainment, Town Center Commercial, Park Center, Park Avenue, and Facilities Based) and includes the following:
a comprehensively updated TCSP, including expansion of the boundaries of the overall TCSP area and updated development standards to facilitate planned development throughout all five neighborhoods in the TCSP area; expansion of the boundaries of the existing Arts and Entertainment Overlay District (AEOD) to the new Arts and Entertainment Neighborhood (AEN); and conceptual development plans and objective design standards for four Housing Element sites in the southeastern portion of the AEN, pursuant to the densities permitted in the City’s adopted 6th Cycle Housing Element and as allowed under state density bonus law under California Government Code Section 65915. Future development within the TCSP area would be guided and regulated through the proposed updated TCSP, the City Municipal Code, and the City General Plan. This Draft EIR analyzes the environmental effects of implementing the proposed TCSP as follows:
• The proposed approximately 651-acre TCSP area, encompassing all five neighborhoods, is analyzed at the program level;
• A sub-geography of the TCSP, the proposed approximately 342-acre AEN, is also analyzed at the program level; and
• Each of the Housing Element sites located within the AEN is analyzed at the project level, including:
o The 11.11-acre Site 16A
o The 8.61-acre Site 16B
o The 7.75-acre Site 20A
o The 10.00-acre Site 20B
S.1.2 Project Location and Setting
The project is located in the City of Santee (City), in San Diego County. The City of Santee is bordered by unincorporated San Diego County to the north and east, the City of El Cajon to the south, and the City of San Diego to the west. The proposed project takes place in the TCSP area Executive Summary
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
S-2
of the City, which is traversed by the San Diego River. The proposed TCSP area encompasses five neighborhoods and is bounded by Mast Boulevard to the north, Magnolia Avenue to the east, Mission Gorge Road to the south, and Mast Park to the west. The AEN is located wholly within the TCSP area, stretching across the San Diego River in the central portion of the TCSP area.
The AEN is bordered by Riverwalk Drive and residential uses to the north, Magnolia Avenue and institutional land uses to the east, Mission Gorge Road to the south, and Cuyamaca Street to the west. The four Housing Element sites are located within the AEN south of the San Diego River.
Site 16A and 16B are adjacent to Riverview Parkway and Las Colinas Detention Facility (Las Colinas). Site 20A and 20B area adjacent to Magnolia Avenue and Edgemoor Drive. The Historic Edgemoor Polo Barn is just north of Site 20A. The San Diego Green Copper Line Trolley terminates in the southern portion of the AEN at the Santee Trolley Station.
S.1.3 Project Objectives
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15124, the following primary objectives support the purpose of the project, assist the Lead Agency in developing a reasonable range of alternatives to be evaluated in this report, and ultimately aid decision-makers in preparing findings and overriding considerations, if necessary. The purpose of the project is to address the housing needs and objectives of the City and to meet the requirements of state law. The project has the following objectives:
• 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;
• 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;
Executive Summary
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
S-3
• 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.
S.2 Summary of Significant Effects and Mitigation Measures that Reduce or Avoid the Significant Effects
Table S-1, Summary of Environmental Impacts, located at the end of this section, summarizes the significant and less than significant effects identified during the environmental analysis completed for the project. Table S-1 also includes a mitigation framework to reduce the significant environmental effects, with a conclusion as to whether the impact has been mitigated to below a level of significance. The mitigation measures listed in Table S-1 are also discussed within each relevant section in Chapter 4.0.
S.3 Issues to be Addressed
The Notice of Preparation (NOP) was distributed on September 1, 2023, for a 30-day public comment period. In addition, a public scoping meeting was held on September 7, 2023 from 3:00 to 5:00 p.m. at the City of Santee, Building 5, 10601 Magnolia Avenue, Santee, CA 92071. The NOP, comment letters, and transcription of the scoping meeting comments are included in this EIR as Appendix A. Potentially significant impacts on the following environmental issues are analyzed in detail in the EIR:
4.1 Aesthetics
4.2 Agriculture-Forestry Resources
4.3 Air Quality
4.4 Biological Resources
4.5 Cultural Resources
4.6 Energy
4.7 Geology and Soils
4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
4.11 Land Use and Planning
4.12 Noise
4.13 Population and Housing
4.14 Public Services
4.15 Recreation
4.16 Transportation
4.17 Tribal Cultural Resources
4.18 Utilities and Service Systems
4.19 Wildfire
S.4 Issues to be Resolved by the Decision-Making Body
Issues to be resolved include how to reduce significant, unavoidable adverse environmental impacts associated with the project to the maximum extent feasible while achieving project Executive Summary
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
S-4
objectives, through adoption of mitigation measures and/or alternatives to the project identified in this EIR.
S.5 Project Alternatives
To fully evaluate the environmental effects of projects, CEQA mandates that alternatives to the project be analyzed. Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines requires the discussion of “a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project” and the evaluation of the comparative merits of the alternatives.
The alternatives discussion is intended to “focus on alternatives to the project or its location, which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project,” even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives.
The EIR addresses four project alternatives: the No Project Alternative, the Reduced Biological Impacts Alternative, the Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative, and the No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative. Alternatives to the proposed project are evaluated in full in Chapter 9.0 of this document.
S.5.1 No Project Alternative
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 AEN, would not be included in the TCSP as proposed under 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.
S.5.2 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 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 Executive Summary
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
S-5
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 developed 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. 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 be part of the open space system to unify areas north and south of the San Diego River within the AEN, and better meet the project objectives.
S.5.3 Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design Alternative The Increased Density/Transit Oriented Design (TOD) 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 close proximity to transit within an established 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, which is intended to integrate urban places and public spaces with access focused on pedestrian, bicycle, and transit as modes of transportation. Development would include increased density and reduced parking standards, which could result in fewer vehicle trips and less greenhouse gas emissions being generated. Specifically, this alternative would allow residential development up to 36 du/ac consistent with the Residential TC-R-3030 (30 to 36 du/ac) land use designation in the TCSP. For the purpose of this alternatives analysis, potential increases in residential development are estimated at an additional 1,515 du in the TPA portion of 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, land use densities, 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. 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.
S.5.4 No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative
The No Outdoor Performance Use Alternative represents a modified update to the TCSP to avoid some of the potential 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 reduced operational noise would also incrementally reduce potential noise impacts on nearby sensitive biological resources. 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. 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.
Executive Summary
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
S-6
S.5.5 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.
Executive Summary
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
S-7
Table S-1
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Threshold Impact Discussion Mitigation Measure Significance After Mitigation
4.1 Aesthetics
Would the project have a
substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites 16A, 16B, and 20B
Overall adherence to applicable Municipal Code development review and design requirements, in addition to proposed TCSP Objective Design Standards that maximize views of public amenities like the San Diego River, would ensure that future development in the TCSP Area, AEN, and Housing Element sites 16A and 16B would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic view or vista, and impacts would be less than significant.
Housing Element Site 20A
Site 20A is located in the vicinity of the Edgemoor Polo Barn, which the City values as an aesthetic resource. Future
development at Site 20A in proximity to the Edgemoor Polo Barn could result in significant impacts to visual character and quality.
TCSP area, AEN, and Housing
Element sites 16A, 16B, and
20B
No mitigation is required.
Housing Element Site 20A
MM-CUL-5
Less than Significant .
Would the project substantially
damage scenic resources,
including but not limited to trees,
rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a State Scenic
Highway?
All future development in the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites would be subject to the requirement for
Development review consistent with Municipal Code Chapter
13.08. This would ensure consistency with General Plan policies and applicable design and development review requirements, including the Objective Design Standards for the TCSP area, as detailed in Section 4.1.2.3. Application of these development review requirements would ensure protection of key scenic resources. Impacts would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Executive Summary
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
S-8
Threshold Impact Discussion Mitigation Measure Significance After Mitigation
In non-urbanized areas, would
the project substantially degrade
the existing visual character or
quality of public views of the site
and its surroundings (Public
views are those that are
experienced from publicly
accessible vantage points)? If
the project is in an urbanized
area, would the project conflict
with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic
quality?
TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites 16A, 16B, and 20B
Overall adherence to applicable Municipal Code development review and design requirements, in addition to proposed TCSP Objective Design Standards that preserve open space and recreational opportunities, would ensure that future development in the TCSP Area, AEN, and Housing Element sites 16A, 16B, and 20B would not have a substantial adverse effect on visual character or quality, and impacts would be less than significant.
Housing Element Site 20A
Housing Element Site 20A is located in the vicinity of the Edgemoor Polo Barn, which the City values as an aesthetic resource. Future development at Site 20A in proximity to the Edgemoor Polo Barn could result in significant impacts to visual character and quality.
TCSP area, AEN, and Housing
Element sites 16A, 16B, and
20B
No mitigation is required.
Housing Element Site 20A
MM-CUL-5
Less than Significant.
Would the project create a new
source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely
affect daytime or nighttime views
in the area?
The TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites would be
required to comply with SMC standards related to light and glare (Chapter 13.08.070(G)), which requires that outdoor lighting be directed away from adjacent properties and set in a way to avoid any detriment to the surrounding area. Additionally, the Community Enhancement Element includes the standard for lighting and signage to minimize spillover of lighting through use of directional, cut-off and nonglare fixtures. General Plan policies would be implemented through the required development review process. Impacts would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Would the project convert Prime
Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide or Local
Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California
Resources Agency, or other
agricultural resources, to nonagricultural use?
Because there are no current or planned agricultural uses in the project area, the proposed project would not result in impacts to conversion of FMMP farmland in the TCSP, AEN, or Housing Element sites. Impacts would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Executive Summary
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
S-9
Threshold Impact Discussion Mitigation Measure Significance After Mitigation
Would the project conflict with
existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
There are no recent or current Williamson Act contract lands within the project site. There would be no conflicts with agricultural zoning or Williamson Act contracts in the TCSP, AEN, or Housing Element sites as a result of the proposed project. Impacts would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Would the project conflict with
existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, Forest Land (as
defined in Public Resources
Code Section (12220(g)),
Timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code Section 4526),
or timberland-zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by
Government Code Section
51104(g))?
The TCSP, AEN, and Housing Element sites do not contain any areas zoned as Timberland or Timberland Production. Therefore, no associated impacts in the TCSP, AEN, or Housing Element sites would result from the implementation of the proposed project. Impacts would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Would the project result in the
loss of Forest Land or
conversion of Forest Land to
non-forest use?
The TCSP, AEN, and Housing Element sites do not contain any areas identified as forest resources under California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) or City policies and guidelines. Therefore, no associated impacts to forest land in the TCSP, AEN, or Housing Element sites would result from
implementation of the proposed project. Impacts would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Would the project involve other
changes in the existing
environment which, due to their
location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use or conversion of Forest Land to non-forest use?
Based on the previous impact discussions and that no active Farmland or Forest land exists or is zoned in the vicinity of the project area, the project would not result in conversion of Farmland or Forest land within, or in the vicinity of, the TCSP area, AEN or Housing Element sites, and no associated farmland conversion impacts would occur from the implementation of the proposed project. Impacts would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
4.3 Air Quality
Would the project conflict with or
obstruct the implementation of
the applicable air quality plan,
i.e., the San Diego RAQS?
As buildout of the project would not result in an increase in development or traffic generation over what would occur under buildout of the adopted zoning and land use designations, the project would not result in an increase in emissions that are not already accounted for in the Attainment Plan or RAQS. Impacts would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required Less than Significant
Executive Summary
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
S-10
Threshold Impact Discussion Mitigation Measure Significance After Mitigation
Would the project result in a
cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant
for which the project region is in
non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions
which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
The project’s temporary construction-related criteria pollutant and precursor emissions would be below the SDAPCD’s emission thresholds, including for those pollutants for which the SDAB is non-attainment (VOC, NOX, PM10, PM2.5). Therefore, the
project’s construction activities would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state AAQS. The long-term emissions of criteria pollutants and precursors generation by full buildout of the TCSP area and AEN would result in exceedances to SDAPCD’s daily screening thresholds for VOC, CO, PM10, and PM2.5; impacts would be significant. The long-term emissions of the Housing Element sites would not exceed the SDAPCD daily screening thresholds, and impacts would be less than significant.
TCSP area and AEN
MM-AQ-1
Housing Element sites
No mitigation is required.
TCSP area and AEN
Significant and unavoidable.
Housing Element sites
Less than Significant
Would the project expose
sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
The transportation projects identified in the TCSP meet the City’s VMT screening criteria of “closing gaps in the transportation network” and/or “adding new or enhanced bicycle or pedestrian facilities on existing streets” and are presumed not to increase vehicle travel. Therefore, air quality impacts related to the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial CO concentrations due to project traffic would be less than significant for the TCSP, AEN and Housing Element sites. Maximum daily particulate matter (i.e., PM10 or PM2.5) emissions generated by construction equipment operation and haul-truck trips during construction (exhaust particulate matter, or DPM), combined with fugitive dust generated by equipment operation and vehicle travel, would be well below the SDAPCD screening-level thresholds. Considering this information, and the fact that any concentrated use of heavy construction equipment would occur at various locations throughout the project site only for short durations, construction of the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial DPM concentrations, and the impact would be less than
significant.
No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Executive Summary
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
S-11
Threshold Impact Discussion Mitigation Measure Significance After Mitigation
Would the project result in other
emissions (such as those
leading to odors) affecting a
substantial number of people?
Existing sources of odors are either located far enough from the project area that they would not be detectable or would be diluted to an undetectable level before reaching a receptor. Once operational, future development implemented under the project would include residential and associated commercial uses that are generally not a source of objectionable odors. Therefore, project operation would not result in odors affecting a substantial number of people, and impacts would be less than significant for the TCSP, AEN, and Housing Element sites.
No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
4.4 Biological Resources
Would the project have a
substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or
by CDFW or USFWS?
Development of the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element
sites would or could result in direct impacts to sensitive plant and animal species, including smooth tarplant, southwestern spiny rush, coastal California gnatcatcher, least Bell’s vireo, western spadefoot toad, San Diegan legless lizard, California glossy snake, Belding’s orange-throated whiptail, red diamond
rattlesnake, Blainville’s horned lizard, and two-striped garter snake. Impacts would be significant.
TCSP area and AEN
MM-BIO-6
TCSP area, AEN, and Housing
Element Sites
MM-BIO-1 through MM-BIO-5;
MM-BIO-7 through MM-BIO-10
Less than Significant
Would the project have a
substantial adverse effect on any
sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional
plans, policies, and regulations
or by CDFW or USFWS?
TCSP area and AEN
Development of the TCSP area and AEN would result in impacts to jurisdictional wetlands, riparian habitats, and Diegan coastal sage scrub. Impacts would be significant.
Site 16A
Development of Site 16A would impact wetland and non-wetland waters of the U.S., streambed and riparian areas, and southern willow scrub. Impacts would be significant.
Site 20A and 20B
Sites 16B, 20A, and 20B would not result in impacts to sensitive natural communities requiring mitigation, but construction could result in significant impacts to adjacent habitat.
TCSP area, AEN, and Housing
Element Sites
MM-BIO-3 through MM-BIO-6;
MM-BIO-11 and MM-BIO-12
Housing Element Site 16A
MM-BIO-12
Less than significant.
Executive Summary
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
S-12
Threshold Impact Discussion Mitigation Measure Significance After Mitigation
Would the project have a
substantial adverse effect on
wetlands as defined by Section
404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other
means?
TCSP area, AEN, and Site 16A
The project would result in potential impacts to USACE wetland and non-wetland waters, which are anticipated in Housing Element site 16A and in other portions of the AEN and TCSP area as determined through future site-specific studies. Impacts would be significant.
Site 16B, 20A, and 20B
No impact to wetlands is anticipated to occur in Sites 16B, 20A, or 20B.
MM-BIO-3, MM-BIO-4, MM-BIO6, MM-BIO-11, MM-BIO-12 (Site 16A only)
Less than Significant
Would the project interfere
substantially with the movement
of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
TCSP area and AEN
Retention of the river corridor as Open Space consistent with the TCSP is expected to protect wildlife movement and no impact to wildlife corridors would occur associated with the TCSP or AEN.
Housing Element sites
Sites 16A, 16B, 20A, and 20B are primarily surrounded by developed land. Although Sites 16A and 16B are bounded, in part, by undeveloped land, they do not meet the criteria for a wildlife movement corridor as they are restricted by roads and other development. No impact to wildlife corridors would occur within the Housing Element sites.
No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Would the project conflict with
the provisions of an adopted
HCP, NCCP, or other approved
local, regional, or state HCP?
The project area is located within the planning area for the City of Santee Draft Subarea Plan, which has not been adopted.
Therefore, the project, as proposed, would not conflict with an adopted HCP, NCCP, or any other approved local, regional, or state HCP. However, in anticipation of the future adoption of the Santee Subarea Plan within the lifetime of future development activities covered by the proposed TCSP, implementation of BIO6 and BIO-10 is recommended to ensure future development within the project area is consistent with the City of Santee Subarea Plan once adopted. Like BIO-6 and BIO-10, the
Subarea Plan is expected to require site-specific surveys to be conducted during future project-level review to verify the presence of sensitive biological resources occurring on individual sites; determine the extent of any potential impacts; and provide mitigation to reduce the impacts to below a level of significance.
Impacts would be less than significant.
MM-BIO-6 and MM-BIO-11 Less than Significant
Executive Summary
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
S-13
Threshold Impact Discussion Mitigation Measure Significance After Mitigation
Would the project conflict with
any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
The project does not propose any activities that would conflict with the San Diego Final MSCP Plan or adopted local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Future development would be required to implement the mitigation framework, including BIO-5, BIO-6, BIO-7, BIO-8, BIO-10, BIO-11, and BIO12, as applicable to ensure impacts associated with biological resources would be reduced to a level that is less than significant.
MM-BIO-5, MM-BIO-6, MM-BIO7, MM-BIO-8, MM-BIO-11, and
MM-BIO-12
Less than significant
4.5 Cultural Resources
Would the project result in a
substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical
resource as defined in Section
15064.5?
TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites 16A, 16B, and 20B
The presence of previously recorded historical resources within the TCSP area suggests that there is a potential for encountering previously unidentified resources during development of the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites. Impacts would be significant.
Sites 20A
Future development of Site 20A has the potential to cause substantial adverse changes to the Edgemoor Polo Barn.
Impacts would be significant.
TCSP area, AEN, and Housing
Element sites 16A, 16B, and
20B
MM-CUL-1 through MM-CUL-4
Housing Element Site 20A
MM-CUL-1 through MM-CUL-5
Less than Significant
Would the project result in a
substantial adverse change in
the significance of an
archaeological resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5?
The presence of previously recorded archaeological resources within the TCSP area suggests that there is a potential for encountering previously unidentified resources during
development of the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element
sites. Impacts would be significant.
MM-CUL-1 through MM-CUL-4 Less than Significant
Would the project result in the
disturbance of any human
remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
The presence of previously recorded human remains within the TCSP area suggests that there is a potential for encountering previously unidentified resources during development of the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites. Impacts would be significant.
MM-CUL-1 through MM-CUL-4 Less than Significant
Executive Summary
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
S-14
Threshold Impact Discussion Mitigation Measure Significance After Mitigation
4.6 Energy
Would the project result in
potentially significant
environmental impact due to
wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during Project
construction or operation?
Construction and operation of the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites would not require non-standard equipment or construction practices that would lead to excessive energy use during construction. Long-term operational use would comply with the California Building Code and applicable federal, state, and local energy and building regulations, including the Sustainable Santee Plan. Impacts would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Would the project conflict with or
obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy
efficiency?
The proposed TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites
would comply with applicable energy standards and regulations during construction and would be built and operated in
accordance with existing, applicable building regulations at the time of construction, as mandated by Title 24 energy efficiency standards. The project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of CALGreen or with SDG&E’s implementation of the Renewables Portfolio Standard. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, and impacts would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
4.7 Geology and Soils
Would the project directly or
indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury,
or death involving: (i) rupture of
a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map, issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based
on other substantial evidence of
a known fault (refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42); (ii) strong
seismic ground shaking? (iii)
seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction; or (iv)
landslides?
The City is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone and no active or potentially active faults are known to occur within or adjacent to the City. Adherence to General Plan Safety Element policies, the City’s Municipal Code, and the California Building Code (CBC) would ensure that future development within the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites would not cause substantial adverse effects associated with fault rupture, or ground shaking, and impacts would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Executive Summary
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
S-15
Threshold Impact Discussion Mitigation Measure Significance After Mitigation
Would the project result in
substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil?
Short-term erosion and sedimentation impacts would be
addressed through conformance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and associated
Municipal Code requirements (Title 9, Chapter 9.06 Stormwater Management and Discharge Control). These regulations require erosion and sedimentation control during construction and implementation of best management practices to avoid erosion and off-site drainage. Therefore, adherence to applicable Municipal Code requirements would ensure that future
development would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil, and impacts would be less than significant for the TCSP, AEN, and Housing Element sites.
No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Would the project be located on
a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in
on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
The City is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone and no active or potentially active faults are known to occur within or adjacent to the City. Adherence to General Plan Safety Element policies, the City’s Municipal Code, and the CBC would ensure that future development within the TCSP area, AEN, and
Housing Element sites would not cause substantial adverse effects associated with liquefaction and landslide, and impacts would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Would the project be located on
expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994), creating
substantial direct or indirect risks
to life or property?
TCSP area and AEN
The TCSP area and AEN are underlain by sandy loam south of the San Diego River and riverwash, water, clay, loam, and sandy loam north of the San Diego River. Clays are generally
considered expansive or potentially expansive. Development within these soils could result in a significant impact due to the soil’s inability to support the proposed structures, especially during major rain events and/or flash floods. The presence of clay would require future development within the northern section of the TCSP area to adhere to Municipal Code requirements for project-specific geotechnical reports that would ensure sitespecific measures are implemented to ensure safe building construction in areas with expansive soils. Adherence to Municipal Code requirements would ensure that future
development would not create substantial direct or indirect risks associated with expansive soils, and impacts would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Executive Summary
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
S-16
Threshold Impact Discussion Mitigation Measure Significance After Mitigation
Housing Element sites
The Housing Element sites are not underlain by expansive or potentially expansive soils. Impacts would be less than significant.
Would the project have soils
incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic
tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers
are not available for the disposal
of wastewater?
Due to the urban and built out nature surrounding the TCSP area, AEN, and the Housing Element sites, there is no
expectation that septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would be part of any future development proposal. All sites would be served by Padre Dam Municipal Water District for wastewater service. No impacts would occur.
No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Would the project directly or
indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site
or unique geologic feature?
Unique geologic features have not been identified in the project area. However, alluvial deposits of mountain valleys and older Quaternary alluvial fan deposits may have a moderate potential to contain paleontological resources. If grading associated with the TCSP area, AEN, or Housing Element sites were to occur at depths sufficient to disturb a moderate sensitivity geologic formation, potential impacts to paleontological resources would be significant.
MM-GEO-1 Less than Significant
4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Would the project result in
greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions that may have a
significant impact on the
environment?
TCSP area and AEN
Future development allowed throughout the TCSP area would not be increased by the project; however, development
regulations and criteria in the proposed TCSP would replace the current TCSP. As a result, the project would not increase the amount of vehicle traffic expected to be generated in the City.
Similarly, the project would not increase the amount of traffic in the City and would not result in an increase in the average VMT per capita. As buildout of the project would not result in an increase in anticipated development or traffic generation over what would occur under buildout of the adopted zoning and land use designations, the project would not result in an increase in emissions that are not already accounted for in the Sustainable Santee Plan. The transportation projects identified in the TCSP are intended to increase pedestrian and bicycle safety and connection within the TCSP area to aid in the reduction of VMT and mobile source emissions. Increasing residential and commercial density in transit corridors and within a TPA would support the City in achieving the GHG emissions reduction TCSP area and AEN
No mitigation is required.
Housing Element sites
MM-GHG-1 through MM-GEO-5
Less than Significant
Executive Summary
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
S-17
Threshold Impact Discussion Mitigation Measure Significance After Mitigation
targets of the Sustainable Santee Plan, and thus, impacts associated with GHG emissions would be less than significant.
Housing Element sites
Consistency with Step 2 of the Sustainable Santee Plan Project Consistency Checklist would require implementation of
applicable strategies and actions for reducing GHG emissions.
This includes strategies related to energy efficiency, tree planting, electric vehicle charging, solid waste reduction, and clean energy. Specifically, Checklist Step 2, measures 2.1 (Increase Energy Efficiency in New Residential Units), 5.1 (Shade Trees), 7.1 (Increase Use of Electric Vehicles), 9.1 (Reduce Waste at Landfills), and 10.1 (Increased Clean Energy Use) are applicable to the Housing Element sites; however, because there are no uniformly applicable development codes in place that would ensure these measures be implemented during the development review process, the impact would be potentially significant.
Would the project conflict with an
applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the
emissions of GHGs?
TCSP area and AEN
Because the project would be consistent with the Sustainable Santee Plan, the project would not conflict with state GHG reduction plans developed to achieve the goals, including the CARB Scoping Plan. Impacts would be less than significant.
Housing Element sites
Because there are no uniformly applicable development codes that would enforce the project-level CAP Checklist requirements during the development review process, development of the Housing Element sites may not be consistent with the plan and the impact would be potentially significant.
TCSP area and AEN
No mitigation is required.
Housing Element sites
MM-GHG-1 through MM-GHG-5
Less than Significant
4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Would the project create a
significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the
routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
With proper use and disposal of hazardous materials as required by state, regional, and local regulations, the project would not result in hazardous or unhealthful conditions within or in proximity to the project area. Compliance with all applicable regulations would ensure impacts associated with use, transport and disposal of hazardous materials associated with the TCSP area, AEN and Housing Element sites would be less than
significant.
No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Executive Summary
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
S-18
Threshold Impact Discussion Mitigation Measure Significance After Mitigation
Would the project create a
significant hazard to the public or
the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving
the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
Although there are regulations and standards in place to protect against the accidental release of asbestos and lead-based paints and other hazardous materials during demolition, there could be potentially unknown sources of surface or subsurface hazardous materials in the TCSP area, AEN, or Housing Element sites that may be subject to a release during development. Impacts would be significant.
MM-HAZ-1 Less than Significant
Would the project emit
hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an
existing or proposed school?
TCSP area and AEN
While facilities that emit hazardous air emissions or handle hazardous waste are not proposed by the project, specific future projects are not currently known. Accidental releases of hazardous materials could also occur with demolition and construction activities as described above. The TCSP area and AEN are within 0.25 mile of a school and consultation with and notification to the Santee School and Grossmont High School Districts would be required as future projects are proposed.
Impacts would be significant.
Housing Element sites
There are no schools within 0.25 mile of the Housing Element Sites. Therefore, no impacts to hazards within 0.25 mile of a school would occur associated with the Housing Element sites.
Impacts would be less than significant.
TCSP area and AEN
MM-HAZ-1
Housing Element sites
No mitigation is required.
Less than Significant
Would the project be located on
a site, which is included on a list
of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would
create a significant hazard to the
public or environment?
No areas of the TCSP area, AEN, or Housing Element sites are listed as hazardous materials sites pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (Cortese List). Therefore, it is not expected that grading, excavation, or construction activities would result in the release of hazardous materials associated with contaminated soils or underground tanks. Therefore, the project would not result in conditions leading to any reasonably foreseeable upset or accident involving the release of hazardous materials. No impact would occur.
No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Executive Summary
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
S-19
Threshold Impact Discussion Mitigation Measure Significance After Mitigation
For a project located within an
Airport Land Use Plan (ALUCP)
or, where such plan has not
been adopted, within two miles
of a public airport or public use
airport, or a project within the
vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing
or working in the project area?
Portions of the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites are within Safety Zones 3, 4, and 6 for Gillespie Field. Although conformance with applicable City policies, ALUCP design considerations applicable to development with airport safety zones, and compliance with applicable FAA conditions would minimize safety hazards for people residing or working in the project area, densities allowed by the TCSP would still exceed ALUCP recommended densities. Impacts associated with airport hazards would be significant.
No mitigation is available. Significant and Unavoidable Would the project impair
implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
No land uses are proposed that would impair implementation of or physically interfere with the City’s emergency response plan, evacuation routes; or conflict with any of the Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan’s specific hazard mitigation goals, objectives, and related potential actions. Specifically, the MultiJurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan requires each jurisdiction to develop and publish evacuation procedures that are published and available to the public. Furthermore, applications for all future projects within the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites would be reviewed and approved by the Santee Fire Department prior to issuance of building permit. Therefore, buildout of the proposed project would not conflict with emergency response, and impacts would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Would the project expose people
or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury, or death involving
wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas, within brush
fire management zones, or
where residences are intermixed
with wildlands?
The TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites are not
located within the CAL FIRE Very High Hazard Severity Zone; however, portions of the project area are located in the Wildland Urban Interface Zone. The City’s General Plan policies 4.2 through 4.13 provide guidance for the minimization of fire hazards including ensuring adequate response times, setting standards for emergency access, structural standards, other planning design measures required to be considered in all new development. Additionally, future discretionary projects would require review by the Building Official/Fire Marshal. No impact would occur.
No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Executive Summary
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
S-20
Threshold Impact Discussion Mitigation Measure Significance After Mitigation
4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
Would the project violate any
water quality standards, or waste
discharge requirements, or
otherwise substantially degrade
surface and groundwater
quality?
Future development, whether discretionary or by right, would be required to adhere to all applicable water quality standards as provided in various water quality regulations and plans including all pertinent requirements of the City’s Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plan (JRMP) (including WQIP and MS4 Permit), BMP Design Manual, NPDES General Construction Permit, as well as all regulations related to water quality. Additionally, new development would be required to adhere to the City’s
Stormwater Ordinance applying source control and site design BMPs as project design features in order to reduce the discharge of pollutants into the stormwater conveyance system. Therefore, through regulatory compliance impacts related to water quality standards and waste discharge requirements would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required. Less than Significant.
Would the project substantially
decrease groundwater supplies
or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that
the project may impede
substantial groundwater
management of the basin?
Future projects in the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites would be required to comply with the City’s General Plan policies and regulations that prioritize infiltration and treatment of stormwater and generally require increased on-site infiltration and higher standards of water quality protection compared to water quality standards that would have been implemented on existing developed sites. Therefore, although
development/redevelopment within the TCSP area, including the AEN and Housing Element sites, would increase impervious surfaces, prioritization of on-site infiltration would ensure groundwater recharge, and impacts to groundwater quality would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Would the project substantially
alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration
of the course of a stream or river
through the addition of
impervious surfaces in a manner
which would: (i) result in a
substantial erosion or siltation on
or off-site; (ii) substantially
increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or
off-site; (iii) create or contribute
Adherence to the City’s Stormwater and Grading Ordinances include requirements which focus on retention and infiltration of waters on-site and avoidance of changes to drainage velocities during both construction and post-construction/operational phases of development. These regulations would ensure
avoidance of increases in erosion and siltation. With respect to construction-related measures, consistent with the Municipal Code Chapters 9.06 and 11.40, all future development proposing one acre or greater of grading would be required to prepare a construction SWPPP describing specific construction BMPs that address pollutant source reduction and provide erosion control measures necessary to reduce potential pollutant sources.
Additionally, post construction, individual projects would be required to ensure the maintenance of post-construction BMPs No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Executive Summary
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
S-21
Threshold Impact Discussion Mitigation Measure Significance After Mitigation
runoff water which would exceed
the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted
runoff; or (iv) impede or redirect
flood flows?
designed to retain volume and velocity of stormwater. The ongoing erosion control measures would ensure that surface water runoff flows leaving future development sites during both construction and operation of future projects would not carry substantial amounts of sediment to downstream waters.
Therefore, through regulatory compliance, impacts related to erosion and siltation associated with development of the proposed project would be less than significant.
Consistent with the City’s General Plan Conservation Element policies and Municipal Code (Chapters 9.06 and 11.40), all future development, whether discretionary or by right, would be required to ensure the maintenance of stormwater flows would not result in increased surface runoff or redirect existing flood flows. Implementation of applicable stormwater BMPs and erosion control measures would be required to retain flows onsite and minimize the velocity of stormwater runoff. Through project-specific measures, impacts related to increased or redirected surface runoff associated with development of the proposed project would be less than significant.
Future development of the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing
Element sites would contribute runoff to the existing stormwater drainage system. However, future development, whether
discretionary or by right, would be required to adhere to state and local regulation and policies including preparation of project specific Stormwater Quality Management Plans, BMP Plan
Sheets, drainage plans, and pollution control plans. Specifically, Municipal Code Section 9.06.250(B) requires priority
development projects to include hydromodification management BMPs that are sized and designed to ensure that post-project runoff conditions (flow rates and durations) would not exceed the pre-development runoff conditions by more than 10 percent. This assists in ensuring that stormwater flows would not overwhelm the City’s stormwater system. Additionally, the Development Impact Fee (DIF) and Dedication Ordinance requires new
development to provide funds for the installation of needed drainage improvements. Through regulatory compliance and payment of the DIF, impacts related to exceeding the capacity of the stormwater system associated with development of the proposed project would be less than significant.
Executive Summary
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
S-22
Threshold Impact Discussion Mitigation Measure Significance After Mitigation
In flood hazard, tsunami, or
seiche zones, would the project
risk release of pollutants due to
project inundation?
The California Department of Water Resources, Division of Dam Safety, reviews the safety of dams annually. The TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites are at least four miles away from all nearby dams and development within the project area would not increase the risk of a dam failure. Portions of the TCSP area, AEN, and Site 16A that are within flood zones associated with the San Diego River would be required to adhere to all state and local development regulations including the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code. Development within the project area would not be expected to exacerbate flooding issues, considering the emphasis on stormwater retention and on-site infiltration. The project area is not in a tsunami or seiche zone and, therefore, the project would not be affected in the event of a tsunami. Overall, through regulatory compliance, impacts related to flood hazards associated with development of the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Would the project conflict with or
obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or
substantial groundwater
management plan?
Future development in the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing
Element sites, whether discretionary or by right, would be required to adhere to all applicable water quality standards as provided in various water quality regulations and plans including all pertinent requirements of the City’s JRMP (including WQIP and MS4 Permit), BMP Design Manual, NPDES General
Construction Permit, as well as all regulations related to water quality. Future projects within the TCSP area would comply with the City’s General Plan policies requiring the incorporation of construction BMPs for the protection of water quality.
Additionally, new development would be required to adhere to the City’s Stormwater Ordinance applying source control and site design BMPs as project design features in order to reduce the discharge of pollutants into the stormwater conveyance system.
Impacts would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Executive Summary
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
S-23
Threshold Impact Discussion Mitigation Measure Significance After Mitigation
4.11 Land Use and Planning
Would the project physically
divide an established
community?
TCSP area and AEN
The TCSP area is in an urbanized part of the City and the proposed TCSP would include updated development standards that would guide planned development throughout the TCSP area and AEN. The proposed TCSP identifies roadway
improvements including bike lanes and multi-use pathways as well as new roadway connections to provide direct connections through the TCSP area and AEN. Development pursuant to the TCSP would be subject to Objective Design Standards and would not physically divide an established community. Further, the project proposes a River Bridge over the San Diego River that would improve connectivity in the TCSP area and AEN as the San Diego River currently separates much of the TCSP area from north to south. Significant impacts related to physically dividing an established community would not occur. Impacts would be less than significant.
Housing Element sites
The Housing Element sites are in the southeastern part of the AEN on vacant generally flat sites along existing roadways and near existing developed areas. Development of these Housing Element sites 16A, 16B, 20A, and 20B would occur in areas that have been either developed in the past or have been identified for development. Significant impacts related to dividing an established community would not occur. Impacts would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Would the project cause a
significant environmental impact
due to a conflict with any land
use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an
environmental impact?
TCSP area and AEN
The TCSP area and AEN are consistent with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and plans aimed at reducing GHGs or
mitigating other environmental effects. Future development within the TCSP area and AEN would be subject to notification and consultation with the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) at the time specific development proposals are submitted for City review. Conflicts with local planning documents are not anticipated; however, future development proposals within the TCSP area and AEN would be subject to review for consistency with the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code. Impacts associated with conflicts with local land use plans would be less than significant; however, it is possible that future development No mitigation is available. Significant and Unavoidable Executive Summary
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
S-24
Threshold Impact Discussion Mitigation Measure Significance After Mitigation
plans within the TCSP area and AEN within Gillespie Field Safety Zones 3 and 4 could be found incompatible with the ALUCP by the ALUC. Therefore, at this level of program review, a significant impact would occur with respect to consistency with ALUCPs. .
Housing Element Sites
Impacts associated with conflicts with local land use plans for future development at the Housing Element sites would be less than significant, except with respect to compatible density within Gillespie Field Safety Zones 3 and 4. The potential for future development within the Housing Element sites to exceed the density limits for the corresponding airport safety zone could result in a significant impact after consultation with the ALUC
4.12 Noise
Would the project result in
generation of a substantial
temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels
in the vicinity of the project in
excess of standards established
in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
Construction noise levels in the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites would have the potential to increase ambient noise levels by 10 dBA or more, and impacts would be significant.
Because there is no numerical standard set by the City Municipal Code, adequate reduction of future projects’ noise levels is not guaranteed. Stationary operational noise is therefore considered significant for the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites.
Noise levels from traffic associated with implementation of the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites would increase by up to 0.3 CNEL. Noise level increases below 3 CNEL are not readily perceptible. Traffic operational noise is less than significant for the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites.
Because no set plans are available for outdoor performance areas, including site layouts or locations of potential noiseamplification equipment, impacts are considered significant for the TCSP area and AEN.
TCSP area and AEN
MM-NOI-1 through MM-NOI-3
Housing Element sites
MM-NOI-1 and MM-NOI-2
TCSP area and AEN
Significant and Unavoidable
Housing Element sites
Less than Significant
Executive Summary
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
S-25
Threshold Impact Discussion Mitigation Measure Significance After Mitigation
Would the project result in
exposure of persons to or
generation of excessive
groundborne vibration of
groundborne noise levels?
TCSP area and AEN
Impacts from future projects within the TCSP, excluding the Housing Element sites, are not known and, therefore, are considered significant.
Housing Element sites
Vibration produced by the project would be lower than the “strongly perceptible” impact for humans of 0.1 inch per second PPV. Additionally, off-site exposure to such ground-borne vibration would be temporary as it would be limited to the shortterm construction period. Construction of the Housing Element sites is anticipated to require the use of a vibratory roller, and are not anticipated to be used within 50 feet of any nearby residences. At these distances, impacts would be less than significant.
TCSP area and AEN
MM-NOI-4
Housing Element sites
No mitigation is required.
Less than Significant
Would the project be located
within the vicinity of a private
airstrip or an airport land use
plan, or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public
use airport, and expose people
residing or working in the area to
excessive noise levels?
TCSP area and AEN
Portions of the commercial areas north of Mission Gorge Road and west of Town Center Parkway are located within an area that would be exposed to 60 CNEL based on the noise contours in the Gillespie Field ALUCP. The commercial uses within these areas would not exceed the land use compatibility standards described in the City General Plan Noise Element. Impacts would be less than significant.
Housing Element sites
The Housing Element sites would not be located in an area exposed to aircraft noise levels exceeding 60 CNEL. Impacts would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Executive Summary
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
S-26
Threshold Impact Discussion Mitigation Measure Significance After Mitigation
4.13 Population and Housing
Would the project induce
substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly
(for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
The proposed TCSP would facilitate the potential future construction of up to 3,140 new residential units, 1,480 of which would be within the AEN in the Housing Element sites. These units would provide capacity for projected growth in the region consistent with the adopted zoning designations and densities currently allowed within the TCSP area. It is expected that SANDAG will update their housing and population projections with the next update of their regional transportation plan and sustainable communities strategy, which will use plan information proved by the City. No unplanned population growth would occur from implementation of the TCSP area. Impacts would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Would the project displace
substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating
the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
TCSP area
While specific future projects within the TCSP area are not currently known, future residential development within the TCSP area would have the potential to displace some people and housing through demolition of existing residential structures.
However, if a home were removed, more housing units would be provided in its place, which would accommodate more people and ensure no net loss of housing. Impacts related to
displacement of people and housing would be less than
significant.
AEN and Housing Element sites
While specific future projects within the AEN are not currently known, residential development in the AEN is only anticipated in the Housing Element sites. Sites 16A, 16B, 20A, and 20B are vacant parcels that do not contain existing housing development.
As a result, buildout of the AEN would not result in the demolition of existing housing, and impacts related to displacement of people and housing would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Executive Summary
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
S-27
Threshold Impact Discussion Mitigation Measure Significance After Mitigation
4.14 Public Services
Would the project promote
growth patterns resulting in the
need for and/or provision of new
or physically altered
governmental facilities, the
construction of which could
cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios,
response times, or other
performance objectives for any
of the following public services:
a. Fire Protection;
b. Police Protection;
c. Schools;
d. Parks;
e. Other Public Facilities?
All future development, whether discretionary or by-right, would be required to adhere to the City’s Municipal Code. Specifically, Chapter 12.50, would require payment of a DIF to ensure the costs of constructing public facilities that are reasonably related to the impacts of the new development. Likewise, future project compliance with the City’s General Plan requires land developers to pay the cost of ensuring adequate public services and facilities, including fire services, police protection, schools, library services, and park facilities. Payment of a DIF is anticipated to sufficiently address any incremental increases in public services required by the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites, and impacts would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
4.15 Recreation
Would the project increase the
use of existing neighborhood
and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration
of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
Development within the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites would not result in sufficient demand to directly require construction or expansion of a parks and recreational facilities, since each incremental housing development would pay its fair share toward anticipated park needs. At the time a future parkland project is proposed, it would require a separate environmental review and compliance with regulations in existence at that time would address potential environmental impacts related to the construction and operation of new park facilities. Therefore, impacts related to the need for and/or provision of new or physically altered parks and recreation facilities would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Executive Summary
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
S-28
Threshold Impact Discussion Mitigation Measure Significance After Mitigation
Would the project include
recreational facilities or require
the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might
have an adverse physical effect
on the environment?
The TCSP identifies several types of recreational facilities that are expected to occur in the TCSP area. Development within the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites would not result in sufficient demand to directly require construction or expansion of a parks and recreational facilities, since each incremental housing development would provide required park space or pay its fair share toward anticipated park needs. At the time a future parkland project is proposed, it would require a separate environmental review and compliance with regulations in existence at that time would address potential environmental impacts related to the construction and operation of new park facilities. Therefore, impacts related to the need for and/or provision of new or physically altered parks and recreation facilities would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
4.16 Transportation
Would the project conflict with a
plan, ordinance, or policy
addressing the circulation
system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian
facilities?
TCSP area and AEN
The project would result in improved pedestrian, bicycle, and transit amenities, and foster increased safety for all forms of transportation by providing transportation improvements that would serve all types of travel modes. Thus, impacts related to conflicts with an adopted plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system would be less than significant for the TCSP and AEN.
Housing Element sites
Future development of the Housing Element sites would be consistent with Policy 2.2 of the City’s General Plan Land Use Element, which encourages the development of higher density residential developments in areas close to the multi-modal transit station (at Santee Town Center near Housing Element sites 16A and 16B) and along major road corridors where transit and other convenience services are available (at Magnolia Avenue near Housing Element sites 20A and 20B). The project would add density in locations proximate to transit, providing consistency with City policies. The project would also comply with the Mobility Element and the Americans with Disabilities Act, which require bicycle, pedestrian, and transit accessibility. Therefore, the project would not conflict with an adopted plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system and impacts would be less than significant for the Housing Element sites.
No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Executive Summary
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
S-29
Threshold Impact Discussion Mitigation Measure Significance After Mitigation
Would the project conflict or be
inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.3,
subdivision (b)?
TCSP area
Planned development in the TCSP area and Housing Element sites 20A and 20B within a TPA is presumed to have a less than significant VMT-related impact; however, areas of the TCSP area that are not within a TPA and do not meet other screening VMT criteria, such as the Park Center Residential Neighborhood and the new residential on the west side of Town Center Commercial Neighborhood, would result in a VMT impact. Since the
transportation projects identified in the TCSP are intended to increase pedestrian and bicycle safety and connection within the TCSP area, the proposed transportation projects would not result in an increase in VMT Traffic impacts related to inconsistencies with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 subdivision (b) would be significant.
AEN and Housing Element sites 16A and 16B
The project includes planned development of the AEN and development of Housing Element sites 16A and 16B near Santee Trolley Square. The AEN and Housing Element sites 16A and 16B are within ½ mile of a major transit stop at the San Diego Green Copper Line Trolley transit station in the Santee Trolley Square and future development is presumed to result in a less than significant transportation impact related to inconsistencies with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 subdivision (b).
Sites 20A and 20B
The project includes development of Housing Element sites 20A and 20B along Magnolia Avenue in the AEN. While there are bus stops on Magnolia Avenue near both sites, they are not
considered major transit stops. As a result, Housing Element sites 20A and 20B are not within ½ mile of a major transit stop; however, the project would not result in changes to the zoning at these sites and the existing zoning designations per the 2021- 2029 Sixth Cycle Housing Element would remain. Impacts
related to inconsistencies with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 subdivision (b) as a result of development at Housing Element sites 20A and 20B would be significant.
TCSP area
MM-TRA-1
AEN and Housing Element
sites 16A and 16B
No mitigation is required.
Housing Element sites 20A and
20B
MM-TRA-1
TCSP area
Significant and Unavoidable
AEN and Housing Element
sites 16A and 16B
Less than Significant
Housing Element sites 20A
and 20B
Significant and Unavoidable
Executive Summary
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
S-30
Threshold Impact Discussion Mitigation Measure Significance After Mitigation
Would the project substantially
increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
TCSP area and AEN
The project includes several transportation improvement projects related to multi-use pathways, bike lanes, and roadways. These improvements are designed to enhance existing connections in the area to improve accessibility, encourage the use of multimodal facilities, and decrease conflict between vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians. Specific plans have not been prepared for the transportation improvements in the TCSP area and AEN; however, all future development would be subject to policies set forth in the Mobility Element of the General Plan and designed in accordance with the City’s Public Works Standards. Final plans for the proposed transportation infrastructure designs would be subject to review and approval by the City’s Engineering Division prior to construction, which would include a review for design safety. Implementation of the project would not result in hazards due to a design feature and impacts in the TCSP area and AEN would be less than significant.
Housing Element sites
Development of Housing Element sites 16A, 16B, 20A, and 20B may require improvements to the existing roadway network at the time projects are ready to be built. These improvements would be subject to a review by the Engineering Department to ensure roads and access are configured consistent with
established roadway design standards. Development projects on Housing Element sites 16A, 16B, 20A, and 20B would be subject to a ministerial review that would include consistency with the City’s Public Works Standards. The Engineering Division review would consider the potential for design hazards and that improvements are designed consistent with established
standards. Impacts related to hazards due to a design feature would be less than significant for the Housing Element sites.
No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Executive Summary
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
S-31
Threshold Impact Discussion Mitigation Measure Significance After Mitigation
Would the project result in
inadequate emergency access?
TCSP area and AEN
Improvements in the TCSP area and AEN would involve
connections to existing gaps in the transportation network, such as on Riverview Parkway, Cottonwood Avenue, Main Street, and Park Center Drive. Extending these roadways would create a more comprehensive transportation network by providing more direct connections between Town Center area and the adjacent residential neighborhood, and therefore, would improve overall emergency access in the TCSP area and AEN. Additionally, compliance with the applicable regulations and review
requirements would ensure that future development within the TCSP area and AEN under the proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access. Impacts would be less than significant.
Housing Element sites
Development of Housing Element sites 16A, 16B, 20A, and 20B may require improvements to the existing roadway network at the time plans are prepared for their development, which could affect emergency access. As stated above for the TCSP Area and AEN, all improvements would be subject to a review by the Engineering Department to ensure roads and access are
configured consistent with established roadway design
standards. Development projects on Housing Element sites 16A, 16B, 20A, and 20B would be subject to a ministerial review by the City’s Fire Department to provide adequate emergency access. Impacts related to inadequate emergency access would be less than significant within the Housing Element sites.
No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
4.17 Tribal Cultural Resources
Would the project cause a
substantial adverse change in
the significance of a tribal
cultural resource, defined in
PRC Section 21074 as either a
site, feature, place, cultural
landscape that is geographically
defined in terms of the size and
scope of the landscape, sacred
place, or object with cultural
TCSP area and AEN
The TCSP area and AEN contain previously recorded historic resources. While the TCSP does not specifically propose alteration of a known historic resource, it can be assumed that future development within the TCSP area and AEN could have the potential to directly or indirectly impact resources through such activities. Because site-specific details of future projects are not known at this program-level of analysis, impacts to historic resources would be considered potentially significant.
TCSP area and AEN
MM-CUL-1 through MM-CUL-4
Housing Element sites
MM-CUL-2 through MM-CUL-4
Less than Significant
Executive Summary
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
S-32
Threshold Impact Discussion Mitigation Measure Significance After Mitigation
value to a California Native
American tribe, and that is listed
or eligible for listing in the
CRHR, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in
PRC Section 5020.1(k)?
Housing Element sites
Although no specific historical resources have been identified in the Housing Element sites, the presence of historical resources throughout the TCSP area suggests that there is a potential for encountering previously unidentified resources. Future
development of Site 16A, 16B, 20A, and 20B therefore has the potential to cause substantial adverse changes to historical resources. Impacts would be potentially significant.
Would the project cause a
substantial adverse change in
the significance of a tribal
cultural resource, defined in
PRC Section 21074 as either a
site, feature, place, cultural
landscape that is geographically
defined in terms of the size and
scope of the landscape, sacred
place, or object with cultural
value to a California Native
American tribe, and that is a
resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of PRC Section
5024.1? In applying the criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of
PRC Section 5024.1, the lead
agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a
California Native American tribe.
The NAHC Sacred Lands File search was positive for the
presence of sacred lands within the project vicinity. In addition, the San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians and the Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians requested government-to-government
consultation. The Barona Band of Mission Indians requested to receive the results of the cultural resources study and be kept appraised of any updates. Finally, the Jamul Indian Village deferred to closer tribes. The Barona Band of Mission Indians noted that the San Diego is a known use area and has the potential for intact buried cultural deposits. Through formal consultation under SB 18 and AB 52, no formal tribal cultural resources were specifically identified. Given the presence of sacred lands in the project vicinity and the potential for tribal cultural resources to underly the project site, ground-disturbing activities associated with project construction have the potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of tribal cultural resources.
MM-CUL-1 through MM-CUL-4 Less than Significant
Executive Summary
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
S-33
Threshold Impact Discussion Mitigation Measure Significance After Mitigation
4.18 Utilities and Service Systems
Would the project require or
result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded
water, wastewater treatment or
storm water drainage, electric
power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of
which could cause significant
environmental effects?
All future project applications, whether discretionary or ministerial, would be required to comply with relevant City regulations and adhere to the mitigation framework presented in this EIR, including MM-BIO-1 through MM-BIO-6, MM-CUL-1 through MM-CUL-4, MM-GEO-1, MM-HAZ-1, and MM-NOI-1
through MM-NOI-4, which would ensure that any physical
impacts associated with construction of connections to existing utilities would be addressed as part of the City review for each individual project. Additionally, future projects would be required to comply with General Plan policies including Land Use Element Policy 3.6, which requires the review of development projects to ensure that all necessary utilities are available to serve the project. Impacts would be less than significant.
MM-BIO-1 through MM-BIO-6,
MM-CUL-1 through MM-CUL-4,
MM-GEO-1, MM-HAZ-1, and
MM- NOI-1, MM-NOI-2, and MMNOI-4
Less than Significant
Would the project have sufficient
water supplies available to serve
the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development
during normal, dry and multiple
dry years?
Based on the PDMWD estimated water supply, 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.
Nevertheless, PDMWD approved a Water Supply Assessment to ensure that there is an adequate water supply to serve the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites. Impacts would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Would the project result in a
determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves
or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve
the project’s projected demand
in addition to the provider’s
existing commitments?
Development anticipated within the TCSP would occur within areas of the City that are already served by existing wastewater infrastructure, including pipelines to the PDMWD WWTP and WRF. All future project applications, whether discretionary or ministerial would be required to adhere to the City’s Municipal Code which requires the assurance of adequate water facilities through payment of development impact fees for the constructing public facilities, which are reasonably related to the impacts of the new development (SMC Chapter 12.30). Wastewater impact fees are collected directly by Padre Dam Municipal Water District. Additionally, future projects would be required to comply with General Plan policies including Land Use Element Policy
3.6, which requires the review of development projects to ensure that all necessary utilities are available to serve the project.
Impacts would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Executive Summary
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
S-34
Threshold Impact Discussion Mitigation Measure Significance After Mitigation
Would the project generate solid
waste in excess of state or local
standards, or in excess of the
capacity of local infrastructure,
or otherwise impair the
attainment of solid waste
reduction goals?
In total, the TCSP area would increase solid waste generation by approximately 23,304 pounds per day. The AEN would increase solid waste generation by approximately 14,880 pounds per day.
The Housing Element sites would increase solid waste
generation by approximately 7,868 pounds per day. As detailed above, the Sycamore Landfill has a current remaining capacity of approximately 100 MCY, or 168.5 billion pounds, as of 2023.
Future projects, whether discretionary or ministerial, would be required to adhere to state and local regulations relating to solid waste and recycling. Specifically, the City is required to meet solid waste diversion goals set forth in the California Integrated Waste Management Act which would decrease waste delivered to the landfill. Additional measures for the reduction of solid waste includes goals set by the state to reduce organic waste disposed of in landfills. The City would require future development to contract with available solid waste service providers that would provide the required solid waste disposal, including recycling and organic material recycling to meet exiting State and local requirements. Future projects would also be required to comply with General Plan Safety Element Policy 3.8 which promotes the safe, environmentally sound means of solid waste disposal for the community. Impacts would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Would the project comply with
federal, state, or local
management and reduction
statutes and regulations related
to solid waste?
In total, the TCSP area would increase solid waste generation by approximately 23,304 pounds per day. The AEN would increase solid waste generation by approximately 14,880 pounds per day.
The Housing Element sites would increase solid waste
generation by approximately 7,868 pounds per day. The
Sycamore Landfill has a current remaining capacity of
approximately 100 MCY, or 168.5 billion pounds, as of 2023.
Future projects, whether discretionary or ministerial, would be required to adhere to state and local regulations relating to solid waste and recycling. Future projects would also be required to comply with General Plan Safety Element Policy 3.8 which promotes the safe, environmentally sound means of solid waste disposal for the community. Impacts would be less than
significant.
No mitigation is required. Impacts would be less than
significant without mitigation
Executive Summary
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
S-35
Threshold Impact Discussion Mitigation Measure Significance After Mitigation
4.19 Wildfire
Would the project substantially
impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
The land uses and anticipated development within the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites 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, evacuation routes, or conflict with any of the MHMP specific hazard mitigation goals, objectives, and related actions. 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.
No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
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?
The TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites are within an urbanized part of the City and are generally not located near areas of high wildfire risk. None of the programmatic elements of the project are located within the CAL FIRE Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone; however, portions of the TCSP area are in a wildland-urban interface. 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. Impacts would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Executive Summary
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
S-36
Threshold Impact Discussion Mitigation Measure Significance After Mitigation
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?
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.
TCSP Chapter 4, Infrastructure and Public Facilities, discusses the water, wastewater, and stormwater facilities that would continue to serve the TCSP area and AEN. 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 and other 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.
No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
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?
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 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. 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 No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Executive Summary
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
S-37
Threshold Impact Discussion Mitigation Measure Significance After Mitigation
partially within flood hazard areas of the San Diego River; however, 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.
Executive Summary
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
S-38
This page intentionally left blank
1.0 Introduction
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
1-1
1.0 Introduction
This Environmental Impact Report (EIR; State Clearinghouse [SCH] No. 2023090032) has been prepared to address the potential environmental effects associated with the City of Santee (City) Town Center Specific Plan (TCSP) Project (project). The project includes the following key components: (1) a comprehensive update of development and design standards in an expanded TCSP area, including throughout five newly created neighborhoods; (2) updates to the Santee Arts and Entertainment Overlay District (AEOD), which are incorporated into the TCSP as a new Arts and Entertainment Neighborhood (AEN); and (3) conceptual planning and Objective Design Standards for four strategic Housing Element sites (16A, 16B, 20A, and 20B) within the TCSP area, which were previously analyzed programmatically within the Sixth Cycle Housing Element Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR). A detailed description of the project, including the required discretionary approvals, is provided in the Project Description in Chapter 3.0 of this EIR.
1.1 EIR Purpose and Legal Authority
1.1.1 EIR Purpose
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15121, the purpose of this EIR is to provide public agency decision-makers and members of the public with detailed information about the potential significant environmental effects of the project, possible ways to reduce its significant effects, and reasonable alternatives that would reduce or avoid identified significant effects.
1.1.2 EIR Legal Authority
This EIR has been prepared by the City as lead agency, in compliance with the criteria, standards, and procedures of CEQA of 1970 as amended (Public Resources Code [PRC], Section 21000 et seq.), and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.).
1.1.2.1 Lead Agency
The City is the lead agency for the project, pursuant to Article 4 (Sections 15050 and 15051) of the CEQA Guidelines. The lead agency, as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15367, is the public agency that has the principal responsibility and authority for carrying out or approving a proposed project. As lead agency, the City of Santee Planning and Building Department conducted a preliminary review of the project and determined that an EIR was required. The analysis and findings in this EIR reflect the independent, impartial conclusions of the City.
1.1.2.2 Responsible and Trustee Agencies
In accordance with CEQA, this EIR is also prepared for review and use by Responsible and Trustee state agencies. Responsible Agencies are defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15381 as those agencies that have discretionary authority over one or more actions involved with project implementation. Trustee Agencies are defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15386 as state agencies that have jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by a project that are held in trust for the people of the state of California.
1.0 Introduction
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
1-2
Responsible/Trustee Agencies for the proposed project include, but are not limited to:
• San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD), • San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), • California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW).
The SDAPCD is an agency that regulates sources of air pollution within San Diego County (County) and would be responsible for issuing permits for construction of future projects associated with the proposed TCSP. CDFW is a Trustee agency that may have permitting authority for future projects with sensitive natural resources. The RWQCB would also be a Responsible Agency as it holds regional water quality in its trust through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) compliance review process. The RWQCB regulates water quality through monitoring of compliance with the regional water quality permit (or “general permit”) in accordance with the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 401 certification process. The RWQCB would have the responsibility of approving the Notice of Intent to comply with the terms of the general permit to discharge storm water associated with future construction activity allowed by the project.
It is the intent of the EIR to enable the City, other responsible agencies, and interested parties to evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposed project, thereby enabling them to make informed decisions with respect to the requested entitlements.
1.2 EIR Type, Scope, Organization, and Content
1.2.1 Type of EIR
This EIR has been prepared as a Program EIR, as defined in Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines. A Program EIR is recommended for a series of actions that are related geographically, as logical parts in a chain of contemplated actions, or in connection with the issuance of plans that govern the conduct of a continuing program [per CEQA Guidelines, Section 15168(a)]. The advantages of a Program EIR include the ability to provide a more exhaustive consideration of alternatives and cumulative effects than might be possible in a single project-specific EIR; to avoid duplication of basic policy considerations; and to provide the lead agency with the ability to consider broad program-wide policies and mitigation measures that would apply to specific projects within the overall program [CEQA Guidelines, Section 15168 (b)]. In addition to the program-level of analysis, this EIR provides a project-level analysis of conceptual plans for the Housing Element sites.
1.2.2 EIR Scope
The scope of analysis for this EIR was determined by the City as a result of initial project review, consideration of agency and public comments received in response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) circulated September 1, 2023, and comments received at a scoping meeting that was held on Thursday, September 7, 2023. The NOP provided a general description of the elements of the program, a summary of the probable environmental effects of the program to be addressed in the Draft EIR, and figures showing the project location. The NOP provided the public and interested public agencies with the opportunity to review the components proposed as part of the program and to provide comments or concerns on the scope and content of the Draft EIR.
1.0 Introduction
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
1-3
During the scoping period, four comment letters were received from CDFW, California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), and County of San Diego Department of General Services (DGS). The comment letters are included in Appendix A along with the NOP. The main issues raised in the comment letters, and where they are discussed in the EIR, are shown in Table 1-1, NOP Comment Letter Issue Areas.
Through these scoping activities, the project was determined to have the potential to result in the following significant environmental impacts:
• Agriculture and Forestry Resources • Aesthetics
• Air Quality • Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources • Energy
• Geology and Soils • Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Hydrology and Water Quality • Land Use and Planning • Noise
• Population and Housing • Public Services
• Recreation • Transportation
• Tribal Cultural Resources • Utilities and Service Systems • Wildfire
These issues are evaluated in Chapter 4.0 of this EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3)(A), impacts are identified as direct or indirect, short-term or long-term, and assessed on a “plan-to-ground” basis. The “plan-to-ground” analysis addresses the changes or impacts that would result from implementation of the project compared to existing ground conditions. An analysis of the impacts of the project compared to existing adopted plans, a “planto-plan” analysis, is presented within Chapter 9.0, Project Alternatives, under the No Project (Adopted Plan) Alternative.
1.0 Introduction
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
1-4
Table 1-1
NOP COMMENT LETTER ISSUE AREAS
Agency of
Letter Received Issue Area(s) Where Addressed in EIR
California Department of Fish
and Wildlife (CDFW)
1. The EIR should analyze the project’s consistency with the draft Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) subarea plan, particularly development of the AEN.
2. Any proposed changes should not lead to new, unanticipated direct or indirect impacts to the sensitive habitat and species described in the subarea plan.
3. Species-specific surveys and assessments should be provided in the EIR and CDFW’s California Natural Diversity Data Base should be consulted.
4. The EIR should address specific acreages of impacted habitat; potential impacts and mitigation measures for lighting, noise, human activity, invasive species, and drainage; impacts to wildlife corridors; and indirect and cumulative effects on biological resources.
5. Mitigation measures should be implemented for impacts to nesting birds, including avoidance of activity during the breeding season and sensitivity training for personnel.
6. The EIR should identify potential impacts to stream or riparian resources to coordinate issuance of a Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement with CDFW.
7. Surveys shall be conducted in the proposed project areas to locate signs of Crotch’s Bumble Bee habitation; if bumble bees are detected, proper protocols must be followed according to the California Endangered Species Act.
Section 4.4, Biological
Resources
California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans)
1. A vehicle miles traveled (VMT)-based Traffic Impact Study (TIS) should be conducted for the proposed project. The TIS may also need to identify near- and long-term safety or operational issues on or adjacent to state facilities.
2. Caltrans brings to attention several improvements to State Route (SR) 52 west of the Santee Town Center and SR 67 east of the Santee Town Center that are currently in the planning stage.
Section 4.8, Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Section 4.16,
Transportation
1.0 Introduction
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
1-5
Agency of
Letter Received Issue Area(s) Where Addressed in EIR
3. Caltrans encourages the City to begin coordination early in locations that may affect both parties. Caltrans hopes to coordinate with the City to evaluate potential Complete Streets projects, as well as discuss proposed policies, plans, and projects to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the EIR.
4. Impacts to transportation access (including bicycle, pedestrian, and public transit) should be mitigated during project construction.
5. The Coast, Canyons, and Trails Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan, developed by Caltrans and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), should be reviewed and incorporated into the proposed TCSP.
6. Caltrans reminds the City that an encroachment permit will be required for any work within the Caltrans’ right-of-way prior to construction and supporting documents from the City will be necessary.
7. Perpetuation of survey monuments by a licensed land surveyor is required, if they are being destroyed by any construction.
Native American Heritage
Commission (NAHC)
1. The project could impact tribal cultural resources, in which case it would be considered to have a significant effect on the environment.
2. The proposed project will be subject to Assembly Bill (AB) 52 and Senate Bill (SB) 18. Consultation per AB 52 and SB 18 with California Native American tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the project is recommended to occur as early as possible to avoid inadvertent discoveries of human remains and best protect tribal cultural resources.
3. The project should perform a cultural resources assessment that includes an archaeological records search at the California Historical Research Information System; a report detailing the findings and recommendations of the records search and field survey; a Sacred Lands File Search; and a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) plan.
Section 4.17, Tribal Cultural
Resources
1.0 Introduction
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
1-6
Agency of
Letter Received Issue Area(s) Where Addressed in EIR
County of San Diego
Department of General
Services (DGS)
1. DGS requests that an alternative be prepared for sites 20A and 20B in which the County develops the property with civic uses.
2. DGS requests that the EIR recognizes the County ownership of key properties being studied in detail.
3. The EIR should analyze the impacts of locating structures within a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) floodplain and identify appropriate mitigation measures.
Section 9.0, Project
Alternatives and Section 4.9,
Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
1.0 Introduction
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
1-7
1.2.3 EIR Organization and Content
1.2.3.1 Organization and Content
The EIR has been organized in accordance with the most recent CEQA Guidelines. A summary of the organization and content of this EIR is provided below:
• Executive Summary provides a brief description of the project, identifies areas of controversy, summarizes the EIR analysis, and provides a summary table identifying significant impacts, proposed mitigation measures, and impact level after mitigation. A summary of the project alternatives and a comparison of the potential impacts of the alternatives with those of the project are also included. • Chapter 1.0, Introduction contains an overview of the legal authority, purpose, and intended uses of the EIR, as well as its scope and organization. It also provides a discussion of the CEQA environmental review process, including opportunities for public involvement.
• Chapter 2.0, Environmental Setting provides a description of the project’s regional and local setting including its locational context, existing physical characteristics and land use, available public infrastructure and services, and relationship to other relevant plans. • Chapter 3.0, Project Description provides a detailed description of the project, including background on its development, its main objectives, and key components. The discretionary actions required to implement the project are also described. • Chapter 4.0, Environmental Analysis contains an evaluation of potential impacts for the environmental issues identified in the EIR scope. Each issue evaluation includes discussion of the existing conditions, including the existing regulatory framework, identification of the thresholds and methodology for determining the significance of impacts, an assessment of potential impacts, and an evaluation of the significance of the impacts considering the existing regulatory framework and/or new standards proposed in conjunction with the project. Where analysis demonstrates that potentially significant impacts could occur, an outline of the regulatory framework, including new project standards is provided and a conclusion regarding the adequacy of the regulatory framework and significance of the impact after consideration of the regulatory framework is stated.
• Chapter 5.0, Significant Unavoidable Environmental Effects/Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes discusses the significant unavoidable or irreversible impacts that would occur with project implementation. This chapter also describes the potentially significant irreversible changes that may be expected with implementation of the project. • Chapter 6.0, Growth Inducement evaluates the potential for the project to induce economic or population growth, either directly or indirectly, within the project area and region.
• Chapter 7.0, Cumulative Impacts identifies the impacts of the project in combination with other planned and future development in the region.
1.0 Introduction
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
1-8
• Chapter 8.0, Effects Found Not to be Significant identifies all the issues determined in the scoping and preliminary environmental review process to be not significant based on CEQA criteria, and briefly summarizes the basis for these determinations. • Chapter 9.0, Alternatives provides a description and comparative analysis of alternatives to the project. A summary and tabular comparison of the project and the alternatives is included in Chapter 9.0. Finally, as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2), the EIR identifies the environmentally superior alternative. • Chapter 10.0, References Cited lists all the reference materials cited in the EIR. • Chapter 11.0, Individuals and Agencies Consulted identifies all the individuals and agencies consulted during preparation of the EIR.
• Chapter 12.0, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program documents all the mitigation measures identified in the EIR and required as part of the project.
1.2.3.2 Technical Appendices
Technical appendices, used as a basis for much of the environmental analysis in the EIR, have been summarized in the EIR, and are printed under separate cover as part of the EIR. The technical appendices are available for review at the City of Santee Planning & Building Department at 10601 Magnolia Avenue, Santee, California 92071.
1.2.3.3 Incorporation by Reference
As permitted by CEQA Guidelines Section 15150, this EIR has referenced several technical studies and reports. Information from these documents has been briefly summarized in this EIR, and the relationship to this EIR described. These documents are included in Chapter 10.0, References Cited, and are hereby incorporated by reference. They are available for review at the City of Santee Planning & Building Department at 10601 Magnolia Avenue, Santee, California 92071.
1.3 EIR Intended Use and Review Process
1.3.1 EIR Intended Use
This document is intended to be used by the City, as lead agency, in evaluating the project and related discretionary actions. In addition, this document is intended to be used by the City when acting on subsequent applications for development within the TCSP area to ensure compliance with applicable regulations and the mitigation framework included in this EIR.
1.3.2 EIR Process
The EIR review and certification process occurs in two basic stages. The first stage is the Draft EIR, which offers agencies and the public the opportunity to comment on the document. The second stage is the Final EIR, which provides the basis for approving the project and reviewing subsequent projects within the TCSP area.
1.0 Introduction
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
1-9
1.3.3 Draft EIR
In accordance with Sections 15085 and 15087(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, upon completion of the Draft EIR, a Notice of Completion is filed with the State of California’s Office of Planning and Research and Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR is issued in a newspaper of general circulation in the area and mailed to members of the public who have requested receipt of such notices. The Draft EIR is made available for review to the public and interested and affected agencies on the City’s website for the purpose of providing comments “on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing the possible impacts on the environment and ways in which the significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated” (Section 15204, CEQA Guidelines).
The Draft EIR and all related technical studies are available for review during the public review period at the offices of the City of Santee Planning & Building Department at 10601 Magnolia Avenue, Santee, California 92071. Copies of the Draft EIR are also available at the following public location:
San Diego County Library
Reference Desk
9225 Carlton Hills Boulevard #17
Santee, CA 92071
The Draft EIR can be downloaded from the City’s website at:
https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/business/active-projects-map.
1.3.4 Final EIR
Following public review of the Draft EIR, the City will provide written responses to comments per CEQA Guidelines Section 15088 and will consider all comments in making its decision whether to certify the Final EIR. Responses to the comments received during public review, associated revisions to the Draft EIR sections, a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) plan, Findings of Fact, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations (if applicable for any impacts identified in the Draft EIR as significant and unmitigated) will be prepared and compiled as part of the Final EIR.
The culmination of this process is a public hearing where the City Council will determine whether to certify the Final EIR as being complete and in accordance with CEQA. The Final EIR will be available. for public review at least 10 days before the City Council makes a final determination regarding certification of the EIR, to provide commenters the opportunity to review the written responses to the EIR comment letters.
1.3.5 Subsequent Environmental Review
Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines allows a Program EIR to serve as the basis for environmental review of subsequent projects. As allowed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c), future projects within the TCSP will be reviewed by the applicable lead agency considering the certified Final TCSP EIR. A written consistency evaluation is expected to be undertaken for each subsequent discretionary project within the TCSP area to determine whether additional environmental documentation beyond the Final EIR must be prepared. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15168(c)(2), if the lead agency under CEQA finds that, pursuant to Section 15162, no
1.0 Introduction
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
1-10
subsequent EIR would be required, the lead agency can approve the subsequent project to be within the scope of the Final EIR, and no new environmental document is required. Factors that a lead agency may consider in making the written determination that no new environmental document is required include, but are not limited to, consistency of the later activity with the type of allowable land use, overall planned density and building intensity, geographic area analyzed for environmental impacts and covered infrastructure as described in the Final EIR. This written determination, including applicability of the Final TCSP EIR mitigation measures and alternatives, would be included within the project record.
However, if the lead agency determines one or more of the three triggers described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a) exist or other factors identified through the consistency evaluation process indicate additional environmental documentation is required, the Final TCSP EIR may be used to simplify the task of preparing the environmental document for the subsequent project.
Specifically, the Final EIR may be incorporated by reference and to address regional influences, secondary effects, cumulative impacts, alternatives, and other factors that apply to the program as a whole. Potential environmental documents that may be appropriate to subsequent projects within the TCSP area include an Addendum to the Final TCSP EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, a tiered Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration using the requirements in CEQA Guidelines Section 15152, or a subsequent (CEQA Guidelines Section 15162) or supplemental EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15163).
The lead agency may also review projects within the TCSP area for applicability with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15182 and 15183. CEQA Guidelines Section 15182 provides that certain residential, commercial, and mixed use projects that are found to be consistent with a specific plan are exempt from CEQA unless one of the triggers in Section 15162 exists. If a subsequent project within the TCSP area is found to meet the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15182, a Notice of Exemption may be filed, and no further environmental document would be required.
Further, Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines mandates that projects consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified, shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, future projects in the TCSP area may be examined in an initial study or other consistency evaluation to determine if any of the following conditions are met: (1) Impacts are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project would be located; (2) Impacts were not analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR on the zoning action, general plan, or community plan, with which the project is consistent; (3) Impacts include potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts which were not discussed in the Final EIR; or (4) Impacts which were previously identified as significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information which was not known at the time the Final EIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the Final EIR. If any future projects within the TCSP area have potentially significant adverse environmental effects that were not examined in the Final EIR, further environmental documentation may be required.
2.0 Environmental Setting
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
2-1
2.0 Environmental Setting
2.1 Regional Setting
The Santee Town Center Specific Plan (TCSP) area is located in the City of Santee (City) in San Diego County, approximately 18 miles east of downtown San Diego. The City is bordered by the City of El Cajon on the south and southeast, the City of San Diego on the west and northwest, and County of San Diego unincorporated areas on the east and northeast (Figure 3-1, Regional Location in Section 3.0, Project Description). The City’s incorporated boundaries encompass approximately 17 square miles or 10,615 acres. The TCSP area is located in the central part of the City. A United States Geological Survey (USGS) map and an aerial photograph of the City and surrounding area are shown on Figure 2-1, USGS Map below and Figure 3-2, Project Boundaries, and Figure 3-3, Proposed Neighborhoods in Section 3.0, respectively.
Regional access to the City is provided via State Routes (SR) SR 52, SR 67, and SR 125, and arterial and local streets. Public transit services in the City are provided by Metropolitan Transit Services (MTS), which includes bus and light rail (Trolley). The San Diego Trolley terminates in the southern portion of the Arts and Entertainment Neighborhood (AEN) at the Santee Trolley Station within the Santee Trolley Square shopping area. Refer to Section 4.16, Figure 4.16-1, TCPS Transit Area Network for the location of transit facilities in relation to the project components.
2.2 Project Location
The project area analyzed within the EIR includes the proposed, expanded 651-acre TCSP area, which includes five newly created neighborhoods, the largest of which, is the 341-acre proposed AEN, which includes four individual Housing Element sites 16A, 16B, 20A, and 20B.
2.2.1 TCSP Area
As shown on Figure 3-2, the TCSP area is located in the central part of the City and is traversed by the San Diego River. The area is generally bounded by Mast Boulevard to the north, North Magnolia Avenue and Cottonwood Avenue to the east, Mission Gorge Road and 3rd Street to the south, and Cuyamaca Street to the west, although portions extend further west. The proposed TCSP establishes five distinct neighborhoods for planning purposes: Arts and Entertainment, Town Center Commercial, Park Center Residential, Park Avenue Residential, and FacilitiesBased (Figure 3-3). The Arts and Entertainment neighborhood and Housing Element sites are described below. The Town Center Commercial Neighborhood primarily consists of shopping areas with easy access to Mission Gorge Road and Cuyamaca Street. The Park Center Residential Neighborhood includes a series of existing residential neighborhoods, including vacant parcels located north of the San Diego River and south of Mast Boulevard, which are designated to allow for residential uses. This neighborhood is adjacent to the Town Center Community Park and Park Center Drive is a roadway that runs along this area. The Park Avenue Residential Neighborhood is along Park Avenue, east of Cottonwood Avenue, west of Magnolia Avenue and north of Mission Gorge Road. Existing residential development in this area consists of single-family residences found on lots that could accommodate multi-family residential development should the properties be redeveloped. Characteristics of this area such as the existing grid street pattern, Park Avenue’s generous width, and proximity to retail and services, support the planned density for this neighborhood.
C) Proposed Santee i-;own Center Specific Plan
0 Proposed Arts and Ente rtaInment • Neighb h
Site 16A or ood
~
Site 168
C Site20A
Site 208
0 E---3 E---3
HELIX USGS Map Environmental Planning
Figure 2-1
2.0 Environmental Setting
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
2-3
2.2.2 AEN
The AEN, a proposed expansion and renaming of the existing Arts and Entertainment Overlay District (AEOD), is the largest proposed neighborhood in the TCSP area and its location relative to the surrounding area is shown on Figure 3-2. The area is generally bounded by Riverwalk Drive to the north, North Magnolia Avenue to the east, Mission Gorge Road to the south, and Cuyamaca Street to the west. Town Center Parkway and Riverview Parkway also occur in the southern part of the AEN.
2.2.3 Housing Element Sites
Housing Element sites 16A, 16B, 20A, and 20B are in the southeastern part of the AEN, generally south and east of Riverview Parkway, west of North Magnolia Avenue, and north of Mission Gorge Road. Sites 16A (11.11 acres) and 16B (8.61 acres) are located on one parcel (Assessor’s Parcel Number [APN] 381-050-82-00) along Riverview Parkway and Site 16A is immediately north of and adjacent to Site 16B. Sites 20A (7.75 acres) and 20B (10.00 acres) are also located on one parcel (APN 382-050-81-00) along North Magnolia Avenue with Site 20A located immediately north of and adjacent to Site 20B. Existing conditions at the Housing Element sites are depicted on Figure 2-2, Aerial Photograph of Housing Element Site 16A, Figure 2-3, Aerial Photograph of Housing Element Site 16B, Figure 2-4, Aerial Photograph of Housing Element Site 20A, and Figure 2-5, Aerial Photograph of Housing Element Site 20B.
2.3 Existing Land Uses and Environmental Setting
Located in the San Diego River valley, the City was originally a rural development with dairies, ranches, and vineyards centered around the river. The flat river valley provides distant views toward the hillsides that surround the City. The City experienced steady population growth from the 1950s into the 1970s and increased industrial and commercial expansion throughout the 1980s after the City’s official incorporation in December 1980. The City is predominantly urbanized and has approximately 59,478 residents as of July 1, 2023 (U.S. Census Bureau 2024).
Developed land accounts for approximately 58 percent of the total area within the City, with approximately 42 percent of the lands remaining vacant or in open space areas associated with the San Diego River. Nearly half of the developed land in the City is occupied with residential uses (49 percent), including both single-family and multiple-family residences. Single-family residences are over one-third of the total developed acreage in the City and are particularly dominant north of the San Diego River. Public/Semi-Public land uses comprise 21 percent of developed area in the City and include schools, public and private parks, and churches.
Commercial uses account for approximately 6 percent of developed area and are concentrated at the intersection of Mission Gorge Road and Cuyamaca Street, in the southern limits of the City, as well as along major City arterials. Industrial uses are approximately 5 percent of developed area and are found north of SR 67 in the east and along SR 52 in the south (City 2019a).
The central portion of the TCSP area is the San Diego River, which is designated as Floodway/Open Space and is not intended for development. Additional undeveloped land within the TCSP is located north of Town Center Parkway and East of Cuyamaca Street, as well as off Riverview Parkway and North Magnolia Avenue, north of Mission Gorge Road. Public infrastructure, including roads, water, sewer, energy, and communication facilities, are developed and available throughout the TCSP area.
1 Source: Aerial (SanGIS, 2023) 150 Feet
:::::F----3==::::===:=F----3==::::==::::1 r
HELIX Aerial Photograph of Housing Element Site 16A
Environmental Planning -------------------------------------------- Figure 2-2
0 1 Source: Aerial (SanGIS, 2023) 150 Feet
:=F----3==:::::==:::::F----3===::=~1 r
HELIX Aerial Photograph of Housing Element Site 16B
Environmental Planning ------------------------------------------ Figure 2-3
0 0 150 Feet Source: Aerial (SanGIS, 2023)
F----3 F----3
HELIX Aerial Photograph of Housing Element Site 20A
Environmental Planning ------------------------------------------ Figure 2-4
Santee Town Center S ecific Plan EIR
0 150 Feet Source: Aerial (SanGIS, 2023)
F----3- ~ ~-.--F----3-~~1
HELIX Aerial Photograph of Housing Element Site 20B
Environmenta/Planning ---------------------------------------------- Figure 2-5
2.0 Environmental Setting
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
2-8
2.3.1 TCSP Area
The TCSP area, including its five newly proposed neighborhoods, comprises a mix of commercial, office, residential, institutional, and park/open space land uses. Areas north of the San Diego River are mostly developed with residential land uses and institutional uses. Areas south of the San Diego River include a mix of developed and undeveloped areas with commercial and residential land use designations generally north of Mission Gorge Road and west of Cuyamaca Street, along Town Center Parkway, south of Mission Creek Drive and north of River Park Drive, west of Cuyamaca Street. The TCSP area is developed with 1,756,567 square feet (sf) of nonresidential development and 814 residences.
The TCSP area also includes two larger properties with institutional uses including the Las Colinas Detention Facility (Las Colinas) and the Edgemoor Skilled Nursing Facility. Both facilities serve regional purposes. Las Colinas is operated by the County Sheriff’s Department. Edgemoor Skilled Nursing Facility is owned and operated by the County and provides care for individuals having complex medical needs who require specialized interventions from highly trained staff.
Existing land uses in the project vicinity include airports at Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Miramar and Gillespie Field. Both airports maintain Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans (ALUCPs) in coordination with the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). The ALUCP identifies two review areas and zones to regulate airport noise, safety, airspace obstruction, and other airport hazards. The northern portion of the TCSP area is located within MCAS Miramar’s Review Area 2 and Gillespie Field’s Review Area 1, while the southern portion of the TCSP area is within Review Gillespie Field’s Review Area 2 and Safety Zones 3, 4, and 6.
2.3.2 AEN
The AEN is the largest proposed neighborhood in the TCSP area and development is guided by the TCSP and the City’s Municipal Code. There are 607,371 sf of non-residential development and 300 residences in the AEN under existing conditions. Areas in the northern part of the AEN include major recreational facilities including the Town Center Community Park (east and west), the Sportsplex, and the YMCA and Aquatics Center. Areas south of the San Diego River include a mix of office and commercial retail shopping and residential land uses, including some vacant properties along Town Center Parkway, Riverview Parkway, and Edgemoor Drive. Gillespie Field is approximately 0.6 mile south of the AEN and portions are within the airport’s Airport Influence Area (AIA) Review Area 1, which identifies potential noise or safety concerns related to airport operations in proximity to urban development. The northern part of the AEN is located within MCAS Miramar’s Review Area 2 and Gillespie Field’s Review Area 1, while the southern portion of the AEN is within Gillespie Field’s Review Area 2 and Safety Zones 3, 4, and 6.
2.3.3 Housing Element Sites
Housing Element sites 16A, 16B, 20A, and 20B are in the southeastern portion of the AEN. These sites are identified in the City’s adopted Housing Element for 2021-2029, which specifies individual lot size acreages as well as residential and non-residential development potential at each site.
2.3.3.1 Housing Element Sites 16A and 16B
Housing Element sites 16A and 16B are located north of Mission Gorge Road and east of Riverview Parkway in the Santee Town Center. The sites are 11.11 acres and 8.61 acres,
2.0 Environmental Setting
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
2-9
respectively, and are undeveloped and vacant. The sites are generally disturbed with some natural vegetation. The area surrounding the sites is primarily developed with Santee Trolley Square immediately west, Las Colinas to the east, and open space associated with the San Diego River to the north. Areas immediately south of Site 16B include commercial development along Mission Gorge Road. Housing Element Site 16A is located within MCAS Miramar’s Review Area 2 and both Housing Element Site 16A and Site 16B are within Gillespie Field’s Review Area 2 and Safety Zone 4. The northernmost tip of Site 16A is within Gillespie Field Safety Zone 6.
2.3.3.2 Housing Element Sites 20A and 20B
Housing Element sites 20A and 20B are located just west of Magnolia Avenue, north of Mission Gorge Road. The sites are 7.75 acres and 10.00 acres, respectively, and are undeveloped and vacant. The sites are generally disturbed with some natural vegetation. The area surrounding the sites is generally developed with Las Colinas to the west, residential development along Mission Gorge Road to the south, and residential development to the east across from Magnolia Avenue.
Both Housing Element Site 20A and Site 20B are within Gillespie Field’s Review Area 2 and Safety Zones 4 and 6. Housing Element site 20A is adjacent to the Historic Edgemoor Polo Barn, which is a documented historic resource.
2.0 Environmental Setting
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
2-10
This page intentionally left blank
3.0 Project Description
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
3-1
3.0 Project Description
The project analyzed in this Draft EIR is the comprehensive update to the Town Center Specific Plan (TCSP), which was originally approved in October of 1986 and last amended in 2019. As the TCSP area is partially developed, the analysis focuses on updated development standards and impacts associated with potential future development and redevelopment throughout the TCSP, including within its five newly proposed neighborhoods. As described in more detail throughout this Project Description, the proposed TCSP includes the following: an updated TCSP, including expansion of the boundaries of the overall TCSP area and updated development standards to continue to facilitate planned development throughout the five proposed neighborhoods of the TCSP area; expansion of the boundaries of the existing Arts and Entertainment Overlay District (AEOD) to a new Arts and Entertainment Neighborhood (AEN); and conceptual development plans and Objective Design Standards for Housing Element sites in the southeastern portion of the AEN, pursuant to the densities permitted in the City’s adopted 6th Cycle Housing Element and as allowed under state density bonus law under California Government Code Section 65915. Future development within the TCSP area would be guided and regulated through, but not limited to, the proposed updated TCSP, the City Municipal Code, and the City General Plan. This Draft EIR analyzes the environmental effects of implementing the proposed TCSP as follows:
• The proposed approximately 651-acre TCSP area, including its five neighborhoods, is analyzed at the program level;
• A sub-geography of the TCSP, the proposed approximately 342-acre AEN, is also analyzed at the program level; and
• Each of the Housing Element sites located within the AEN is analyzed at the project level, including:
o The 11.11 acre Site 16A
o The 8.61 acre Site 16B
o The 7.75 acre Site 20A
o The 10.00 acre Site 20B
3.1 Project Location and TCSP Boundaries
The project is located in the City of Santee (City), in San Diego County (County). The City is bordered by unincorporated San Diego County to the north and east, the City of El Cajon to the south, and the City of San Diego to the west, as seen on Figure 3-1, Regional Location. The proposed project takes place in the Town Center area of the City, which is bisected east-west by the San Diego River. The proposed TCSP area, including its five proposed neighborhoods, is bounded by Mast Boulevard to the north, Magnolia Avenue to the east, Mission Gorge Road to the south, and Mast Park to the west, as shown on Figure 3-2, Project Boundaries. The AEN is located wholly within the TCSP area, stretching across the San Diego River in the central portion of the TCSP area. The AEN is bordered by Riverwalk Drive and residential uses to the north, Magnolia Avenue and institutional land uses to the east, Mission Gorge Road to the south, and Cuyamaca Street to the west. The AEN boundary, and the Housing Element sites located within the AEN boundary are shown on Figure 3-2. The five proposed neighborhoods are shown in Figure 3-3, Neighborhoods. The San Diego Green Copper Line Trolley terminates in the southern portion of the AEN at the Santee Trolley Station.
Pacific
ocean
8 Miles t Source; Base Map Layers (SanGIS, 2016)
I
HE • nal Location
Environ L m!!anning Reg10 Figure 3-1
Santee Town Center S ecific Plan EIR
0 Proposed Santee Town Center Specific Plan
Q Proposed Arts and Entertainment Neighborhood
c...r, Site 16A
Site 168
Site 20A
Site 208
f : Current Art and Entertainment Boundary
Current Santee Town Center Specific Plan
HELIX Project Boundaries
Env;ronmenta/Planning -------------------------------------==--------------- Figure 3-2
3.0 Project Description
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
3-4
3.2 Purpose and Objectives of the Proposed Town Center
Specific Plan
3.2.1 Purpose
The original TCSP was adopted in October of 1986 to establish a hub of employment and commercial opportunities centered around the San Diego River (City 1986). Since its adoption, the TCSP has been amended 16 times, with the last comprehensive update approved in 2006 and the latest amendment, Amendment 19-1, adopted in December 2019. TCSP Amendment 19-1 established the AEOD with the intention of supporting tourism and attracting commercial, educational, and recreational uses to beautify and enliven the five proposed neighborhoods within the TCSP area. The proposed TCSP would involve expanding the overall TCSP boundary by approximately 42 acres (from 610 acres to 652 acres), creating five distinct, yet interconnected neighborhoods, and updating the land use and development standards within the TCSP consistent with densities and intensities established by existing zoning and the adopted and certified 2021-2029 Housing Element. The project would also involve expanding the former AEOD area by 170 acres (from 172 acres to 342 acres) and renaming the neighborhood the AEN. The purpose of the AEN is to create a mixed-use walkable environment with both day and night activities, becoming “Downtown Santee.”
The proposed project also aims to fulfill the goals of the 2021-2029 Sixth Cycle Housing Element, which was adopted by the City in October 2022 (City 2022a). The 2021-2029 Housing Element includes an inventory of underutilized parcels with potential to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment housing production goals. After adoption of the Housing Element, the City was awarded funding for conceptual planning and project-level analysis of the Housing Element sites located within the AEN (sites 16A, 16B, 20A, and 20B). These four sites were redesignated from commercial to residential use and specific zoning and density maximums were established as part of the 2021-2029 Housing Element. The proposed TCSP includes conceptual plans and development options to facilitate housing on each of the four sites consistent with the density maximums of the adopted Housing Element and state density bonus law. In summary, the update to the TCSP builds upon the goals and objectives established by the 1986 TCSP, its 2006 comprehensive update, Amendment 19-1, and the 2021-2029 Housing Element, while strengthening the original vision through new development standards and design guidelines. The proposed project is the most comprehensive update to the TCSP since 2006.
3.2.2 Community Outreach Process
As part of the TCSP update process, the City undertook an extensive public outreach process, which began in 2021 and continued through 2023. Outreach consisted of conducting pop-up outreach at three City events to understand the community’s priorities and needs; hosting two community meetings to review opportunities and constraints; distributing an online questionnaire to help define overall and topic specific goals and receiving responses from 169 people; and consulting with the City Council on five separate occasions to gain feedback and suggestions for TCSP content. Feedback received during the community outreach process was used to develop the vision and content of the proposed TCSP.
Proposed Neighborhoods
Figure 3-3
I:\PROJECTS\M\MW_SteeleGroup_01427\00004_SanteeHAP\Map\EIR\Fig3-3_Neighborhoods.indd 01427.00004.001 07/29/2024 - RK Source: City of Santee 2024
Santee Town Center Specific Plan EIR
18 Arts &
Entertainment
Neighborhood
Mast Blvd
Residential
Neighborhood
Mast Blvd
Residential
Neighborhood
Park Ave
Residential
Neighborhood
Facilities-Based
Neighborhood
Facilities-Based
Neighborhood
Facilities-Based
Neighborhood
Town Center
Commercial
Neighborhood
TOWN CENTER PKWY
TOWN CENTER PKWY
MISSION GORGE RD
OLIVE LN
MISSION GREEN RD
TAMBERLY LN RIVERVIEW PKWY
RIVERVIEW PKWY
MEADOW WY
COTTONWOOD AV
COTTONWOOD AV
4TH ST
1ST ST
3RD ST
PARK AVE
EDGEMOOR DR
MAGNOLIA AVE
CHUBB LN
WALKER TRAILS DR
PARK CENTER DR
SAN REMO CT
MAGNOLIA PARKS DR
CAMBURY DR
CUYAMACA ST
MISSION CREEK DR
RIVER PARK DR
JENNIFER DR
SAN REMO RD
RIVERWALK DR VERDE VISTA LN
MAST BLVD
PALM GLEN DR
RIVER PARK DR
Town Center Commercial Neighborhood
Arts & Entertainment Neighborhood
Park Center Residential Neighborhood
Facilities-Based Neighborhood
Park Avenue Residential Neighborhood
Figure 2-1:Neighborhoods
3.0 Project Description
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
3-6
3.2.3 Project Objectives
Project objectives were developed through input received during the community outreach process and were used by the City as the Lead Agency in developing a reasonable range of alternatives to evaluate in this Draft EIR. These project objectives will ultimately aid in preparing the project findings and statement of overriding considerations, if necessary. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15124(b), the following objectives have been identified for the proposed TCSP:
• 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;
• 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.
3.0 Project Description
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
3-7
3.3 Contents of Proposed Specific Plan
The proposed TCSP is organized into seven chapters that build upon the goals and objectives established by past plans while providing updated guidance for future development in the 651-acre TCSP area. Through illustrative design concepts and the establishment of objective development standards, the TCSP provides clear direction for the establishment of new residential, commercial, institutional, office, civic center, and open space uses; mobility networks; public services; and infrastructure improvements desired to create a successful Town Center for the City. Although this EIR incorporates the proposed TCSP by reference, the following provides a summary of the key components in each of the seven TCSP chapters.
Chapter 1: Introduction
The Introduction describes the role of the TCSP, the community outreach process, and the vision guiding the proposed TCSP. This chapter also summarizes the proposed TCSP’s relationship to other planning documents, such as the City of Santee General Plan, the Sustainable Santee Plan, and the Housing Element.
Chapter 2: Land Use
This chapter establishes the land use plan and describes the various land use designations, standards, and corresponding zoning and development standards for the TCSP area.
Five Neighborhoods
The proposed TCSP would create five distinct neighborhoods defined by their location, existing development patterns, and potential uses: Arts and Entertainment, Town Center Commercial, Park Center, Park Avenue, and Facilities Based. These neighborhoods are not identified in the current TCSP; they are provided to give structure to the Specific Plan and to help create distinct character in different portions of the TCSP area. The five neighborhoods are shown in Figure 3- 3 and described below. When fully developed, the five neighborhoods are anticipated to result in an increase of approximately 3,140 dwelling units and2,287,189 square feet (sf) of non-residential development for a total of 3,954 dwelling units and 4,043,756 sf of non-residential development in the TCSP area, as shown in Table 3-1, TCSP Buildout Summary, below (RRM 2024a; RRM 2024b). This development capacity is consistent with the densities and intensities allowed by existing zoning, the 2021-2029 Housing Element, and state density bonus law.
Table 3-1
TCSP BUILDOUT SUMMARY
Existing
Nonresidential
Buildings
(sf)
Existing
Dwelling
Units
Potential
Nonresidential
Buildings
(sf)
Minimum
Allowable
Number of
Dwelling
Units
Maximum
Allowable
Number of
Dwelling
Units
State Density
Bonus
Assumptions
Total
Dwelling
Units
TCSP
Totals 1,756,567 814 4,043,756 2,622 3,441 513 3,954
sf = square feet
3.0 Project Description
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
3-8
Arts and Entertainment Neighborhood
The City adopted the AEOD in 2019 with the intent of encouraging land uses related to arts and culture, entertainment, commercial recreation, visitor, and civic uses. The AEOD has been expanded and is renamed the AEN in the proposed TCSP to be consistent with the TCSP neighborhood concept. The AEN incorporates the Trolley Square shopping center, Town Center Park East, Sportsplex USA, Rio Seco School, and the Housing Element sites 16A, 16B, 20A, and 20B. In addition to the four Housing Element sites, the AEN includes civic uses, a River Bridge, and an Entertainment Commercial site referred to as the Town Center Core. Potential uses for this site include spaces for public events, a movie theater, public recreation facilities, a performing arts center, and/or dance studios. Events within the Town Center Core may include outdoor events and gatherings of people for artistic, cinematic, theatrical, musical, sporting, cultural, education or civic purposes.
A River Bridge would connect areas north and south of the San Diego River, beginning at the southern edge of Town Center Park East and ending at Riverview Parkway, just north of Housing Element Site 16A. The River Bridge would support passive and active recreation as well as provide multi-modal connections by improving access to major recreational facilities such as the Town Center Community Park, the Sportsplex, the YMCA and Aquatics Center, located north of the river, to residents south of the San Diego River. Lookouts across the bridge would create opportunities for art installations, interpretive signage, and seating. Development of vacant sites within the proposed AEN would result in an increase of approximately 1,480 dwelling units and 1,930,428 sf of non-residential development for a total of 1,780 dwelling units and 2,399,474 sf of non-residential development in the AEN, as shown in Table 3-2, Arts and Entertainment Neighborhood Buildout Summary, below. This development capacity is consistent with the densities and intensities allowed by existing zoning, the 2021-2029 Housing Element, and state density bonus law.
Table 3-2
ARTS AND ENTERTAINMENT NEIGHBORHOOD BUILDOUT SUMMARY
Existing
Nonresidential
Buildings
(sf)
Existing
Dwelling
Units
Potential
Nonresidential
Buildings
(sf)
Minimum
Allowable
Number of
Dwelling
Units
Maximum
Allowable
Number of
Dwelling
Units
State Density
Bonus
Assumptions
Total
Dwelling
Units
AEN
Totals 607,371 300 2,537,799 1,225 1,482 298 1,780
sf = square feet
Housing Element Site 16A
Housing Element Site 16A (Assessor’s Parcel Number [APN] 381-050-82-00) is located south of the San Diego River and adjacent to Riverview Parkway on 11.11 acres, as shown on Figure 3-2.
Existing conditions at Site 16A are also depicted on Figure 2-2, Aerial Photograph of Housing Element Site 16A, in EIR Chapter 2.0, Environmental Setting. As shown, the site is currently vacant and contains vegetation, graded gravel, and a small water basin. For the purposes of the EIR analysis, it is assumed that the entire area within Site 16A would be graded and paved as a result of the proposed project. The site would continue to be designated Residential TC-R-30 (30 to 36 dwelling units per acre [du/ac]) in the proposed TCSP with a mixed-use overlay, consistent with the land use and density identified in the 2021-2029 Housing Element. Buildout of the site is expected to result in up to 520 dwelling units and 181,482 sf of non-residential square
3.0 Project Description
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
3-9
footage, as shown on Table 3-3, Housing Element Sites Buildout Summary. This development capacity is consistent with the densities and intensities allowed by existing zoning, the 2021-2029 Housing Element, and state density bonus law.
Housing Element Site 16B
Housing Element Site 16B (APN 381-050-82-00) is located south of Site 16A and adjacent to Riverview Parkway on 8.61 acres, as shown on Figure 3-2. Existing conditions at Site 16B are also depicted on Figure 2-3, Aerial Photograph of Housing Element Site 16B. As shown, the site is currently vacant with vegetation and a gravel road. For the purposes of the EIR analysis, it is assumed that the entire area within Site 16B would be graded and paved as a result of the proposed project. The site is currently designated Residential TC-R-14 (14 to 22 du/ac) in the proposed TCSP with a mixed-use overlay, consistent with the land use and density identified in the Housing Element Update. Buildout of the site is expected to result in up to 189 dwelling units and 90,012 sf of non-residential buildings, as shown on Table 3-3. This development capacity is consistent with the densities and intensities allowed by existing zoning, the 2021-2029 Housing Element, and state density bonus law.
The TCSP identifies a new road, “Main Street,” connecting Town Center Parkway to Park Avenue.
The road would run northwest to southeast through Site 16B and would be periodically closed to vehicular traffic for public events, such as farmers markets. Development along Main Street would contribute to the mixed-use goals for the site, with 90,012 potential sf of non-residential uses on the ground floor.
The TCSP identifies opportunities to include an art throughout Sites 16A and 16B that would connect from Mission Gorge Road to the San Diego River to the north. The trail would include sculpture and art installations and improve pedestrian connections throughout the TCSP area.
Housing Element Site 20A
Housing Element Site 20A (APN 381-050-81-00) is located south of Riverview Parkway and adjacent to Magnolia Avenue on 7.75 acres, as seen on Figure 3-2. Existing conditions at Site 20A are also depicted on Figure 2-4, Aerial Photograph of Site 20A. As shown, the site currently contains vegetation and paved areas. The Edgemoor Polo Barn, listed in the National Register of Historic Places by the United States Department of the Interior, is located north of this site. For the purposes of the EIR analysis, it is assumed that the entire area within Site 20A would be graded and paved as a result of the proposed project. The site is currently designated Residential TC-R-22 (22 to 30 du/ac) in the proposed TCSP with a mixed-use overlay, consistent with the land use and density identified in the Housing Element Update. Buildout of the site is expected to result in up to 303 dwelling units and 118,157 sf of non-residential buildings, as shown on Table 3-3. This development capacity is consistent with the densities and intensities allowed by existing zoning, the 2021-2029 Housing Element, and state density bonus law.
3.0 Project Description
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
3-10
Table 3-3
HOUSING ELEMENT SITES BUILDOUT SUMMARY
Site Land Use
Designation
Allowed
Density
Range
Existing
Nonresidential
Buildings
(sf)
Existing
Dwelling
Units
Potential
NonResidential
Buildings
(sf)
FAR
Assumption
for Nonresidential
Mixed Use
Overlay
Assumption
Minimum
Allowable
Number of
Dwelling
Units
Maximum
Allowable
Number of
Dwelling
Units
State
Density
Bonus
Assumption
Total
Dwelling
Units
16A TC-R-30 30-36
DU/AC
N/A N/A 181,482 N/A 10% 333 400 120 520
16B TC-R-14 14-22
DU/AC
N/A N/A 90,012 N/A 10% 121 189 N/A 189
20A TC-R-22 22-30
DU/AC
N/A N/A 118,157 N/A 10% 171 233 70 303
20B TC-R-30 30-36
DU/AC
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 300 360 108 468
HE Sites
Totals
N/A N/A N/A N/A 389,651 N/A N/A 925 1,182 298 1,480
sf = square feet
3.0 Project Description
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
3-11
Housing Element Site 20B
Housing Element Site 20B (APN 381-050-81-00) is located south of Site 20A and adjacent to Magnolia Avenue on 10.00 acres, as seen on Figure 3-2. Existing conditions at Site 20B are also depicted on Figure 2-5, Aerial Photograph of Housing Element Site 20B. As shown, the site currently contains vegetation, Edgemoor Drive, and a paved area. For the purposes of the analysis contained in this document, it is assumed that the entire area within Site 20B would be graded and paved as a result of the proposed project. The TCSP proposes a northward extension of Edgemoor Drive that would connect to and from Park Avenue and the Edgemoor Polo Barn property. The site is currently designated Residential TC-R-30 (30 to 36 du/ac) in the existing TCSP. Buildout of the site is expected to result in up to 468 dwelling units, as shown on Table 3-
3. This development capacity is consistent with the densities and intensities allowed by existing zoning, the 2021-2029 Housing Element, and state density bonus law.
Implementation of the proposed four Housing Element sites would result in an increase of approximately 1,480 dwelling units and 389,651 sf of non-residential buildings, as shown in Table 3-3 below. Because the four Housing Element sites are currently vacant, these numbers also represent the total capacity of dwelling units and non-residential buildings square footage allowed within the four Housing Element sites.
Town Center Commercial Neighborhood
The Town Center Commercial Neighborhood (TCCN) is located west of Cuyamaca Street with easy access to both Mission Gorge Road and Cuyamaca Street (see Figure 3-3). The TCCN contains primarily commercial uses and limited residential areas designated for 22 to 30 du/ac.
The TCSP recognizes that commercial properties in this neighborhood have the potential to expand and redevelop, resulting in an increase of up to 205 dwelling units and 389,796 sf of nonresidential square footage over existing conditions for a total of up to 205 dwelling units and 1,138,664 sf of non-residential development.
Park Center Residential Neighborhood
Park Center Residential Neighborhood (PCRN), shown in Figure 3-3, includes an established residential neighborhood adjacent to Town Center Community Park and Park Center Drive. The neighborhood includes vacant parcels north of the San Diego River which are designated to allow for future residential development at a density of 14 to 22 du/ac. The intent is for new residential development to be designed with consideration of surrounding uses, including established neighborhoods and the San Diego River. Residential development in this neighborhood would increase by up to 793 new dwelling units for a total of up to 1,252 dwelling units.
Park Avenue Residential Neighborhood
The Park Avenue Residential Neighborhood (PARN) is shown in Figure 3-3 and is currently developed with single-family residences. This neighborhood is located near a variety of retail and services and includes a grid street pattern and existing lots that could accommodate new multifamily development. The TCSP designates the neighborhood TC-R-22, allowing 22 to 30 du/ac to encourage higher densities upon redevelopment. Residential development in this neighborhood would increase by up to 662 new dwelling units for a total of up to 717 dwelling units.
3.0 Project Description
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
3-12
Facilities-Based Neighborhood
The Facilities-Based Neighborhood (FBN) includes two properties, the Las Colinas Detention Facility (Las Colinas), south of the San Diego River, and the Edgemoor Skilled Nursing Facility, north of the San Diego River, that provide institutional and medical care services to the surrounding region. The FBN is shown in Figure 3-3. These properties have reached their development potential, no changes are proposed, and the TCSP does not encourage the adoption or expansion of such uses within the TCSP.
Land Use Designations and Zoning
Land use designations for the TCSP area are shown in Figure 3-4, TCSP Land Use Designations.
Table 3-4, Land Use Designations and Applicable Zoning, describes the density range and applicable citywide zoning for each designation. For each designation, allowable heights are determined by the applicable citywide zoning and state density bonus law. Please see the description of Chapter 7, below for detailed information regarding allowable and permitted uses within each zone.
Santee Town Center Specific Plan EIR
0 Proposed Santee Town Center Specific Plan
0 Proposed Arts and Entertainment Neighborhood
Site 16A
c:) Site168
Site 20A
Site 208
Mixed-Use Overlay
Park/Open Space
Institutional
Source : Aerial (SanGIS, 2023) 0 1,200 Feet
E---3 E---3
HELIX TCSP Land Uses
EnvironmentalPlanning ------------------------------------------------------ Figure 3-4
3.0 Project Description
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
3-14
Table 3-4
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS AND APPLICABLE ZONING
Specific Plan Land Use
Designation
Density Range
(du/ac)
Applicable City-wide
Zoning
Residential TC-R-2 2 - 6 R-2
Residential TC-R-7 7-14 R-7
Residential TC-R-14 14-22 R-14
Residential TC-R-22 22-30 R-22
Residential TC-R-30 30-36 R-30
Floodway/Open Space N/A Open Space
Park/Open Space N/A Open Space
Commercial N/A GC
Office Commercial N/A OP
Trolley Commercial N/A NC
Entertainment Commercial N/A NC
Institutional N/A OP
Mixed-Use Overlay N/A Underlying zone and
mixed use overlay
Dual Zoning N/A R-22/GC
Source: TCSP (City 2023)
du/ac = dwelling units per acre
Policies for Development
To facilitate cohesive character across the TCSP area, the Land Use and Urban Form chapter includes six Objective Design Standards with specific guidelines for new development:
1. Engaging the Street: describes building design criteria to ensure that buildings address unique site conditions, such as street facing entryways, porches, and floor-to-floor heights.
2. First 30’: describes building design criteria to create a human-scale environment, such as articulation of entrances, balconies, and street-facing windows.
3. Integrated Parking: describes design elements to ensure that parking is incorporated into the pedestrian experience, such as tree planting, pedestrian walkways, and entry width.
4. Pedestrian Linkages: describes design criteria to create a welcoming and safe interface between development and the private realm, such as art, utilities, street furniture, and signage.
5. Open Space and Recreation: describes design criteria to ensure access to open space, such as paved area limitations, common outdoor areas, and tree planting.
6. Bird Safe Treatment: describes design criteria to reduce threats to birds, such as glass treatments, balconies, and landscaping.
3.0 Project Description
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
3-15
Chapter 3: Mobility and Beautification
The Mobility and Beautification chapter addresses the proposed transportation network and streetscape design for the TCSP area, including signage. The project would identify future connections using multi-use pathways (including sidewalk improvements), bike facilities, and roadways. These connections are intended to enhance and better connect the TCSP’s five proposed neighborhoods. No changes to the public transportation system are proposed as part of the project.
The Mobility and Beautification chapter also provides standards related to signs and other features within the public realm. The sign standards aim to enhance wayfinding, community character, and provide a sense of place to the distinct neighborhoods. Figure 3-30 of the TCSP provides a sign location plan identifying the possible location and types of public signs, including gateways, monuments, wayfinding, directional, and neighborhood identification. The sign location plan also assumes the ultimate relocation of the restored Santee Drive-In sign within the Cityowned theater site as shown on Figure 3-30 of the TCSP.
Pedestrian Network
The proposed TCSP includes multi-use paths and pedestrian connections as shown on Figure 3-5, TCSP Multi-Use Pathways. Multi-use pathways provide safe, convenient, and comfortable pedestrian access between the different land uses and the five neighborhoods.
These pathways also form the backbone of first mile and last mile connections between the transit center and proposed uses. Existing and planned multi-use pathways to be constructed are identified throughout the southern part of the TCSP, south of the San Diego River. One planned multi-use pathway, the River Bridge, is identified spanning the San Diego River along the east side of Cuyamaca Street.
Bicycle Network
The proposed TCSP updates the 1986 bicycle network to account for changes to existing and proposed development in the project area. The proposed TCSP specifies three types of bike facilities and their locations throughout the TCSP on Figure 3-6, TCSP Bicycle Network. The bicycle network would consist of the following types of facilities: Class I bike paths adjacent to but physically separated from motorists by a median; Class II bike lanes along a street or highway separated by striped lanes; and Class III bike routes, which are shared lanes for bikes and motorists indicated by road markings (i.e., sharrows).
TCSP Multi-Use Pathways
Figure 3-5
I:\PROJECTS\M\MW_SteeleGroup_01427\00004_SanteeHAP\Map\EIR\Fig3-5_Multi-UsePathways.indd 01427.00004.001 07/29/2024 - RK Source: City of Santee 2024
Santee Town Center Specific Plan EIR
Chapter 3 |Mobility and Beautification
81 July 2024 (DRAFT)
MAGNOLIA AVE
ROSIE LN VERDE VISTA LN
MAST BLVD
CONEJO PL
MAGNOLIA AVE
MISSION GORGE RD
Maxar
Santee Town Center Specific Plan
Figure X
Multi-Use Pathways
Legend
Existing Multi-Use
Pathway
Multi-Use Pathway
to be Constructed
Project Boundary
Figure 3-14: Multi-Use Pathways CUYAMACA ST
RIVERVIEW PKWY
OLIVE LN
MISSION GORGE RD
MISSION GREENS RD
TAMBERLY LN
COTTONWOOD AV
1ST ST
EDGEMOOR DR
PARK AV
4TH ST
RIVERVIEW PKWY
CHUBB LN
CLAUDIA AV
RIVERWALK DR
PARK CENTER DR
BRAVERMAN DR MAGNOLIA AV
MAST BLVD
SAN REMO CT
SAN REMO RD
WATERGUM TL
VERDE VISTA LN
PALM GLEN DR
RIVER PARK DR
JENNIFER DR
MAGNOLIA PARKS DR
CAMBURY DR
MISSION CREEK DR
WHISPERING WILLOW DR
TOWN CENTER PKWY
TOWN CENTER PKWYTOWN CENTER PKWY
MEADOW WY
EDGEMOOR DR
WALKER TRAILS DR
TCSP Bicycle Network
Figure 3-6
I:\PROJECTS\M\MW_SteeleGroup_01427\00004_SanteeHAP\Map\EIR\Fig3-6_BicycleNetwork.indd 01427.00004.001 07/29/2024 - RK Source: City of Santee 2024
Santee Town Center Specific Plan EIR
Chapter 3 |Mobility and Beautification
83 July 2024 (DRAFT)
MAGNOLIA AVE
ROSIE LN VERDE VISTA LN
MAST BLVD
CONEJO PL
MISSION GORGE RD
Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community Figure 3-15: Bicycle Network CUYAMACA ST
RIVERVIEW PKWY
OLIVE LN
MISSION GORGE RD
MISSION GREENS RD
TAMBERLY LN
COTTONWOOD AV
1ST ST
EDGEMOOR DR
PARK AV
4TH ST
RIVERVIEW PKWY
CHUBB LN
RIVERWALK DR
PARK CENTER DR
BRAVERMAN DRMAGNOLIA AV
MAST BLVD
SAN REMO CT
SAN REMO RD
WATERGUM TL
VERDE VISTA LN
PALM GLEN DR
RIVER PARK DR
MAGNOLIA PARKS DR
MISSION CREEK DR
WHISPERING WILLOW DR
TOWN CENTER PKWY
TOWN CENTER PKWYTOWN CENTER PKWY
MEADOW WY
EDGEMOOR DR
Class I Bike Path
Class II Bike Lane
Project Boundary
Class III Bike Route (Sharrow)
Legend
WALKER TRAILS DR
3.0 Project Description
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
3-18
The project would involve changes to the TCSP bicycle network. Specifically, the TCSP would involve amendments to the designations of 11 bicycle segments. Two Class II bike lanes exist along Riverview Parkway (between Mission Gorge Road and Town Center Parkway) and Town Center Parkway (between Cuyamaca Street and Parc One Driveway) and would be revised to Class III bike routes with sharrows, or shared lane markings. Three new Class I bike path segments are identified, including two segments in an east-west direction on either side of the San Diego River, and a segment between River Rock Court and the existing Walmart. Two Class II bike lanes are identified in a north-south direction, crossing the San Diego River along Cuyamaca Street and a future extension of Cottonwood Avenue. Six Class III bike routes are identified, including in the PCRN in the northern section of the TCSP along River Park Drive, Park Center Drive, Cottonwood Avenue, and throughout the AEN south of the San Diego River along Town Center Parkway, and two segments along Riverview Parkway.
Roadway Network
The proposed TCSP updates the 1986 roadway network to account for changes to existing and proposed development in the TCSP area. Figure 3-7, TCSP Roadway Network, displays the types of current and proposed roadways. Arterial roads are high-capacity urban roads that deliver traffic to freeways or expressways, and between urban areas, at the highest level of service possible.
Parkways are generally smaller, landscaped thoroughfares that carry vehicles throughout urban areas.
A major arterial roadway, Cuyamaca Street, currently connects the TCSP areas north and south of the San Diego River and establishes the border between the TCCN and the AEN. Existing parkways span the proposed PCRN, TCCN, AEN, and FBN. New parkways are proposed within sites 16A and 16B and across the San Diego River, connecting the FBN to the PCRN. Local roads currently exist in the PARN and the eastern edge of the AEN. A new local road is proposed in the southern portion of the PCRN, providing access to and throughout future residential uses.
Roadway Improvements
The Mobility and Beautification chapter provides diagrams and details for roadway improvements throughout the TCSP area. Major changes to existing roadways are summarized below:
• Cuyamaca Street from Mission Gorge Road to Town Center Parkway: implement missing segments of the multi-use pathway on the westside of the roadway. • Cuyamaca Street from Town Center Parkway to River Park Drive: implement a multi-use pathway on the east side of the roadway and expand the total right of way from 78 feet to 93 feet.
• Riverview Parkway from Mission Gorge Drive to Meadow Way: change from a Class II to a Class III bike route, turn the 16-foot median into a 12-foot continuous left-turn lane, reduce the number of travel lanes from 4 to 2, and implement parallel parking on both sides of the roadway.
• Riverview Parkway from Cottonwood Avenue to Magnolia Avenue: implement a multi-use pathway on the north side of the roadway, create a Class II bike lane in both directions, and implement a median and parallel parking.
TCSP Roadway Network
Figure 3-7
I:\PROJECTS\M\MW_SteeleGroup_01427\00004_SanteeHAP\Map\EIR\Fig3-7_RoadwayNetwork.indd 01427.00004.001 07/29/2024 - RK Source: City of Santee 2024
Santee Town Center Specific Plan EIR City of Santee | Town Center Specific Plan 88 July 2024 (DRAFT)
MAGNOLIA AVE
ROSIE LN VERDE VISTA LN
MAST BLVD
CONEJO PL
MISSION GORGE RD
Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community Figure 3-20: Roadway NetworkCUYAMACA ST
RIVERVIEW PKWY
OLIVE LN
MISSION GORGE RD
MISSION GREENS RD
TAMBERLY LN
COTTONWOOD AV
1ST ST
EDGEMOOR DR
PARK AV
4TH ST
RIVERVIEW PKWY
CHUBB LN
RIVERWALK DR
PARK CENTER DR
BRAVERMAN DR MAGNOLIA AV
MAST BLVD
SAN REMO CT
SAN REMO RD
WATERGUM TL
VERDE VISTA LN
PALM GLEN DR
RIVER PARK DR
JENNIFER DR
MAGNOLIA PARKS DR
WHISPERING WILLOW DR
TOWN CENTER PKWY
MEADOW WY
EDGEMOOR DR
TOWN CENTER PKWYTOWN CENTER PKWY
WALKER TRAILS RD
Proposed Santee Town
Center Specific Plan
3.0 Project Description
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
3-20
The proposed TCSP also involves the creation of new roadways, which are summarized below:
• Riverview Parkway from Meadow Way to Cottonwood Avenue: implement 35-foot pathways, a Class III bike route, 2 travel lanes with a continuous left turn lane in the center, angled parking on both sides of the roadway, and a total 150-foot right-of-way. • Cottonwood Avenue from Park Center Drive to Riverview Parkway: implement 5-foot sidewalks, a Class II bike lane, 2 travel lanes with a continuous left-turn lane in the center, and a total 58-foot right-of-way.
• Main Street from Riverview Parkway to Cottonwood Avenue: implement 8-foot sidewalks with 4-foot parkways, Class III bike routes, 2 undivided travel lanes, and a total 64-foot right-of-way.
• Park Center Drive from Mast Boulevard to Magnolia Avenue: implement 5-foot sidewalks with 4-foot parkways, 2 travel lanes, parallel parking on both sides, and a total 58-foot right-of-way.
Policies for Development
The Mobility and Beautification chapter also establishes transportation and parking goals and policies, such as prohibiting a freeway from being located through the TCSP Area. Parking areas, including parking garages, are recommended to be strategically located to serve the TCSP area and transit areas. Potential parking structure locations are identified on Figure 3-8, TCSP Potential Parking Garage Locations. Other goals and policies address parking locations, transit centers, landscaping, and sidewalks. This chapter also addresses streetscape beautification through a set of twelve overarching principles, such as paving each neighborhood with unique sidewalk treatment to create distinct character between different TCSP areas. Figure 3-28, Paving Plan, of the proposed TCSP includes a paving plan with the types and locations of sidewalk treatments. The TCSP also recommends the use of specific street trees corridors to maintain a distinct character between the five neighborhoods.
Chapter 4: Infrastructure and Public Facilities
This chapter describes existing and proposed infrastructure, public services, and public facilities to support the TCSP and potential future population growth.
Water, Wastewater, and Storm Drainage
Water service in the TCSP area would continue to be provided by the Padre Dam Municipal Water District (PDMWD). The PDMWD receives imported water from the San Diego County Water Authority via two three connections along Mission Gorge Road near Mission Trails Park, and at the Lake Jennings Treatment Plant, and Connection No.7 (secondary connection). A large transmission distribution pipeline from the El Capitan Reservoir is also located beneath Mission Gorge Road. Minor upgrades to water transmission distribution facilities, including new connections and fire hydrants, would occur with new development within the TCSP area.
TCSP Potential Parking Garage Locations
Figure 3-8
I:\PROJECTS\M\MW_SteeleGroup_01427\00004_SanteeHAP\Map\EIR\Fig3-8_ParkingGarages.indd 01427.00004.001 07/29/2024 - RK Source: City of Santee 2024
Santee Town Center Specific Plan EIR
TOWN CENTER PKWY
TOWN CENTER PKWY
MISSION GORGE RD
OLIVE LN
MISSION GREEN RD
TAMBERLY LN RIVERVIEW PKWY
RIVERVIEW PKWY
MEADOW WY
COTTONWOOD AV
COTTONWOOD AV
4TH ST
1ST ST
3RD ST
PARK AVE
EDGEMOOR DR
MAGNOLIA AVE
CHUBB LN
CLAUDIA AVE
PARK CENTER DR
SAN REMO CT
MAGNOLIA PARKS DR
CAMBURY DR
CUYAMACA ST
MISSION CREEK DR
RIVER PARK DR
JENNIFER DR
SAN REMO RD
RIVERWALK DR VERDE VISTA LN
MAST BLVD
PALM GLEN DR
P
P
P
P
P
P
T/P
P
P
89 TOWN CENTER PKWY
TOWN CENTER PKWY
MISSION GORGE RD
OLIVE LN
MISSION GREEN RD
TAMBERLY LN RIVERVIEW PKWY
RIVERVIEW PKWY
MEADOW WY
COTTONWOOD AV
COTTONWOOD AV
4TH ST
1ST ST
3RD ST
PARK AVE
EDGEMOOR DR
MAGNOLIA AVE
CHUBB LN
WALKER TRAILS DR
PARK CENTER DR
SAN REMO CT
MAGNOLIA PARKS DR
CAMBURY DR
CUYAMACA ST
MISSION CREEK DR
RIVER PARK DR
JENNIFER DR
SAN REMO RD
RIVERWALK DR VERDE VISTA LN
MAST BLVD
PALM GLEN DR
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P/T
P
P
Legend
Potential Parking
Garage Location
P/T Transit Hub
(multi-modal) OLIVE LN
Figure 3-21: Parking
Proposed Santee Town
Center Specific Plan
3.0 Project Description
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
3-22
The PDMWD would also continue to provide wastewater collection and disposal to the City and the TCSP area. There is a network of existing sewer pipelines throughout the TCSP area, including larger pipelines up to 27 inches in diameter near the intersection of Town Center Parkway and Cuyamaca Street owned by the San Diego County Sanitation District. The San Diego River poses a unique challenge for wastewater facilities to connect with downstream sewer pipelines which could require future development of localized pump/lift stations. A 10-inch diameter pipeline is proposed within Town Center Parkway and Riverview Parkway to serve the central portion of the TCSP area south of the San Diego River, and within Riverwalk Drive and Park Center Drive up to Mast Boulevard north of the San Diego River. There is an existing 15- inch diameter wastewater pipeline within the Park Center Residential Neighborhood north of the San Diego River, however, site grading and site layout would determine if the line would be available for use from both a conveyance and capacity standpoint. At least a 10-inch diameter wastewater pipeline would be required within Park Center Drive.
The adopted five-year budget for PDMWD identifies two capital projects within the TCSP area:
the Mission Gorge Sewer and Sewer Lift Stations Rehabilitation. Both projects are planned to be implemented during Fiscal Years (FY) 2026 through 2027 and would increase sewage capacity and provide maintenance to the sewer system that serves the TCSP. The Mission Gorge Sewer project is planned to upgrade the existing 8-inch and 10-inch diameter pipeline to a 15-inch diameter pipeline. As part of the PMWD Master Plan, the Mission Creek Lift Station near Cuyamaca Street and the San Diego River was identified for upgrades to existing mechanical and/or electrical equipment.
The proposed TCSP provides details on storm drainage not available in the original TCSP. The TCSP area contains a network of underground pipelines with ultimate discharge to the San Diego River. The adopted Five-Year Capital Improvement Program for FY 2024 through 2028 identifies a major storm drainage pipeline project to update and expand pipeline beneath Mission Gorge Road between Cuyamaca Street and Cottonwood Avenue beginning in FY 2025 through 2028.
Flood Hazards
The proposed TCSP provides details on flood hazards not described in the existing TCSP. The majority of the TCSP area is in Flood Zone X, which is defined as an area not anticipated to be affected by a 500-year storm event. However, the central portion of the TCSP adjacent to the San Diego River is in Zone AE, which is defined as a regulatory floodway. Regulatory floodways are the areas of watercourses where development must be limited to prevent upstream flooding.
Development in this area must consist of open space trails, water-related activities, restoration, or other activities permitted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency ([FEMA] 2024).
Dry Utilities
Dry utilities include telecommunications, natural gas, and electricity services, all of which exist in the TCSP area. Telecommunications services are not discussed in the original TCSP, but the proposed TCSP states that AT&T, Cox Communications, and Crown Castle would continue to provide telecommunications services in the TCSP area. SDG&E would continue to provide electricity and natural gas services to the TCSP area, and existing transmission and distribution facilities in the TCSP area would remain. Additional Underground Utility Districts, or areas where utilities such as poles, wires, or other overhead structures must be placed below ground for aesthetic and safety purposes, may be established during project buildout, as determined by the City Council.
3.0 Project Description
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
3-23
Community Services
Community services including library, school, police, and fire/emergency services are within proximity to the TCSP area. Library services would continue to be provided by the County of San Diego at the Santee Library. Elementary schools that serve the TCSP area would also continue to provide educational opportunities to children at Rio Seco School and Hill Creek School in the Santee School District, in addition to two high schools, Santana High School and West Hills High School in the Grossmont Union High School District.
The existing San Diego County Sheriff’s Department would continue to provide service to the TCSP area at 8811 Cuyamaca Street, Santee, CA 92071. The Community Safety Center at Trolley Square provides on-site law enforcement services within TCSP area and would continue to do so throughout buildout of the TCSP.
The City’s Municipal Fire Department would continue to provide service to the TCSP area. Fire Station No. 4 on Cottonwood Avenue was present at the time of the original TCSP’s approval.
Since the adoption of the original TCSP, Heartland Fire Station No. 5 has been added at 9130 Carlton Oaks Drive, approximately two miles west of Fire Station No. 4. The TCSP anticipates redevelopment of Fire Station No. 4 into a new facility approximately 20,000 square feet in size.
The Town Center Community Park includes the YMCA and Aquatics Center, Sportsplex USA, and Town Center Community Park East and West. Additional nearby parks include Mast Park and Walker Preserve Trail. All these parks and facilities would continue to serve the proposed TCSP area.
Solid waste services within the TCSP area are provided by Waste Management, Inc.
Chapter 5: Implementation
The Implementation chapter identifies a series of potential funding sources and financing mechanisms to implement the TCSP. As the TCSP is built out over time, different tools for financing public infrastructure improvements are expected to be used. Table 5-1, Potential Funding Sources/Mechanisms, in the proposed TCSP describes potential funding sources and mechanisms for public and private development to facilitate buildout of the TCSP. Table 5-2, Implementation Action Plan, in the proposed TCSP identifies suggested timing priorities for a list of specific projects in terms of short range (1-3 years), mid-range (3-20 years), and long range (10-20 years). Some of the potential funding sources identified for the project include but are not limited to the City’s General Fund, Special Assessment Districts, and Business Improvement Districts. See TCSP Table 5-2 for a complete list of projects, their timing, the responsibility for implementation, and potential funding sources for each project. The projects are organized into categories pertaining to public spaces, public improvements, circulation, streetscapes, and open space connectivity. The listed projects are components of the proposed project.
Chapter 6: Administration
The Administration chapter describes the TCSP authority, the administrative procedures required for amendments and/or modifications to the TCSP, and processing requirements.
3.0 Project Description
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
3-24
Interpretations
The Director of Planning and Building is assigned the responsibility and authority to interpret the TCSP. Whenever the Director of Planning and Building makes an official interpretation of the TCSP, the interpretation shall be made in writing explaining the interpretation and the general circumstances surrounding the need for the interpretation. Any interpretation by the Director of Planning and Building may be appealed pursuant to Section 13.04.070 (Appeals) of the Santee Municipal Code.
Administration Process
All development applications within the TCSP area shall follow established City procedures such as those for zone variances, conditional use permits, development permits and subdivisions. All development applications within the TCSP area would be evaluated for compliance with TCSP regulations and guidelines. Appeals are regulated pursuant to Section 13.04.070 (Appeals) of the Santee Municipal Code.
Allowable Land Uses
A land use that is not listed within each applicable citywide zone or within the TCSP is not allowed, except where the Director of Planning and Building may find that a use may be permitted due to its consistency with the purpose/intent of the zoning district and similarity to other uses listed pursuant to Section 13.04.040 (Use Determination) of the Santee Municipal Code.
Nonconformity
Section 13.04.110 (Nonconforming Uses and Structures) of the Santee Municipal Code is applicable to any nonconforming uses, structures, or parcels within the TCSP area. Land uses and structures existing as of the adoption date of this Specific Plan may continue to remain in accordance to Section 13.04.110 (Nonconforming Uses and Structures) of the Santee Municipal Code.
Amendments to the TCSP
The TCSP may need to be revised over time, and California Government Code Section 65453 states that a specific plan “may be amended as often as deemed necessary by the legislative body.” Amendments may be initiated by a developer, an individual, or the City if accompanied by all required documentation, including an analysis of environmental impacts if deemed necessary by the Director of Planning and Building. Major amendments must be reviewed by the City Council and can be approved if:
1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Town Center Specific Plan;
2. The proposed amendment is consistent with the City of Santee General Plan;
3. The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City, and;
4. The proposed amendment ensures future development with desirable character that will be harmonious with existing and proposed development.
3.0 Project Description
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
3-25
Chapter 7: Allowable and Permitted Uses
This chapter references applicable citywide zones for each land use designation and identifies land use regulations unique to the TCSP. Regulations unique to the TCSP are included for residential, commercial, mixed-use, institutional, park/open space and floodway/open space land uses. Tables 7-4 through 7-7, 7-9, 7-11, and 7-13 of the TCSP display land use regulations unique to the proposed TCSP, and indicate if uses are permitted, conditionally permitted, subject to a minor use conditional permit, or subject to a development permit. Notable changes from the 1986 TCSP include the establishment of the mixed-use overlay and trolley commercial districts, addition of alcohol production and micro-breweries as an allowable use, and the removal of sand mining and fishing as allowable uses.
3.3.1 Summary of Major Changes Between the Adopted Specific Plan and the Proposed Specific Plan
The original TCSP contains a land use plan, design manual, and implementation program, and emphasizes the preservation of the natural environment and the creation of new employment opportunities for City residents. Specific direction is provided through diagrams and written objectives. The proposed TCSP provides more detail for the arrangement and design of the Santee Town Center than the original TCSP. Instead of having a dedicated chapter, design guidelines are contained throughout the land use, mobility, and infrastructure discussions. The proposed TCSP also separates implementation, administration, and allowable and permitted uses into individual chapters. In summary, the proposed project envisions the following major changes related to the project objectives for the TCSP area:
• Updated TCSP Boundaries. The boundaries of the TCSP were increased by 42 acres, for a total of approximately 651 acres, to reflect past and proposed changes for updated planning purposes. The boundaries were updated as follows:
o The boundary incorporates the shopping center located at the northwest corner of Mission Gorge Road and Cuyamaca Road; and
o The boundary incorporates the shopping center located west of Cuyamaca Road, between Mission Creek Drive and River Park Drive.
• Neighborhoods. The proposed TCSP includes five distinct neighborhoods with unique land uses and visual character: The Arts and Entertainment Neighborhood (AEN), the Town Center Commercial Neighborhood (TCCN), the Park Center Residential Neighborhood (PCRN), the Park Avenue Residential Neighborhood (PARN), and the Facilities-Based Neighborhood (FBN).
• Updated Land Uses. The Land Use and Urban Form chapter updates the proposed land use plan to reflect the adopted land uses for the Housing Element sites (16A, 16B, 20A, and 20B). Residential land uses were also added to the western edge of the TCSP boundary and south of the San Diego River. The Office-Professional and Air Rights Overlays are no longer included in the TCSP. A Mixed-Use Overlay was added as shown on Figure 3-4. Outdoor performance uses are specifically called out in the Commercial Entertainment designation.
3.0 Project Description
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
3-26
• Updated Mobility Network. The Mobility chapter updates the proposed roadway network to accommodate development that occurred after the original TCSP was approved and plan for new local multi-modal improvements to connect existing and proposed residential areas to the Santee Town Center. The Mobility Network includes a proposed River Bridge across the San Diego River.
• Regulatory Updates. The proposed TCSP removes the Town Center Development Committee and makes the Director of Planning and Building, in conjunction with the City Council, if necessary, the interpreter of the TCSP.
3.3.2 Relationship to Other City Planning Documents
3.3.2.1 City of Santee General Plan
The City of Santee General Plan guides the long-term development of the city and designates the TCSP area in the Land Use Element. The TCSP implements the City of Santee General Plan by providing a vision and standards for future development and improvements within the TCSP area.
3.3.2.2 Sustainable Santee Plan
Sustainable Santee Plan calls for improvements in walking, biking, and transit ridership to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) in the City. The proposed TCSP implements components of the Sustainable Santee Plan by proposing a pedestrian-oriented development framework and multimodal mobility network in the TCSP area.
3.3.2.3 Housing Element
The City of Santee 2021-2029 Sixth Cycle Housing Element was adopted on July 14, 2021 and deemed compliant with state housing law by Housing and Community Development (HCD) on December 6, 2022. The TCSP would help carry out the goals of the Housing Element and provide additional housing for the City consistent with the assumptions of the 2021-2029 Housing Element.
3.4 Actions Associated with the Proposed Specific Plan
3.4.1 Discretionary Actions
Discretionary actions expected to be taken by the City associated with the project include:
• A General Plan Amendment GPA2023-1;
• Town Center Specific Plan Amendment TCSPA2023-1;
• Rezone 2023-1;
• Zoning Ordinance Amendment ZA2023-2;
• Environmental Impact Report AEIS2023-2.
Future discretionary projects associated with the TCSP would undergo individual environmental review as outlined in Section 1.3.5 of the Introduction to this EIR.
3.0 Project Description
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
3-27
3.4.2 Ministerial Projects
Future actions associated with the project could be processed ministerially after the approval of the Final TCSP EIR. Ministerial projects require only conformance with a fixed standard or objective and are exempt from future environmental review under CEQA. Eligible ministerial projects within the TCSP shall comply with all Objective Design Standards of the TCSP and all applicable design, performance, improvement and development standards of the Santee Municipal Code, the Santee General Plan, and applicable Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Programs. Where applicable, projects shall obtain regulatory permits and/or clearances as required by state or Federal law, including, but not limited from agencies such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the United States Fish and Wildlife Agency, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the San Diego Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), and the State Water Resources Control Board.
3.0 Project Description
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
3-28
This page intentionally left blank
4.0 Environmental Analysis
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4-1
4.0 Environmental Analysis
The following sections analyze the potential environmental impacts that may occur as a result of implementation of the proposed Town Center Specific Plan (TCSP). Impacts are assessed and reported at: 1) the program level for the TCSP area, which encompasses all five neighborhoods; 2) the program level for the Arts and Entertainment Neighborhood (AEN), specifically; and 3) at the project level for the four Housing Element sites (sites 16A, 16B, 20A, and 20B).
Program-level and project-level impacts are assessed against the current on-the-ground conditions. In the absence of specific development proposals, evaluation of program-level impacts is based on buildout assumptions for the TCSP and AEN plan areas, which is expected to occur over a 20+ year timeframe. Evaluation of potential impacts associated with development of the Housing Element sites is based on site-specific information and analyses of the proposed conceptual plans presented within the TCSP.
The environmental issues addressed in the following sections are in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and Statutes. Each issue analysis section is formatted to include a summary of existing conditions, including the regulatory context; the significance determination thresholds and methodology; an evaluation of potential project impacts; mitigation measures, where applicable; and a conclusion of significance after mitigation.
4.0 Environmental Analysis
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4-2
This page intentionally left blank
4.1 Aesthetics
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.1-1
4.1 Aesthetics
The following section analyzes the potential environmental impacts that may occur to aesthetics as a result of implementation of the proposed project.
4.1.1 Existing Conditions
4.1.1.1 Topography and Landform
The Town Center Specific Plan (TCSP) area sits at approximately 330 to 360 feet above mean sea level. The area is relatively flat compared to the rest of the City of Santee (City) due to the project’s proximity to the San Diego River valley. The flat river valley provides distant views toward the surrounding hillsides.
4.1.1.2 Scenic Resources
Viewsheds and Scenic Vistas
A viewshed is generally defined as an area that can be seen from a given vantage point and viewing direction. A viewshed is composed of foreground items (items closer to the viewer) that are seen in detail and background items (items at some distance from the viewer) that frame the view.
A scenic vista is generally defined as a view of undisturbed natural lands exhibiting a unique or unusual feature that comprises an important or dominant portion of the viewshed. Scenic vistas may also be represented by a particular distant view that provides visual relief from less attractive views of nearby features.
The City of Santee General Plan 2000-2020 Community Enhancement Element identifies scenic vistas throughout the City, including the San Diego River, Mission Trails Regional Park, Mast Park, Rattlesnake Mountain, and the hills in the northern part of the City (City 2003a). The orientation of the San Diego River corridor within and near the project footprints creates impressive long vistas within the area and to the surrounding ridgelines and mountains to the east and Mission Trails Regional Park to the west.
Open Space
Open space within the TCSP area, Arts and Entertainment Neighborhood (AEN), and Housing Element sites is present along the San Diego River corridor. Sites 16A and 20A are adjacent to vacant land associated with the San Diego River. Town Center Park East provides additional open space north of the San Diego River in the TCSP area and AEN. Open space is also provided by City parkland (see Section 4.15 for parks close to the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites). Pursuant to the 2020 General Plan Community Enhancement Element (City 2003a), open space in the City provides a number of community design resources:
• Panoramic hillside views and backdrops;
• Visual relief to the intensive developed areas;
• Visual and physical links to the San Diego River and its tributaries;
4.1 Aesthetics
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.1-2
• Opportunity areas for new high quality development; and • Opportunity for recreational activities that reinforce the environmental setting such as hiking trails.
The City is also a participant in the Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) through its subarea planning efforts. The City’s Draft Subarea Plan identifies preservation of approximately one fourth of the total area of the City as permanent open space. Although not adopted, the City generally considers the conservation strategies and preserve goals of the Draft Subarea Plan.
For additional discussion on the City’s Draft MSCP Subarea Plan, see Section 4.4.
Scenic Roads/Highways
A “State Scenic Highway” refers to any interstate, state, or county street that has been officially designated as scenic and thereby requires special scenic conservation treatment. The closest scenic highway to the project area is State Route (SR) 52, approximately 1.8 miles south of the TCSP area. The segment of SR 52 closest to the proposed project area is not officially designated as scenic, but the City intends to explore pursuing its designation as a State Scenic Highway in the future (City 2003a). While there are no scenic highways within the project area, Mission Gorge Road is designated as a local scenic road in the City of Santee’s General Plan. Mission Gorge Road runs adjacent to the TCSP area, directly abutting the Town Center Commercial Neighborhood the AEN. Recognizing the prominence of Mission Gorge Road and its role in establishing an image for the City, the Mission Gorge Road Design Standards were adopted to establish specific design guidelines for development along Mission Gorge Road. These include creating architectural themes along various segments, required streetscape landscaping, signage, and pedestrian and bicycle improvements (City 2003a).
Historic Structures
The Edgemoor Farm Dairy Barn, commonly known as the Edgemoor Polo Barn, just east of the Las Colinas Detention Facility (Las Colinas) and north of Site 20A, dates to 1893 and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places at the state level. The Edgemoor Polo Barn is considered to be of significant architectural design and a design resource of the community, according to the General Plan (City 2003a). Policy 12.1 of the General Plan states that future development should respect and enhance the Edgemoor Polo Barn setting. The National Register nomination form states that “[it] is the wish of the County of San Diego and the City of Santee to establish a means by which the Edgemoor barn will be protected and perhaps be utilized as part of a future community center.” (add nomination form reference).
Existing Project Setting
TCSP
The TCSP area includes five proposed neighborhoods totaling approximately 651 acres of land located both north and south of the San Diego River. North of the San Diego River, the TCSP area encompasses single-family residences in the Park Center Residential Neighborhood, recreational facilities, medical facilities, commercial establishments, and Rio Seco middle school.
South of the San Diego River, the TCSP area includes Santee Trolley Square and other commercial buildings in the Town Center Commercial Neighborhood, Las Colinas, the Santee Historical Society and Edgemoor Polo Barn, and single-family residences in the Park Avenue Residential Neighborhood. The San Diego River is the primary scenic resource in the TCSP area,
4.1 Aesthetics
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.1-3
though views of the surrounding hillsides are also visible from the flat river valley. The Edgemoor Polo Barn in the southeast quadrant of the TCSP area is also considered an important design resource to the City. The TCSP area is visible from the west and south from SR 52, which is not officially designated in this area, and from Mission Gorge Road, which the City designates a local scenic road in the General Plan (City 2003a). The TCSP area is urbanized and the San Diego River is the only officially designated open space within its boundaries. Due to the area’s urbanized nature, the TCSP area already contains sources of light and glare.
AEN
The AEN includes approximately 342 acres of land located north and south of the San Diego River. North of the San Diego River, the AEN encompasses recreational facilities associated with the YMCA and Sportsplex USA and Rio Seco middle school. South of the San Diego River, the AEN includes Santee Trolley Square and Housing Element sites 16A, 16B, 20A, and 20B. The San Diego River is the primary scenic resource in the AEN, though views of the surrounding hillsides are also visible from the flat river valley. The Edgemoor Polo Barn in the southeast quadrant of the AEN is an important design resource to the City. The AEN is visible from SR 52, which is not officially designated in this area, and from Mission Gorge Road, which the City designates a local scenic road in the General Plan (City 2003a). The AEN is urbanized and the San Diego River is the only officially designated open space within its boundaries. Due to the area’s urbanized nature, the AEN already contains sources of light and glare.
Sites 16A and 16B
Housing Element sites 16A and 16B are undeveloped sites. The area surrounding the sites is primarily developed with Santee Trolley Square immediately west of the site, Las Colinas to the east, and open space associated with the San Diego River to the north. Refer to Figure 3-2, Project Boundaries. Sites 16A and 16B sit just south of the San Diego River, which is the primary scenic resource in the project area. Because sites 16A and 16B are vacant, they do not currently contain sources of light and glare, but they are surrounded by other development.
Sites 20A and 20B
Housing Element sites 20A and 20B are undeveloped sites south of the Historic Edgemoor Polo Barn. To the west of Site 20A is Las Colinas and to the east is a gated manufactured home community for 55 years old and up residents. Site 20B is bordered by single family residential homes to the south, multi-family residential to the east, and Las Colinas and Riverview Office Park to the west. Refer to Figure 3-2. Because sites 20A and 20B are vacant, they do not currently contain sources of light and glare, but they are surrounded by other development. The Edgemoor Polo Barn sits just north of Site 20A and is an important design resource to the City.
4.1.1.3 Community Character
In 1986, the City approved the original TCSP, which established guidelines for creating a peopleand transit-oriented hub for commercial, civic, and residential uses along the San Diego River.
Since its original approval, there have been a number of amendments to the TCSP establishing updated physical and design frameworks as well as changes to land use and zoning designations.
Implementation of the TCSP is subject to site design considerations that ensure future building designs are compatible with existing uses including building setbacks, height offsets, and landscaping.
4.1 Aesthetics
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.1-4
As detailed within the TCSP, visual resources consist primarily of two opportunities: the San Diego River and views of surrounding hillsides (City 1986). To preserve these resources, the existing TCSP includes architectural standards focused on minimizing view blockages. Specifically, projects located near the western boundary of the planning area are required to maintain views from the west and provide a buffer for the existing land uses along the western edge (City 1986).
4.1.1.4 Light and Glare
There are two common types of light intrusion: light that emanates from the interior of structures and passes out through windows and light that projects from exterior sources, such as street, security, and landscape lighting. Light spillover is typically defined as the presence of unwanted or misdirected light on properties adjacent to a subject property being illuminated. Light spillover can be a nuisance to adjacent areas and can diminish views of the clear night sky.
Glare is described as the distraction, discomfort, or impairment of vision caused by extreme contrasts in the field of vision, where light sources such as sunlight, lamps, luminaries, or reflecting surfaces are excessively bright in relation to the general brightness of surroundings. Glare also results from sunlight reflecting off flat building surfaces, with glass typically contributing the highest degree of reflectivity. In its simplest form, glare is a consequence of the normally helpful capability of the human eye to adapt to different light levels.
Sources of light and glare throughout the TCSP area and AEN consist of night lighting from residential windows, roadway lights, and lit commercial signs. The Housing Element sites are vacant and do not currently emit any light or glare. Existing night lighting from Santee Lakes Recreation Preserve and minimal security lighting from the Padre Dam Municipal Water District Ray Stoyer Water Reclamation Facility is visible from portions of the City. Daytime glare results from reflective building surfaces and headlights of vehicular traffic.
4.1.2 Regulatory Framework
4.1.2.1 State
California Scenic Highways Program
Recognizing the value of scenic areas and the value of views from roads in such areas, the California State Legislature established the California Scenic Highway Program in 1963. This legislation sees scenic highways as “a vital part of the all-encompassing effort to protect and enhance California’s beauty, amenity and quality of life.” Under this program, a number of state highways have been designated as eligible for inclusion as scenic routes. As described in Section
4.1.1.2, there are no officially designated scenic highways within the TCSP area, AEN, or Housing Element sites. An eligible segment of SR 52 is approximately 1.8 miles south of the TCSP area, but the proposed project area is not visible from the roadway.
4.1.2.2 Local
General Plan
The City’s General Plan includes various goals, objectives, and policies that would help to improve aesthetic conditions throughout the City, including the following:
4.1 Aesthetics
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.1-5
Community Enhancement Element
Objective 9.0: Provide a unifying and distinctive streetscape system throughout the City. • Policy 9.9: Upon completion of the SR 52 to SR 67, the City shall explore pursuing its designation as a State Scenic Highway, all or in part, as appropriate. • Policy 10.1: The City shall preserve the high quality scenic viewshed visible from the western entry along Mission Gorge Road and SR 52.
• Policy 12.1: The City should ensure that future development respects and enhances the Edgemoor “Polo Barn” setting.
• Policy 13.1: The City shall ensure the provision of open space which provides adequate visual relief from developed portions of the City.
• Policy 13.3: The City shall ensure that open space is provided in hillside areas proposed for development that performs multiple functions of view maintenance, resource protection and hazard avoidance.
• Policy 14.1: The City shall encourage and work with developers to minimize the impacts of grading for new development throughout the City.
• Policy 14.2: The City shall ensure that development is oriented along natural terrain contours to the extent possible to maintain landform integrity. • Policy 14.3: The City shall require use of contour grading techniques and multi-layered landscaping, whenever possible, to ensure the natural appearance of manufactured slopes.
• Policy 14.5: The City shall encourage the protection of prominent ridgelines whenever feasible. This shall be accomplished by siting development below ridgelines in such a manner that permits the ridgelines to remain visible.
Conservation Element
Objective 1.0: Protect areas of unique topography or environmental significance to the greatest extent possible.
• Policy 1.1: The City shall encourage that significant natural landforms be maintained during development whenever possible.
• Policy 1.2: The City should encourage, through the environmental review process, the preservation of hillsides with steep slopes as appropriate to minimize danger from landslides and mudslides, as well as to protect key visual resources. • Policy 1.3: To protect and wisely manage hillsides and topographic resources, the City shall use hillside development guidelines, as follows:
4.1 Aesthetics
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.1-6
Percent Natural
Slope Guideline
Less than 10% This is not a hillside condition. Conventional grading techniques are acceptable. 10% to 19% Development with grading will occur in this zone, but existing landforms should retain their natural character. Padded building sites are permitted on these slopes, but contour grading, split level architectural prototypes, with stacking and clustering are expected.
20% and over Special hillside grading, architectural and site design techniques are expected, and architectural prototypes should conform to the natural landform. Compact development plans should be used to minimize grading footprints. • Policy 10.2: The City should encourage the preservation of significant natural features, such as watercourses, ridgelines, steep canyons, and major rock outcroppings through the Development Review process.
Municipal Code
Title 11 – Grading Ordinance
The Grading Ordinance contains requirements regarding landform alteration and grading standards. The regulations specifically include standards relating to City review, construction of manufactured slopes, and revegetation.
Title 13 – Zoning Ordinance
The Zoning Ordinance provides direction relating to development standards throughout the City.
Chapter 13.08, Development Review, establishes review procedures for development proposals to ensure best practices are used in design and siting, protect and enhance property values, ensure compliance with intent and purpose of each zone, and ensure adequate access and circulation. Approval of a development review permit requires findings that:
• The proposed development meets the purpose and design criteria prescribed in these procedures and other pertinent sections of the zoning ordinance and municipal code; and • The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan.
Town Center Specific Plan
The 1986 TCSP supplements City zoning by establishing development standards within the planning area. The following goals and objectives are applicable to visual resources:
Goal: A unified comprehensive open space system should be an integral part of the basic design concept of the town center. The river shall be a centrally located open space area for the benefit of the community.
• Objective 1.1: Major views in the TCSP area should be protected.
Goal: Architectural designs and concepts should be guided by criteria which reinforce the sense of community identity. These criteria should foster uniqueness and cohesiveness of design enhancing Santee's character.
4.1 Aesthetics
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.1-7
• Objective 3.1: Reinforce community identity through the application of a unifying architectural theme or features in the design of civic center, commercial, office professional, residential and recreational uses.
• Objective 3.2: Encourage the use of architectural styles that are in scale with the natural and man-made environment.
• Objective 3.3: Enhance Santee’s character by using architectural techniques and elements which draw upon Santee' s history and provide a tie to the area's heritage. • Objective 3.4: Provide for variety and discourage monotony in dwelling design by use of creative guidelines.
• Objective 3.5: Promote building form that will respect and improve the integrity of open spaces and their public areas.
• Objective 3.6: In recognition of both functional and visual concerns, heights and mass of buildings should be varied to provide for a transition from lower scale development along the edges of the site to more intensive, large-scale development within the Town Center site.
• Objective 3.7: The height and placement of buildings should retain major views of the surrounding hill forms and maximize long distance view opportunities for buildings located within the Town Center area.
• Objective 3.8: Form and spacing of buildings within a particular development area should be sufficient to maintain necessary pedestrian and vehicular circulation, retain reasonable solar access to all major public or private outdoor areas or pedestrian paths and provide visual privacy to indoor residential uses.
Goal: Landscape design should enhance the quality of the environment and contribute to high quality, safe and energy efficient development.
• Objective 4.3: Landscape techniques which preserve and enhance rural character where possible should be utilized.
• Objective 4.4: Landscaping in excess of requirements should be encouraged.
Town Center Specific Plan Design Guidelines
The Town Center Specific Plan Design Manual, Section IV of the Plan, establishes design concepts and guidelines for the TCSP area and provides a clear yet flexible guide for the development and review of individual projects (City 1986). The Design Manual is organized into two sections. One section contains design concepts which serve as a guide in developing Town Center. The design concepts create a framework for the development of the Town Center. Section C contains design standards that are required to be applied in specific project development.
Examples of design standards that are intended to address visual issues include:
• Residential areas should be sited to provide appropriate buffers, as well as open views; • Landscaped areas should be consistent with existing landscaping;
4.1 Aesthetics
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.1-8
• Streetscapes should be designed consistent with permitted street tree list; • Parking areas should provide adequate screening and lighting; • Open Space setbacks of 50 to 100 feet are required between development and areas of revegetation or floodways; and
• Exterior and architectural lighting should reinforce the character of projects, but ensure reduction of glare on adjacent properties and streets.
Section 2.7, Objective Design Standards, of the proposed TCSP includes updated design guidelines for future development in the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites. These Objective Design Standards would replace the design guidelines described above as set forth in the original TCSP.
4.1.3 Significance Determination Thresholds
Consistent with Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, impacts related to aesthetics would be significant if the project would:
1. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.
2. Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State Scenic Highway.
3. In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings (Public views are those that are experienced from a publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.
4. Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.
4.1.4 Methodology
The following sections analyze the potential environmental impacts that may occur as a result of implementation of the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites.
4.1.5 Issue 1: Scenic Vistas
Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
4.1.5.1 Impact Analysis
TCSP Area
Major views throughout the City include the San Diego River and surrounding mountains and hillsides. The City places a high value on protecting these views as they create a sense of place that defines the City. Future development and redevelopment could detract from existing scenic vistas and views.
4.1 Aesthetics
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.1-9
Development at most sites within the TCSP area would constitute infill development resulting in development consistent with surrounding urbanization that would not affect existing views. While development of vacant parcels within the TCSP area would incrementally change the character of this area, views of the surrounding hillsides would continue to be visible from this low-lying area. Development of multi-family residential, multi-story commercial buildings, and multi-level parking garages would not create obstruction of views of the surrounding hillsides based on the location of development within the low-lying valley.
The proposed TCSP includes plans for a River Bridge to allow for multiple modes of transportation across the San Diego River. Conceptual plans for the River Bridge connect the footpaths north of Site 16A to the southern portion of Town Center Park East. While the River Bridge would be a noticeable feature in the San Diego River landscape, lookouts would also provide new opportunities for passive recreation and scenic enjoyment of the river valley. The TCSP includes objective design standards for the River Bridge that aim to minimize daytime shade and nighttime light spillover in protected habitat areas and preserve the scenic quality of the San Diego River.
Views of the San Diego River could be obstructed by future development, but development is not planned in areas that currently serve as designated scenic outlooks, such as Mast Park.
Furthermore, compliance with design guidelines set forth in the General Plan and Santee Municipal Code (SMC), as described below, would result in less than significant impacts.
Both future ministerial and discretionary 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. These procedures require the implementation of development review for projects that require a building permit. This review requires an evaluation of project consistency with development review criteria defined in Section 1308.070 including evaluation of the relationship of the building site to the surrounding area, landscaping design including design that ensures avoidance of potential for obstruction of views when landscaping is mature, grading design, signage, and lighting. In any instance where the TCSP conflicts with the requirements of the SMC, the TCSP provisions shall take precedence. Additional criteria is applicable to multifamily residential developments as follows:
• Site Buildings to Avoid Crowding. Where multiple buildings are proposed, the minimum building separation shall be 10 feet in accordance with Section 13.10.040(G). • Site and Design Buildings to Avoid Repetitions of Building or Roof Lines. This may be achieved through variation in building setback; wall plane offsets; use of different colors and materials on exterior elevations for visual relief; and architectural projections above maximum permitted height in accordance with Section 13.10.050(C). The TCSP specifies building variation requirements in Objective Design Standard B, First 30’. • In the Urban Residential (R-30) zone, for each 5-foot increase in building height over 45 feet, the wall plane shall be stepped back an additional 5 feet. • Where adjacent to a single-family residential zone, design buildings to ensure a transition in scale, form, and height with adjacent residential properties. Setbacks are required in accordance with Table 13.10.040A. Designs may incorporate elements such as building massing and orientation, location of windows, building story stepbacks, building materials, deep roof overhangs, and other architectural features that serve to further transition the scale.
4.1 Aesthetics
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.1-10
• Projects shall be designed so that assigned parking spaces are located as close as practicable to the dwelling units they serve. Refer to Section 13.24.030(B) for additional parking standards.
• The visual impact of surface parking areas adjacent to public streets shall be minimized using mounded or dense landscape strips or low decorative masonry or stucco walls no more than 3.5 feet in height. Parking areas shall be treated with decorative surface elements to identify pedestrian paths, nodes, and driveways. The TCSP proposes additional requirements for surface parking, including a ratio of 1 tree planted for every 5 parking spaces, the addition of diamond planters after 6 parking spaces in a row, and a 3-foot minimum distance between parking and pedestrian walkways, which should be at least 5-foot wide.
In addition to the above design review requirements, development adjacent to the San Diego River would be subject to applicable setback and buffer requirements incorporated as in mitigation measure BIO-10 (refer to Section 4.4.6.2). Additionally, as detailed in SMC 13.08.010, the purpose of development review includes, but is not limited to, ensuring property is developed in a manner which respects the physical and environmental characteristics of each site and ensuring that each new development is designed to best comply with the intent and purpose of the zone in which the property is located and with the General Plan of the City. To that end, there are General Plan policies in the Community Enhancement and Conservation Elements of the City’s General Plan that support preservation of scenic vistas. For example, future development is encouraged to preserve significant natural features, such as watercourses, ridgelines, steep canyons, and major rock outcroppings (City 2003b). Additionally, development within the TCSP area would be required to adhere to supplemental development regulations which include design guidelines for the planning area.
Overall adherence to applicable SMC development review and design requirements, in addition to proposed TCSP Objective Design Standards that relate to maximizing views of public amenities like the San Diego River, would ensure that future development would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic view or vista, and impacts would be less than significant.
AEN
Similar to the TCSP area, major views visible from the AEN include the San Diego River and surrounding mountains and hillsides. Future development and redevelopment within the AEN could change the character of the area, but views of the surrounding hillsides would continue to be visible. Compliance with the General Plan, SMC, and proposed TCSP Objective Design Standards that relate to maximizing views of public amenities like the San Diego River would ensure that impacts to views of the San Diego River would be less than significant.
Housing Element Sites
Housing Element sites 16A, 16B, 20A, and 20B are largely undeveloped open lands that propose multi-family development at a higher density than current conditions.
Housing Site 16A
Housing Site 16A is currently a vacant parcel with a land use designation of Residential TC-R-30, which allows 30 to 36 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). The site is surrounded by existing development to the east and west but sits directly south of the San Diego River. Development of
4.1 Aesthetics
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.1-11
Site 16A could affect visibility to the San Diego River, but Site 16A is not a designated scenic resource or area intended for scenic enjoyment. Additionally, overall adherence to applicable SMC development review and design requirements, in addition to the objective design and performance standards proposed by the TCSP, such as connections to trails and open space, would ensure that future development would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic view or vista, and impacts would be less than significant.
Housing Site 16B
Housing Site 16B is currently a vacant parcel with a land use designation of Residential TC-R-14, which allows for 14 to 22 du/ac and is surrounded by existing development to the east, south, and west, and would be constructed south of Site 16A. While Site 16B has the potential to obstruct views of the San Diego River, overall adherence to applicable SMC development review and design requirements, in addition to proposed objective design and performance standards proposed by the TCSP, such as connections to trails and open space, would ensure that future development would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic view or vista, and impacts would be less than significant.
Housing Site 20A
Housing Site 20A is a mostly vacant parcel containing occasional asphalt and concrete foundations. The site has a land use designation of Residential TC-R-22, which allows 22 to 30 du/ac and is surrounded by existing development to the east and west but sits directly south of the San Diego River. Development of Site 20A could affect visibility to the San Diego River, but Site 20A is not a designated scenic resource or area intended for scenic enjoyment. Site 20A is adjacent to the Edgemoor Polo Barn, which the City values as an aesthetic resource. TCSP Objective Design Standard F, Historic Site Adjacency, states that development proposals within Site 20A shall demonstrate project site planning and building design that respects and enhances the Edgemoor Polo Barn site. This includes pedestrian connectivity between proposed uses and the Polo Barn site, landscaping that enhances the Polo Barn site, and building design that incorporates transitions in bulk and scale on areas adjacent to the Polo Barn site. Additionally, development proposals within Site 20A shall demonstrate how they would adhere to the Secretary of Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and standards and guidelines prescribed by the State Office of Historic Preservation. As described in Section 4.5, MM-CUL-5 involves the consideration of Objective Design Standard F during future project planning. If avoidance is not possible, the preferred alternative is to preserve the Edgemoor Polo Barn by moving it to another location. Overall adherence to applicable SMC development review and design requirements, in addition to proposed objective design and performance standards, would ensure that future development would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic view or vista, and impacts would be less than significant.
Housing Site 20B
Housing Site 20B is a mostly vacant parcel containing occasional asphalt and concrete foundations. The site has a land use designation of Residential TC-R-30. The site is surrounded by existing development to the east, south, and west, but has the potential to obstruct views of the San Diego River if buildout is completed at a taller height than Site 20A. Overall adherence to applicable SMC development review and design requirements, in addition to proposed objective design and performance standards proposed by the TCSP, such as connections to trails and open space, would ensure that future development would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic view or vista, and impacts would be less than significant
4.1 Aesthetics
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.1-12
4.1.5.2 Mitigation Measures
TCSP Area, AEN, and Housing Element Sites 16A, 16B, and 20B No mitigation is required.
Housing Element Site 20A
For Housing Element Site 20A, implementation of MM-CUL-5 described in Section 4.4.5.2 would reduce potential adverse impacts associated with changes in visual quality and character surrounding the Edgemoor Polo Barn to less than significant. Specifically, application of the Secretary of Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties provides guidelines for future development that would ensure maintenance of the historical integrity of the Edgemoor Polo Barn. While the visual character of the site would change with new development, the visual quality of the Edgemoor Polo Barn would be retained through application of the Secretary of Interior Standards.
4.1.5.3 Significance After Mitigation
TCSP Area, AEN, and Housing Element Sites 16A, 16B, and 20B Impacts associated with the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites 16A, 16B, and 20B would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Housing Element Site 20A
Impacts to scenic quality associated with the Edgemoor Polo Barn would be reduced to less than significant through implementation of MM-CUL-5 for Site 20A.
4.1.6 Issue 2: Scenic Resources
Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State Scenic Highway?
4.1.6.1 Impact Analysis
TCSP Area
There are no designated State Scenic Highways within City limits. Only SR 52 located west of the City is a designated State Scenic Highway, which also runs in an east-west direction approximately 2 miles east of the eastern project site boundary (Caltrans 2018). Distant views to portions of the TCSP are visible from SR 52.
Mission Gorge Road is designated as a Local Scenic Road in the City’s General Plan (City 2003a), which establishes Mission Gorge Road Design Standards. The southern boundary of the TCSP area is immediately adjacent to Mission Gorge Road and would be visible from the roadway.
Complying with the Design Standards in the General Plan and the TCSP to the maximum extent feasible would ensure that the aesthetic value of the areas adjacent to Mission Gorge Road is not impacted. Relevant objective design standards from the TCSP include orienting main front entries to the street, changing material or adding columns between multiple entries along the same frontage, and disallowing “back-of-house” uses such as refuse areas or utility closets to face the
4.1 Aesthetics
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.1-13
street. These standards would ensure that development visible from Mission Gorge Road would be visually interesting and site appropriate.
While development of the TCSP area could change the visual environment as viewed from surrounding locally scenic and state eligible roadways, the TCSP area is largely surrounded by urbanization and would represent infill development in a similar character to existing uses. Thus, while development would represent a visual change, it would not substantially change the predominant view of urbanization within the City. Distant views of the mountains would be retained as height limitations associated with each underlying zone would prohibit buildings of excessive height. Additionally, significant portions of the TCSP area, including the existing recreational uses north of the San Diego River and the San Diego River itself, would remain designated as open space. Impacts would be less than significant.
AEN
Similar to the TCSP area, the southern boundary of the AEN is immediately adjacent to Mission Gorge Road, therefore potentially changing the visual environment as viewed from the local scenic roadway. However, the AEN is largely surrounded by urbanization and would represent infill development, and development would comply with the Mission Gorge Road Design Guidelines. Relevant objective design standards from the TCSP include orienting main front entries to the street, changing material or adding columns between multiple entries along the same frontage, and disallowing “back-of-house” uses such as refuse areas or utility closets to face the street. These standards would ensure that development visible from Mission Gorge Road would be visually interesting and site appropriate. Distant views of the mountains would be retained as height limitations associated with each underlying zone would prohibit buildings of excessive height. Impacts would be less than significant.
Housing Element Sites
All Housing Element sites except for Site 20B would be sufficiently set back from Mission Gorge Road with intervening development such that they would not change the scenic environment as viewed from the roadway. Site 20B would be visible from Mission Gorge Road, but the site is largely surrounded by urbanization and would comply with the Mission Gorge Road Design Guidelines.
Additionally, all future development at the Housing Element sites would be subject to the requirement for Development Review consistent with SMC Chapter 13.08 which would ensure consistency with General Plan policies and applicable design and development review requirements including the objective design standards for the TCSP area. Relevant standards include orienting main front entries to the street, changing material or adding columns between multiple entries along the same frontage, and disallowing “back-of-house” uses such as refuse areas or utility closets to face the street. These standards would ensure that development visible from Mission Gorge Road would be visually interesting and site appropriate. Application of these development review requirements would ensure protection of key scenic resources. Impacts would be less than significant.
4.1.6.2 Mitigation Measures
TCSP Area, AEN, and Housing Element Sites
No mitigation is required.
4.1 Aesthetics
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.1-14
4.1.6.3 Significance After Mitigation
TCSP Area, AEN, and Housing Element Sites
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.
4.1.7 Issue 3: Visual Character or Quality
In non-urbanized areas, would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage points). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
4.1.7.1 Impact Analysis
TCSP Area
The TCSP area is composed of vacant and non-vacant parcels in an urbanized area of the City.
The TCSP creates new zoning standards for the TCSP area, including the San Diego River floodway, that would apply to new development and redevelopment activities. The TCSP also includes Objective Design Standards that strive to create a human-scale environment that is compatible with and enhances the surrounding area; specific standards include breaking up building massing, ensuring parking does not function as a standalone element, implementing pedestrian-friendly fixtures and landscaping, and preserving open space and recreational opportunities. Sign standards are also included to enhance community character and wayfinding throughout the TCSP area, and assumes the ultimate relocation of the restored Santee Drive-In sign within the City-owned theater site in the Town Center Core. Future projects in the TCSP area would be reviewed for consistency with the standards and remaining applicable municipal code regulations mentioned in Section 4.1.5. No increase in density, height, bulk, or scale would occur, and the amount of protected open space in the community would not be reduced. Impacts would be less than significant.
AEN
Similar to the TCSP area, the AEN is composed of vacant and non-vacant parcels in an urbanized area of the City. The AEN would be subject to the TCSP zoning and design standards mentioned above, including breaking up building massing, ensuring parking does not function as a standalone element, implementing pedestrian-friendly fixtures and landscaping, and preserving open space and recreational opportunities. Future projects would be reviewed for consistency with the standards and remaining applicable municipal code regulations mentioned in Section
4.1.5. No increase in density, height, bulk, or scale would occur, and the amount of protected open space in the community would not be reduced. Impacts would be less than significant.
Housing Element Sites
Development with residential at the Housing Element sites could affect the visual character and quality of views toward the San Diego River. However, development would be subject to development review consistent with SMC Chapter 13.08 which would ensure consistency with General Plan policies and applicable design and development review requirements including supplemental development regulations. Relevant Objective Design Standards from the TCSP include breaking up building massing, ensuring parking does not function as a standalone
4.1 Aesthetics
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.1-15
element, implementing pedestrian-friendly fixtures and landscaping, and preserving open space and recreational opportunities, as detailed in Section 4.1.2.3.
Additionally, development of Site 20A could result in indirect visual character and quality impacts due to changes affecting the visual environment surrounding the Edgemoor Polo Barn.
Specifically, development within a visual radius of the barn could result in indirect impacts to the historic resource related to the visibility of the resource and/or altering its surrounding visual character. General Plan Policy 12.1 is aimed at the protection of historic buildings. Policy 12.1 requires that future development respects and enhances the Edgemoor Polo Barn setting. As part of the development review process, development at Site 20A would be required to demonstrate a project design that respects and enhances the adjacent historic resource. Development at Site 20A could result in significant impacts to visual character and quality and mitigation is required.
4.1.7.2 Mitigation Measures
TCSP Area, AEN, and Housing Element Sites 16A, 16B, and 20B No mitigation is required.
Housing Element Site 20A
For Housing Element Site 20A, implementation of MM-CUL-5 described in Section 4.4.5.2 would reduce potential adverse impacts associated with changes in visual quality and character surrounding the Edgemoor Polo Barn to less than significant. Specifically, application of the Secretary of Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties provides guidelines for future development that would ensure maintenance of the historical integrity of the Edgemoor Polo Barn. While the visual character of the site would change with new development, the visual quality of the Edgemoor Polo Barn would be retained through application of the Secretary of Interior Standards.
4.1.7.3 Significance After Mitigation
TCSP Area, AEN, and Housing Element Sites 16A, 16B, and 20B Impacts associated with the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites 16A, 16B, and 20B would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Housing Element Site 20A
Impacts to scenic resources associated with the Edgemoor Polo Barn would be reduced to less than significant through implementation of MM-CUL-5 for Site 20A..
4.1 Aesthetics
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.1-16
4.1.8 Issue 4: Light or Glare
Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area?
4.1.8.1 Impact Analysis
TCSP Area, AEN, and Housing Element Sites
Development of the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites could introduce new sources of light and glare from increased development intensity. However, the TCSP area is in an urbanized area and light introduced with new development would be similar to existing sources of light. Additionally, development of the Housing Element sites would be required to comply with SMC standards related to light and glare (Chapter 13.08.070(G)), which requires that outdoor lighting be directed away from adjacent properties and set in a way to avoid any detriment to the surrounding area. Additionally, the Community Enhancement Element includes the standard for lighting and signage to minimize spillover of lighting through use of directional, cut-off and nonglare fixtures. General Plan policies would be implemented through the required development review process. Impacts would be less than significant.
4.1.8.2 Mitigation Measures
TCSP Area, AEN, and Housing Element Sites
No mitigation is required.
4.1.8.3 Significance After Mitigation
TCSP Area, AEN, and Housing Element Sites
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.
4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.2-1
4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
The following section analyzes the potential environmental impacts that may occur to agriculture and forestry resources as a result of implementation of the proposed project.
4.2.1 Existing Conditions
4.2.1.1 Regional Agricultural Setting
Despite numerous constraints to agriculture in San Diego County (County), such as high water and land costs, the region supports a $1.78 billion agricultural economy (San Diego County 2023a). The majority of San Diego’s important farmland lies in the northwestern corner of the County, east of Camp Pendleton. The San Pasqual Valley, approximately 15 miles north of the proposed project site, is another important agricultural resource, containing over 1,000 acres of prime farmland (California Department of Conservation [DOC] 2022). According to the DOC, the City of Santee contains primarily urban and built-up land. No areas of the City are explicitly used or zoned for agriculture (City 2003c).
4.2.1.2 Project Area Conditions and Agricultural Resources Historical Agricultural Use
In 1877, George A. Cowles purchased approximately 4,000 acres of land for a vineyard in what would later be known as the Santee area. Originally known as Cowleston, Santee gained its name in 1891 when Cowles’s widow Jennie married Milton Santee, a local realtor and surveyor (City 2024a). Agriculture remained the area’s primary focus through the late 1800s, with dairies and barns dotting the landscape. One such dairy farm was the Edgemoor Farm. Edgemoor Farm, established in 1908, was later purchased by the County of San Diego to be used as a geriatric hospital (Santee Historical Society 2024). As time went on, the County added new buildings to the property while still maintaining the original barn, though the dairy and farm had fallen into disuse by the 1950s. The preserved Edgemoor Polo Barn has since been placed on the National Register of Historic Places.
Current Agricultural Use
The DOC Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) produces Important Farmland maps and statistical data used for categorizing agricultural land and analyzing impacts.
Agricultural lands are rated based on soil quality and irrigation status, with Important Farmland maps updated every two years based on aerial photograph review, computer mapping analysis, public input, and field reconnaissance. The map series identifies eight classifications and uses a minimum mapping unit size of ten acres. The program also produces a biannual report on the amount of land converted from agricultural to non-agricultural use. The program maintains an inventory of state agricultural land and updates its “Important Farmland Series Maps” every two years. Within the project’s proposed Town Center Specific Plan (TCSP), Arts and Entertainment Neighborhood (AEN), and Housing Element site footprints, portions of land are designated as Farmland of Local Importance and Grazing Land (DOC 2022). This land is currently composed of vacant lots of either dirt, vegetation, or shallow water. Table 4.2-1, Important Farmland within the Project Area, shows the acreage of each FMMP land use category. Figure 4.2-1, Farmland Designations and Soils, shows the FMMP designations.
4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.2-2
Table 4.2-1
IMPORTANT FARMLAND WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA
FMMP Acres by FMMP Category and Proportion of Total Site Acreage Land Use TCSP AEN Housing Element Sites
Category 16A 16B 20A 20B
Farmland of
Local
Importance
100.6 15.4% 74.5 21.8% 8.9 80.3% 8.7 100% 0 - 0 -
Grazing Land 41.7 6.4% 40.9 12.0% 2.2 19.8% 0 - 0 - 0 - Other Land 100.4 15.4% 56.6 16.6% 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -
Urban and
Built-Up Land
408.7 62.7% 169.7 49.7% 0 - 0 - 7.8 100% 9.9 100%
Total Acreage 651.4 341.7 11.0 8.7 7.8 9.9
Source: DOC 2022
4.2.2 Regulatory Framework
4.2.2.1 State
Williamson Act
The California Land Conservation Act (also known as the Wiliamson Act) was adopted in 1965, set forth at Government Code section 51200 et seq. The act provides a comprehensive method for local governments to protect farmland and open space by allowing lands in agricultural use to be placed under contract (agricultural preserve) between a local government and a landowner. In return, landowners receive a reduction in their assessed property taxes based upon farming and open space uses as opposed to full market value.
California Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
The DOC monitors the conversion of the state’s farmland to and from agricultural use via the FMMP. According to the 2022 San Diego County Important Farmland Map, significant portions of the TCSP, AEN, and Housing Element sites contain “Farmland of Local Importance”. The FMMP classifications are shown below:
Prime Farmland
Prime Farmland has the best combination of physical and chemical features able to sustain longterm agricultural production. This land has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields. Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.
Farmland of Statewide Importance
Farmland of Statewide Importance is similar to Prime Farmland but with minor shortcomings, such as greater slopes or less ability to store soil moisture. Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date. 0 Santee Town Center Specific Plan EIR
Ji •
Proposed Santee Town Center Specific Plan
Q Proposed Arts and Entertainment Neighborhood
©) Site16A
{§ Site168
©) Site 20A
<g) Site208
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP)
Farmland of Local Importance
Grazing Land
Other Land
Urban and Built-Up Land
Source: Aerial (SanGIS, 2023) 0
E---3 E---3
HELIX Important Farmland Within the TCSP Area
Environmental Planning -------------~ ---------------------------------- Figure 4.2-1
4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.2-4
Unique Farmland
Unique Farmland has lesser quality soils used for the production of the state's leading agricultural crops. This land is usually irrigated, but may include non-irrigated orchards or vineyards as found in some climatic zones in California. Land must have been cropped at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.
Farmland of Local Importance
Farmland of Local Importance has some importance to the local agricultural economy as determined by each county's board of supervisors and a local advisory committee. In some counties, Confined Animal Agriculture facilities are part of Farmland of Local Importance, but they are shown separately. In San Diego County, Farmland of Local Importance is defined as land that meets all the characteristics of Prime and Statewide, with the exception of irrigation. Farmlands not covered by the above categories but of significant economic importance to the County have a history of good production for locally adapted crops. The soils are grouped in types that are suited for truck crops (such as tomatoes, strawberries, cucumbers, potatoes, celery, squash, romaine lettuce, and cauliflower) and soils suited for orchard crops (avocados and citrus) (DOC 2022).
Grazing Land
Grazing Land has existing vegetation suited to the grazing of livestock. This category was developed in cooperation with the California Cattlemen's Association, University of California Cooperative Extension, and other groups interested in the extent of grazing activities.
Urban and Built-up Land
Urban and Built-Up Land is occupied by structures with a building density of at least 1 unit to
1.5 acres, or approximately 6 structures to a 10-acre parcel. This land is used for residential, industrial, commercial, construction, institutional, public administration, railroad and other transportation yards, cemeteries, airports, golf courses, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment, water control structures, and other developed purposes.
Other Land
Other Land contains land not included in any other mapping category. Common examples include low density rural developments; brush, timber, wetland, and riparian areas not suitable for livestock grazing; confined livestock, poultry or aquaculture facilities; strip mines, borrow pits; and water bodies smaller than forty acres. Vacant and nonagricultural land surrounded on all sides by urban development and greater than 40 acres is mapped as Other Land.
Water
Water includes perennial water bodies with an extent of at least 40 acres.
4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.2-5
4.2.2.2 Local
City of Santee General Plan
In the Land Use Element of the City of Santee’s General Plan, the project site is currently designated Town Center (TC), which is intended to fulfill the goals of the TCSP (City 2003c).
There are no specific agricultural designations in the General Plan, but agricultural uses may, under special circumstances, be allowed under the Park/Open Space designation.
City of Santee Zoning Ordinance
Minor agricultural uses are permitted in Residential zones, while wholesale distributors or commercial operations are conditionally compatible. Agricultural uses are also conditionally compatible in Park/Open Space, Commercial (farmer’s markets), and Industrial Zones. (City 2023a).
City of Santee Town Center Specific Plan
In October 1986, the City completed a focused effort to plan for the development of property in its geographic core. The original TCSP does not specifically permit agricultural uses and designates the Edgemoor Polo Barn, which was once used for agriculture, as Theme Commercial.
4.2.3 Significance Determination Thresholds
As defined in Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and by the County of San Diego, project impacts to agriculture and forestry resources would be considered significant if the project was determined to:
1) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide or Local Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, or other agricultural resources, to non-agricultural use;
2) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract; 3) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, Forest Land (as defined in Public Resources Code (PRC) Section (12220(g)), Timberland (as defined by PRC Section 4526), or timberland-zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g));
4) Result in the loss of Forest Land or conversion of Forest Land to non-forest use; or 5) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of Forest Land to non-forest use.
4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.2-6
4.2.4 Methodology
The following sections consider the DOC’s FMMP, aerial imagery, and current land use designations and zoning to determine if implementation of the project would result in a potentially significant impact to agricultural resources within, or adjacent to, the TCSP area, AEN, or Housing Element sites.
4.2.5 Issue 1: Conversion of Important Farmland
Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide or Local Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, or other agricultural resources, to nonagricultural use?
4.2.5.1 Impact Analysis
TCSP Area, AEN, and Housing Element Sites
While parts of the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites contain land that qualify as Farmland of Local Importance, no portion of the project area has been used as farmland since at least 1980, when aerial imagery shows that the Town Center area was graded, likely in preparation for the further urban development seen in 1995 and 2000 aerial photographs (HELIX 2024b). The project area is planned for urban development in the City of Santee General Plan, and has been zoned for urban uses since the 1986 TCSP was adopted. Although the areas designated as Farmland of Local Importance have generally remained vacant and filled with dirt, standing water, or sparse vegetation, some portions of the areas and surrounding sites have been developed with urban uses. No agricultural uses have reemerged on the project site since farming ceased in the late 1900s, as visible in more recent aerial imagery. Because there are no current or planned agricultural uses in the project area, the proposed project would not result in impacts to conversion of FMMP farmland in the TCSP area, AEN, or Housing Element sites. Impacts would be less than significant.
4.2.5.2 Mitigation Measures
TCSP Area, AEN, and Housing Element Sites
No mitigation is required.
4.2.5.3 Significance After Mitigation
TCSP Area, AEN, and Housing Element Sites
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.
4.2.6 Issue 2: Conflict with Agricultural Zoning
Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.2-7
4.2.6.1 Impact Analysis
TCSP Area, AEN, and Housing Element Sites
No zoning or land use designations that are focused on agricultural use occur within the boundaries of the TCSP area, AEN, or Housing Element sites. Agricultural uses are allowed under special circumstances in the park/open space land associated with the San Diego River, but no agricultural uses exist or are planned for the area according to the TCSP. There are no recent or current Williamson Act contract lands within the project site. There would be no conflicts with agricultural zoning or Williamson Act contracts in the TCSP area, AEN, or Housing Element sites as a result of the proposed project.
4.2.6.2 Mitigation Measures
TCSP Area, AEN, and Housing Element Sites
No mitigation is required.
4.2.6.3 Significance After Mitigation
TCSP Area, AEN, and Housing Element Sites
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.
4.2.7 Issue 3: Conflict with Timberland Zoning
Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, Forest Land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section (12220(g)), Timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland-zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
4.2.7.1 Impact Analysis
TCSP Area, AEN, and Housing Element Sites
The TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites do not contain any areas zoned as Timberland or Timberland Production. Therefore, no associated impacts in the TCSP area, AEN, or Housing Element sites would result from the implementation of the proposed project.
4.2.7.2 Mitigation Measures
TCSP Area, AEN, and Housing Element Sites
No mitigation is required.
4.2.7.3 Significance After Mitigation
TCSP Area, AEN, and Housing Element Sites
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.
4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.2-8
4.2.8 Issue 4: Loss or Conversion of Forest Land
Would the project result in the loss of Forest Land or conversion of Forest Land to non-forest use?
4.2.8.1 Impact Analysis
TCSP Area, AEN, and Housing Element Sites
The TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites do not contain any areas identified as forest resources under California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection ([CAL FIRE] 2024) or City policies and guidelines. Therefore, no associated impacts to forest land in the TCSP area, AEN, or Housing Element sites would result from implementation of the proposed project.
4.2.8.2 Mitigation Measures
TCSP Area, AEN, and Housing Element Sites
No mitigation is required.
4.2.8.3 Significance After Mitigation
TCSP Area, AEN, and Housing Element Sites
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.
4.2.9 Issue 5: Other Conversion of Farmland or Forest Land Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of Forest Land to non-forest use?
4.2.9.1 Impact Analysis
TCSP Area, AEN, and Housing Element Sites
Based on the previous impact discussions and that no active Farmland or Forest land exists or is zoned in the vicinity of the project area, the project would not result in conversion of Farmland or Forest land within, or in the vicinity of, the TCSP area, AEN or Housing Element sites, and no associated farmland conversion impacts would occur from the implementation of the proposed project.
4.2.9.2 Mitigation Measures
TCSP Area, AEN, and Housing Element Sites
No mitigation is required.
4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.2-9
4.2.9.3 Significance After Mitigation
TCSP Area, AEN, and Housing Element Sites
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.
4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.2-10
This page intentionally left blank
4.3 Air Quality
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.3-1
4.3 Air Quality
The following section analyzes the potential air quality impacts that may occur as a result of implementation of the proposed project. For the purpose of this air quality analysis, buildout of the Town Center Specific Plan (TCSP) area is anticipated to conservatively occur through a 2035 horizon year, and buildout of the Housing Element sites is anticipated to occur by the end of 2026 as part of the 2021-2029 Sixth Cycle Housing Element. This evaluation includes the potential for the proposed project to result in significant emissions of criteria pollutants, toxic air contaminants (TACs), or odors. Air quality modeling data are contained in Appendix B of this Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and include criteria pollutant emission data calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod).
4.3.1 Existing Conditions
4.3.1.1 Regional Setting
The City of Santee (City) lies within the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB), which encompasses all of San Diego County (County). The SDAB is a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills, bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west and high mountain ranges to the east. The topography in the SDAB region varies greatly, from beaches on the west, to mountains, and then desert to the east. The local climate is classified as Mediterranean. This type of climate is characterized by a repetitive pattern of frequent early morning cloudiness, hazy afternoon sunshine, daytime onshore breezes, and limited temperature change throughout the year. The average daily temperature is 62 degrees Fahrenheit. Limited rainfall occurs in winter while summers are often completely dry.
4.3.1.2 Air Pollutants of Concern
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has identified six pollutants of key concern known as “criteria pollutants.” These criteria pollutants are each common in outdoor environments across the United States and pose a threat to human health. Criteria pollutants include ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter (PM; PM with a diameter of 10 microns or less [PM10] and PM with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less [PM2.5]), and lead (Pb). The following is a discussion of the criteria air pollutants (USEPA 2024a).
Ozone
Ozone is the primary component of smog. Ozone is not directly emitted into the air but is formed through complex chemical reactions between precursor emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and reactive organic gases (ROGs) (also known as volatile organic compounds [VOCs] or reactive organic compounds) in the presence of sunlight. The adverse health effects associated with exposure to ozone pertain primarily to the respiratory system. Scientific evidence indicates that ambient levels of ozone affect not only sensitive receptors, such as asthma sufferers and children, but healthy adults as well. Exposure to ozone has been found to significantly alter lung functions by increasing respiratory rates and pulmonary resistance, decreasing tidal volumes (the amount of air inhaled and exhaled), and impairing respiratory mechanics. Symptomatic responses include throat dryness, chest tightness, headache, and nausea. When taking a deep breath, symptoms include chest tightness, wheezing, or shortness of breath. About half of smog-forming emissions come from automobiles.
4.3 Air Quality
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.3-2
Carbon Monoxide
Carbon monoxide is a colorless, odorless gas that is formed when carbon in fuel is not burned completely. It is a component of motor vehicle exhaust, which contributes about 56 percent of all CO emissions nationwide. CO enters the bloodstream through the lungs by combining with hemoglobin, which normally supplies oxygen to the cells. However, CO combines with hemoglobin much more readily than oxygen does, resulting in a drastic reduction in the amount of oxygen available to the cells. Adverse health effects associated with exposure to CO concentrations include such symptoms as dizziness, headaches, and fatigue. CO exposure is especially harmful to individuals who suffer from cardiovascular and respiratory diseases.
Small-scale, localized concentrations of CO above the federal and state Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) may occur at intersections with stagnation points such as those that occur on major highways and heavily traveled and congested roadways. Localized high concentrations of CO are referred to as “CO hotspots” and are a concern at congested intersections, where automobile engines burn fuel less efficiently and their exhaust contains more CO.
Nitrogen Dioxide
Nitrogen dioxide is a brownish, highly reactive gas present in all urban environments. The major human-made sources of NO2 are combustion devices, such as boilers, gas turbines, and mobile and stationary reciprocating internal combustion engines. Inhalation is the most common route of exposure to NO2. Because NO2 has relatively low solubility in water, the principal site of toxicity is in the lower respiratory tract. The severity of the adverse health effects depends primarily on the concentration inhaled rather than the duration of exposure. An individual may experience a variety of acute symptoms, including coughing, difficulty with breathing, vomiting, headache, and eye irritation during or shortly after exposure. After a period of approximately 4 to 12 hours, an exposed individual may experience chemical pneumonitis or pulmonary edema with breathing abnormalities, cough, cyanosis, chest pain, and rapid heartbeat.
Sulfur Dioxide
Sulfur dioxide is a combustion product, with the primary source being power plants and heavy industries that use coal or oil as fuel. SO2 is also a product of diesel engine combustion. The health effects of SO2 include lung disease and breathing problems for people with asthma. SO2 in the atmosphere contributes to the formation of acid rain.
Inhalable Coarse Particles
PM10 is particulate matter (PM) with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns or less. Ten microns is about one-seventh of the diameter of a human hair. PM is a complex mixture of very tiny solid or liquid particles composed of chemicals, soot, and dust. Under typical conditions (i.e., no wildfires) particles classified under the PM10 category are mainly emitted directly from activities that disturb the soil including travel on roads and construction, mining, or agricultural operations.
Other sources include windblown dust, salts, brake dust, and tire wear.
Health studies have shown a significant association between exposure to PM and premature death in people with heart or lung diseases. Other important effects include aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disease, lung disease, decreased lung function, asthma attacks, and certain cardiovascular problems such as heart attacks and irregular heartbeat.
4.3 Air Quality
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.3-3
Inhalable Fine Particles
Airborne, inhalable particles with aerodynamic diameters of 2.5 microns or less have been recognized as an air quality concern requiring regular monitoring. Federal regulations required that PM2.5 monitoring begin January 1, 1999. Similar to PM10, PM2.5 is also inhaled into the lungs and causes serious health problems.
Lead
Lead is a metal found naturally in the environment as well as in manufactured products. At high levels of exposure, lead can have detrimental effects on the central nervous system. The major sources of lead emissions have historically been mobile and industrial sources. As a result of the phase out of leaded gasoline, metal processing is currently the primary source of lead emissions.
4.3.1.3 Toxic Air Contaminants
A toxic air contaminant (TAC) is any air pollutant which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or serious illness or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) lists approximately 800 compounds that are assessed under its Air Toxics Hot Spots Program. These compounds may be carcinogenic or may cause acute or chronic non-cancer health problems. Of note, diesel-exhaust particulate matter (DPM) has been determined to be carcinogenic and therefore is categorized as a TAC.
4.3.1.4 Local Air Pollution Sources
Stationary Air Pollution Sources
Regulated Stationary Sources
Air pollutant emissions originate from a wide variety of stationary sources such as factories, power plants, gasoline stations, and other businesses and industrial operations. The local air district, the San Digo Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD), is responsible for monitoring air quality and developing plans to reduce air pollution in the SDAB. The SDAPCD’s Annual Emissions Reporting Program collects emissions data and makes it available to the public. Permitted stationary sources that are required to report annually in the City include the following (SDAPCD 2024):
• Sycamore Energy 1 LLC at 8514 Mast Boulevard
• Sycamore Landfill Inc. at 8514 Mast Boulevard
• Martin Marietta San Diego Aggregates, LLC at 8514 Mast Boulevard • Compucraft Industries Inc. at 8787 Olive Lane
• ASAP Custom Cabinets, Inc. at 10207 Buena Vista Avenue, Suite D Other stationary sources that are required to report every four years include, but are not limited to, gas stations, water and wastewater facilities, and auto body paint shops in the City.
4.3 Air Quality
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.3-4
Unregulated Stationary Sources
In April 2005, CARB published the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (CARB 2005). The term “sensitive receptor” refers to a person in the population who is more susceptible to health effects due to exposure to an air contaminant than the population at large or to a land use that may reasonably be associated with such a person. Examples include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, churches, athletic facilities, retirement homes, and long-term health care facilities. The handbook makes recommendations directed at protecting sensitive receptors from air pollutant emissions. As stated in the handbook, the concern is generally limited to siting new sensitive land uses within 50 feet of a gas station or constructing a new gas station within 50 feet of existing sensitive land use (CARB 2005).
Mobile Source Air Pollution
CARB has identified DPM as a carcinogenic TAC. Vehicle traffic is responsible for the majority of DPM emissions in California as well as several other carcinogens. CARB recommends caution when siting sensitive land uses near heavily traveled roadways. Specific recommendations from CARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective include maintaining a 500-foot buffer zone between sensitive receptors and freeways, urban road with 100,000 or more vehicles per day or rural road with 50,000 vehicles per day whenever possible (CARB 2005). Based on Caltrans Traffic Census Program, State Route (SR) 52 and SR 67 carry fewer than 100,000 vehicles per day (Caltrans 2024).
4.3.1.5 Local Air Quality
The SDAPCD maintains active air quality monitoring stations throughout the SDAB. Air pollutant concentrations and meteorological information are continuously recorded at these stations. The closest air quality monitoring station to the project site is the El Cajon station, located at 533 First Street in El Cajon, approximately three miles southeast of the City, which monitors air pollutant data for ozone, NOx, and PM2.5. Air quality is expressed as the number of days per year in which air pollution levels exceed federal standards set by the USEPA or state standards set by the CARB. Table 4.3-1, Air Quality Measurements – El Cajon Monitoring Station, presents a summary of the highest pollutant concentrations monitored during the 3 most recent years (2020 through 2022) for which the SDAPCD has reported data for this station.
Table 4.3-1
AIR QUALITY MEASUREMENTS – EL CAJON MONITORING STATION
Pollutant/Standard 2020 2021 2022
Ozone (O3)
Maximum concentration 1-hour period (ppm) 0.094 0.088 0.100 Maximum concentration 8-hour period (ppm) 0.083 0.077 0.088 Days above 1-hour state standard (>0.09 ppm) 0 0 1
Days above 8-hour state/federal standard (>0.070 ppm) 14 3 2 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
Maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm) 0.044 0.038 0.036
Days above state 1-hour standard (0.18 ppm) 0 0 0
Days above federal 1-hour standard (0.100 ppm) 0 0 0
Annual average (ppm) 0.008 0.006 0.008
Exceed annual federal standard (0.053 ppm) No No No
Exceed annual state standard (0.030 ppm) No No No
4.3 Air Quality
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.3-5
Pollutant/Standard 2020 2021 2022
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
Maximum 24-hour concentration (µg/m3) 38.2 30.2 26.4
Measured Days above 24-hour federal standard (>35 µg/m3) 2 0 0 Annual average (µg/m3) 11.6 10.4 *
Exceed state and federal annual standard (12 µg/m3) No No * Source: CARB 2024a
ppm = parts per million; µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
4.3.1.6 Odor
Odors are considered an air quality issue both at the local level (e.g., odor from wastewater treatment) and at the regional level (e.g., smoke from wildfires). The ability to detect odors varies considerably among the population and is subjective. Some individuals can smell minute quantities of specific substances while others may not have the same sensitivity but may have sensitivities to odors of other substances. In addition, people may have different reactions to the same odor; an odor that is offensive to one person (e.g., from a fast-food restaurant or bakery) may be perfectly acceptable to another. Unfamiliar odors may be more easily detected and likely to cause complaints than familiar ones.
Offensive odors can potentially affect human health in several ways. First, odorant compounds can irritate the eye, nose, and throat, which can reduce respiratory volume. Second, the VOC that causes odors can stimulate sensory nerves to cause neurochemical changes that might influence health, for instance, by compromising the immune system. Finally, unpleasant odors can trigger memories or attitudes linked to unpleasant odors, causing cognitive and emotional effects such as stress.
Several examples of common land use types that generate substantial odors include wastewater treatment plants, landfills, composting/green waste facilities, recycling facilities, petroleum refineries, chemical manufacturing plants, painting/coating operations, rendering plants, and food packaging plants. The TCSP area considered in this analysis is not located near any of these uses.
4.3.2 Regulatory Framework
4.3.2.1 Federal
Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards
The federal Clean Air Act (CAA) was enacted in 1970 and amended in 1977 and 1990 [42 United States Code (USC) 7401] for the purposes of protecting and enhancing the quality of the nation’s air resources to benefit public health, welfare, and productivity. In 1971, in order to achieve the purposes of Section 109 of the CAA [42 USC 7409], the USEPA developed primary and secondary national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). Designated criteria pollutants of primary concern include ozone, CO, SO2, NO2, lead, PM2.5 and PM10. The NAAQS “protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects associated with the presence of such air pollutant in the ambient air” [42 USC 7409(b)(2)]. NAAQS are presented in Table 4.3-2, Ambient Air Quality Standards.
4.3 Air Quality
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.3-6
Table 4.3-2
AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
Pollutant Averaging
Time California Standard
Federal
Standards
Primary
Federal
Standards
Secondary
O3 1 Hour 0.09 ppm (180 µg/m3) – –
8 Hour 0.070 ppm (137 µg/m3) 0.070 ppm
(137 µg/m3)
Same as Primary
PM10 24 Hour 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3 Same as Primary
AAM 20 µg/m3 – Same as Primary
PM2.5 24 Hour – 35 µg/m3 Same as Primary
AAM 12 µg/m3 9 µg/m3 15.0 µg/m3
1 Hour 20 ppm (23 mg/m3) 35 ppm (40 mg/m3) –
CO 8 Hour 9.0 ppm (10 mg/m3) 9 ppm (10 mg/m3) –
8 Hour
(Lake Tahoe)
6 ppm (7 mg/m3) – –
NO2 1 Hour 0.18 ppm (339 µg/m3) 0.100 ppm (188
µg/m3)
–
AAM 0.030 ppm (57 µg/m3) 0.053 ppm (100
µg/m3)
Same as Primary
1 Hour 0.25 ppm (655 µg/m3) 0.075 ppm (196
µg/m3)
–
SO2 3 Hour – – 0.5 ppm
(1,300 µg/m3)
24 Hour 0.04 ppm (105 µg/m3) – –
30-day Avg. 1.5 µg/m3 – –
Lead Calendar
Quarter
– 1.5 µg/m3 Same as Primary
Rolling
3-month Avg.
– 0.15 µg/m3 Same as Primary
Visibility
Reducing
Particles
8 Hour Extinction coefficient of
0.23 per km – visibility ≥ 10
miles
No Federal
Standards
No Federal
Standards
Sulfates 24 Hour 25 µg/m3 No Federal
Standards
No Federal
Standards
Hydrogen
Sulfide
1 Hour 0.03 ppm (42 µg/m3) No Federal
Standards
No Federal
Standards
Vinyl
Chloride
24 Hour 0.01 ppm (26 µg/m3) No Federal
Standards
No Federal
Standards
Source: CARB 2016 and USEPA 2024a 1 National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, within an adequate margin of safety, to protect public health. 2 National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant.
Note: More detailed information of the data presented in this table can be found at the CARB website (www.arb.ca.gov).
O3 = ozone; ppm = parts per million; µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; PM10 = respirable particulate matter; AAM = Annual Arithmetic Mean; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter; CO = carbon monoxide; mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic meter; NO2 = nitrogen dioxide; SO2 = sulfur dioxide; km= kilometer; – = No Standard.
4.3 Air Quality
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.3-7
4.3.2.2 State
California Ambient Air Quality Standards
The State of California has developed the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) which generally has set more strict standards for criteria pollutants. In addition to the federal criteria pollutants, the CAAQS also specify standards for visibility-reducing particles, sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride. Similar to the federal CAA, the state classifies specific geographic areas as either “attainment,” “unclassified,” or “nonattainment” areas for each pollutant based on the comparison of measured data with the CAAQS. CAAQS are presented in Table 4.3-2. The SDAB is a nonattainment area for the state ozone standards, the state PM10 standard, and the state PM2.5 standard.
State Implementation Plan
The State Implementation Plan (SIP) is a collection of documents that set forth the state’s strategies for achieving the NAAQS. In California, the SIP is a compilation of new and previously submitted plans, programs (such as monitoring, modeling, permitting, etc.), district rules, state regulations and federal controls. The CARB is the lead agency for all purposes related to the SIP under state law. Local air districts and other agencies, such as the Department of Pesticide Regulation and the Bureau of Automotive Repair, prepare SIP elements and submit them to CARB for review and approval. The CARB then forwards SIP revisions to the USEPA for approval and publication in the Federal Register. All of the items included in the California SIP are listed in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR 52.220.
Air Toxics Program
The public’s exposure to TACs is a significant public health issue in California. DPM emissions have been established as TACs. In 1983, the California State Legislature enacted a program to identify the health effects of TACs and to reduce exposure to these contaminants to protect the public health (AB 1807: Health and Safety Code Sections 39650–39674). The California State Legislature established a two-step process to address the potential health effects from TACs. The first step is the risk assessment (or identification) phase. The second step is the risk management (or control) phase of the process.
The California Air Toxics Program establishes the process for the identification and control of TACs and includes provisions to make the public aware of significant toxic exposures and for reducing risk. Additionally, the Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Information and Assessment Act (AB 2588, 1987, Connelly Bill) was enacted in 1987 and requires stationary sources to report the types and quantities of certain substances routinely released into the air. The goals of the Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Act are to collect emission data, to identify facilities having localized impacts, to ascertain health risks, to notify nearby residents of significant risks, and to reduce those significant risks to acceptable levels.
The Children's Environmental Health Protection Act, California Senate Bill 25 (Chapter 731, Escutia, Statutes of 1999), focuses on children's exposure to air pollutants. The act requires CARB to review its air quality standards from a children's health perspective, evaluate the statewide air quality monitoring network, and develop any additional air toxic control measures needed to protect children's health. Locally, toxic air pollutants are regulated through the SDAPCD Regulation XII. Of particular concern statewide are DPM emissions. DPM was established as a TAC in 1998, and is estimated to represent a majority of the cancer risk from TACs statewide
4.3 Air Quality
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.3-8
(based on the statewide average). Diesel exhaust is a complex mixture of gases, vapors, and fine particles. This complexity makes the evaluation of health effects of diesel exhaust a complex scientific issue. Some of the chemicals in diesel exhaust, such as benzene and formaldehyde, have been previously identified as TACs by the CARB and are listed as carcinogens either under the state's Proposition 65 or under the federal Hazardous Air Pollutants program.
4.3.2.3 Local
San Diego Air Pollution Control District
The SDAPCD and San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) are responsible for developing and implementing the clean air plan for attainment and maintenance of the ambient air quality standards in the SDAB. The regional air quality plan for San Diego County for attainment of the NAAQS is SDAPCD’s 2020 Plan for Attaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone in San Diego County (Attainment Plan; SDAPCD 2020). The Attainment Plan, which would be a revision to the SIP, outlines SDAPCD’s plans and control measures designed to attain the NAAQS for ozone. For attainment of the CAAQS, the SDAPCD must prepare an updated State Ozone Attainment Plan to identify possible new actions to further reduce emissions. Initially adopted in 1992, the Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS) identifies measures to reduce emissions from sources regulated by the SDAPCD, primarily stationary sources such as industrial operations and manufacturing facilities. As part of the RAQS, the SDAPCD developed Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) for the air quality plan prepared by SANDAG in accordance with AB 2595 and adopted by SANDAG in 1992. The RAQS is periodically updated to reflect updated information on air quality, emission trends, and new feasible control measures, and was last updated in 2023 (SDAPCD 2023). These plans accommodate emissions from all sources, including natural sources, through implementation of control measures, where feasible, on stationary sources to attain the standards. Mobile sources are regulated by the USEPA and CARB, and the emissions and reduction strategies related to mobile sources are considered in the Attainment Plan, RAQS, and SIP.
The SDAPCD is also responsible for establishing and enforcing local air quality rules and regulations that address the requirements of federal and state air quality laws. Development projects in the City are subject to the following SDAPCD rules (as well as others):
• Rule 51, Nuisance: prohibits emissions that cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public; or which endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the public; or which cause injury or damage to business or property.
• Rule 52, Particulate Matter: establishes limits to the discharge of any PM from non-stationary sources.
• Rule 54, Dust and Fumes: establishes limits to the amount of dust or fume discharged into the atmosphere in any 1 hour.
• Rule 55, Fugitive Dust Control: sets restrictions on visible fugitive dust from construction and demolition projects.
• Rule 67, Architectural Coatings: establishes limits to the VOC content for coatings applied within the SDAPCD.
4.3 Air Quality
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.3-9
4.3.3 Significance Determination Thresholds
Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, impacts related to air quality would be significant if the project would:
1) Conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the applicable air quality plan. 2) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.
3) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. 4) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) affecting a substantial number of people.
4.3.4 Methodology
To determine whether the project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of PM10, PM2.5, or the ozone precursors NOX and VOCs, emissions were evaluated based on the quantitative emission thresholds established by the SDAPCD and SCAQMD. As part of its air quality permitting process, the SDAPCD has established thresholds in Rule 20.2 for the preparation of Air Quality Impact Assessments (SDAPCD 2019). Rule 20.2 does not contain thresholds for VOCs. The SDAPCD and City of Santee do not have thresholds related to VOCs; therefore, this analysis considers guidance provided by the County of San Diego to consider the impact of VOC emissions. The County recommends the use of the SCAQMD (Coachella Valley portion) screening level established for VOCs, as these thresholds are generally stricter emissions thresholds than established by the SDAPCD. Therefore, to evaluate the significance of VOC emissions, this analysis used the SCAQMD daily threshold and its annual equivalent (County 2007).
These screening criteria were used as numeric methods to determine if the project would result in a significant impact to air quality or an adverse effect on human health. The screening thresholds are shown in Table 4.3-3, Air Quality Impact Screening Levels.
Table 4.3-3
AIR QUALITY IMPACT SCREENING LEVELS
Emission Rate
Pollutant Pounds/Hour Pounds/Day Tons/Year
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 25 250 40
Sulfur Oxides (SOX) 25 250 40
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 100 550 100
PM10 -- 100 15
Lead (O3) -- 3.2 0.6
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs),
Reactive Organic Gases (ROGs)
-- 75 13.7
Fine Respirable Matter (PM2.5) -- 67 10
Source: SDAPCD 2019; County 2007
4.3 Air Quality
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.3-10
Air emissions from mobile, area, and energy sources were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2022.1. CalEEMod is a computer model used to estimate air emissions resulting from land development projects throughout the state of California. CalEEMod was developed by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) in collaboration with the California air quality management and pollution control districts.
In brief, CalEEMod is a computer model that estimates criteria air pollutant and GHG emissions from mobile (i.e., vehicular) sources, area sources (fireplaces, woodstoves, and landscape maintenance equipment), energy use (electricity and natural gas used in space heating, ventilation, and cooling; lighting; and plug-in appliances), water use and wastewater generation, and solid waste disposal. Emissions are estimated based on land use information input to the model by the user. In various places the user can input additional information and/or override the default assumptions to account for project- or location-specific parameters. For this assessment, the default parameters were relied upon unless otherwise described below.
4.3.4.1 Construction Emissions
The quantity, duration, and intensity of construction activity influence the amount of construction emissions and related pollutant concentrations that occur at any one time. As such, the emission forecasts provided herein reflect a specific set of conservative assumptions based on the expected construction scenario wherein a relatively large amount of construction activity is occurring in a relatively intensive manner. Because of this conservative assumption, actual emissions could be less than those forecasted. If construction is delayed or occurs over a longer period, emissions could be reduced because of (1) a more modern and cleaner-burning construction equipment fleet mix than assumed in CalEEMod, and/or (2) a less intensive buildout schedule (i.e., fewer daily emissions occurring over a longer time interval).
The modeling recognizes the project must conform with SDAPCD Rule 67, limiting the VOC content of architectural coatings to 50 grams per liter and paved area coatings to 100 grams per liter. The modeling also recognizes that the project must perform fugitive dust control in accordance with the SDAPCD Rule 55, specifically watering exposed areas twice per day, enforcing a 15-mph speed limit on unpaved surfaces, and maintaining a minimum moisture content of 12 percent for unpaved roads.
TCSP Area and AEN
Construction-related activities are temporary, short-term sources of emissions. Sources of construction-related air emissions include construction equipment exhaust; construction-related trips by workers, delivery and hauling truck trips; and fugitive dust from grading activities. The quantity of air pollutants generated by the construction of projects within the proposed TCSP would vary depending upon the number of projects occurring simultaneously and the size of each individual project. Since the proposed TCSP is a land use plan that guides physical development for 20+ years, specific construction details such as the exact number and timing of all development projects are unknown. The intensity of construction activity associated with the proposed TCSP could be the same during each year. It is more likely, however, that some periods of construction (and associated emissions) would be more intense than other periods due to market conditions and population and housing demands.
4.3 Air Quality
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.3-11
While neither SDAPCD nor the City of Santee provides additional guidance on construction assumptions for plan-level analyses, some air districts such as the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) suggest that lead agencies conservatively assume that construction-generated emissions associated with the build-out of a plan should be evaluated assuming 25 percent of the total land uses would be constructed in a single year (SMAQMD 2016). This conservative assumption was used to evaluate the potential construction-related air quality impacts from projects that could occur under the proposed TCSP Amendment. The land uses modeled in the 25 percent scenario are listed in Table 4.3-4, Land Use Profile – First Year of Construction. Modeling relied upon CalEEMod default activities, fleet mixes, and vehicle trips based on land use type and size.
Table 4.3-4
LAND USE PROFILE – FIRST YEAR OF CONSTRUCTION
Land Use Acres Building Size
Retail 132.89 592,258 square feet
Regional Shopping 8.81 24,625 square feet
Civic/Institutional 45.74 187,223 square feet
Office Commercial 24.76 240,206 square feet
Park 59.36 59.36 acres
Residential (TC-R-14) 42.31 793 dwelling units
Residential (TC-R-22) 23.58 867 dwelling units
Note: Housing Element sites excluded, as they are provided separately.
Given that exhaust emissions from the construction equipment fleet are expected to decrease over time as stricter standards take effect, 25 percent of the construction emissions were conservatively modeled to occur in 2027, following development of the Housing Element sites. As construction occurs in later years, advancements in engine technology, retrofits, and turnover in the equipment fleet are anticipated to result in lower levels of emissions.
Housing Element Sites
Construction emissions for Housing Element sites 16A, 16B, 20A, and 20B were conservatively modeled assuming construction would begin in January 2025 and last approximately 18 months.
It should be noted that there are currently no plans being reviewed nor projects entitled by the City for these sites. Construction activities would include site preparation, grading, building construction, architectural coatings, and paving. Construction is assumed to occur six days per week with equipment operating up to eight hours per day. Architectural coatings are assumed to occur concurrently with the last five months of building construction. The construction schedule assumed in the modeling is shown in Table 4.3-5, Housing Element Sites Anticipated Construction Schedule.
Table 4.3-5
HOUSING ELEMENT SITES ANTICIPATED CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE Construction Activity Construction Period
Start
Construction Period
End
Number of
Working Days
Site Preparation 1/1/2025 1/23/2025 20
Grading 1/24/2025 3/17/2025 45
Building Construction 3/18/2025 5/28/2026 375
Architectural Coatings 1/1/2026 7/8/2026 162
Paving 5/29/2026 7/8/2026 35
4.3 Air Quality
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.3-12
Construction would require the use of heavy off-road equipment. Construction equipment estimates are based on default values in CalEEMod, Version 2022.1. Table 4.3-6, Housing Element Sites Construction Equipment Assumptions, presents a summary of the assumed equipment that would be involved in each stage of construction.
Table 4.3-6
HOUSING ELEMENT SITES CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT ASSUMPTIONS Equipment Horsepower Number Hours/Day
Site Preparation
Rubber Tired Dozers 367 3 8
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 84 4 8
Grading
Excavators 36 2 8
Graders 148 1 8
Rubber Tired Dozers 367 1 8
Scrapers 426 2 8
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 84 2 8
Building Construction
Cranes 367 2 4.4
Forklifts 82 4 7.5
Generator Sets 14 2 5
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 84 4 6.6
Welders 46 2 5
Architectural Coating
Air Compressors 37 1 6
Paving
Pavers 81 2 8
Paving Equipment 89 2 8
Rollers 36 2 8
Source: CalEEMod
Worker commute trips and vendor delivery trips were modeled based on CalEEMod defaults.
Worker trips are anticipated to vary between 18 and 1,279 trips per day, depending on construction phase. The CalEEMod default worker, vendor and haul trip distances were used in the model.
4.3.4.2 Operational Emissions
Operation emissions are long term and include mobile, energy, and area sources. Sources of operational emissions associated with future development under the proposed project include the following:
• Vehicle traffic;
• Natural gas consumption; and
• Area sources including architectural coatings, consumer products, and landscaping equipment.
4.3 Air Quality
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.3-13
Area Source Emissions
Area sources typically include emissions from landscaping equipment, the use of consumer products, the reapplication of architectural coatings for maintenance, and hearths. Project emissions associated with area sources were estimated using the CalEEMod default values except for hearths, as the project would not include wood burning stoves or fireplaces, or natural gas fireplaces.
Energy Emissions
Development within the project would use electricity for lighting, heating, and cooling. Natural gas and electricity would be supplied by San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E). Direct emissions from the burning of natural gas typically results from furnaces, hot water heaters, and kitchen appliances. Electricity generation typically entails the off-site generation of electricity, such as through combustion of fossil fuels, including natural gas and coal, which is then transmitted to end users. A building’s electricity use is thus associated with the off-site or indirect emission of GHGs at the source of electricity generation (power plant). CalEEMod conservatively assumes the use of natural gas appliances based on historical data while newer construction typically includes more electric appliances. Default natural gas and electricity demand quantities from CalEEMod were used in this analysis and the emissions factors for SDG&E provided in CalEEMod were applied to these energy demand values to calculate the resulting emissions.
Vehicular (Mobile) Sources
Operational emissions from mobile source emissions are associated with vehicle trip generation and trip length. Based on the project trip generation rate from the Local Transportation Study, the four strategic Housing Element sites would generate 8,520 new average daily trips (ADT) while the remaining TCSP land uses would generate an additional 51,511 ADT (Intersecting Metrics 2024). Default vehicle speeds, trip purpose, and trip distances from CalEEMod were applied to these trips.
4.3.5 Issue 1: Consistency with Air Quality Plans
Would the project conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the applicable air quality plan, i.e., the San Diego RAQS?
4.3.5.1 Impact Analysis
The Attainment Plan outlines SDAPCD’s plans and control measures designed to attain the NAAQS for ozone. In addition, the SDAPCD relies on the SIP, which includes the SDAPCD’s plans and control measures for attaining the ozone NAAQS. These plans accommodate emissions from all sources, including natural sources, through implementation of control measures, where feasible, on stationary sources to attain the standards. Mobile sources are regulated by the USEPA and CARB, and the emissions and reduction strategies related to mobile sources are considered in the Attainment Plan and SIP.
The Attainment Plan relies on information from CARB and SANDAG, including projected growth in the County and mobile, area, and all other source emissions, to project future emissions and determine the strategies necessary for the reduction of stationary source emissions through regulatory controls. CARB mobile source emission projections and SANDAG growth projections are based on population and vehicle trends and land use plans developed by cities and the
4.3 Air Quality
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.3-14
County. As such, projects that propose development consistent with the growth anticipated by the local general plans would be consistent with the Attainment Plan. If a project proposes development which is less dense than anticipated within the applicable General Plan, the project would likewise be consistent with the Attainment Plan. If a project proposes development that is greater than that anticipated in the applicable General Plan and SANDAG’s growth projections upon which the Attainment Plan is based, the project may be in conflict with the Attainment Plan and SIP and may have a potentially significant impact on air quality. This situation would warrant further analysis to determine if the project and the surrounding projects exceed the growth projections used in the Attainment Plan for the specific subregional area.
TCSP Area
As described above, the Attainment Plan and San Diego RAQS outlines the steps needed to accomplish attainment of NAAQS and CAAQS by the earliest practicable date. Projects that would be consistent with adopted land use designations would not conflict with the Attainment Plan or RAQS. Projects that would not be consistent with the land uses may be inconsistent with the Attainment Plan or RAQS and warrant further analysis to determine consistency. If it can be demonstrated that changes in land uses would generate fewer air emissions than land uses that are consistent with adopted land use designations, the changes would not conflict with the Attainment Plan or RAQS.
The project would result in a comprehensive update to the existing TCSP involving expanding the TCSP area by 42 acres, updating the boundaries of the TCSP districts to create five neighborhoods within the TCSP, and identifying potential future residential and non-residential development potential within the TCSP area. Although development regulations and design criteria in the proposed TCSP would replace the current TCSP regulations, development densities and intensities currently allowed throughout the TCSP area would not be increased by the project.
As a result, the project would not increase the amount of vehicle traffic expected to be generated in the City. Similarly, the project would not result in an increase in the average VMT per capita.
As buildout of the project would not result in an increase in anticipated development or traffic generation over what would occur under buildout of the adopted zoning and land use designations, the project would not result in an increase in emissions that are not already accounted for in the Attainment Plan or RAQS. Therefore, buildout of the TCSP would not exceed the assumptions used to develop the Attainment Plan or RAQS, and impacts would be less than significant.
AEN
The TCSP would involve updated development standards and land use allowances with the AEN.
However, because there is no change to allowed densities and intensities compared to existing zoning, buildout of the project would not result in traffic generation over what would occur under buildout of the adopted zoning and land use designations. Therefore, the project would not result in an increase in emissions that are not already accounted for in the Attainment Plan or RAQS.
Therefore, buildout of the AEN would not exceed the assumptions used to develop the Attainment Plan or RAQS, resulting in a less than significant impact.
Housing Element Sites
The project assumes the development of Housing Element sites 16A, 16B, 20A, and 20B consistent with the densities and intensities allowed by existing zoning, the 2021-2029 Housing Element, and state density bonus law. When compared to the existing zoning and land use
4.3 Air Quality
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.3-15
designations, the project would not increase the development potential allowed at the Housing Element sites, which would also not increase the projected amount of vehicle traffic generated in the City. The project would not increase the amount of projected traffic in the City and would not result in an increase in the average VMT per capita. As buildout of the project would not result in an increase in development or traffic generation over what would occur under buildout of the adopted zoning and land use designations, the project would not result in an increase in emissions that are not already accounted for in the Attainment Plan or RAQS.
Future development within Housing Element sites 16A, 16B, 20A, and 20B would not result in an increase in development or an increase in traffic generation over what would occur under buildout of the adopted zoning and land use designations and would therefore not result in an increase in emissions. Therefore, buildout of Housing Element sites 16A, 16B, 20A, and 20B would not exceed the assumptions used to develop the Attainment Plan or RAQS, resulting in a less than significant impact.
4.3.5.2 Mitigation Measures
TCSP Area, AEN, and Housing Element Sites
No mitigation is required.
4.3.5.3 Significance After Mitigation
TCSP Area, AEN, and Housing Element Sites
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.
4.3.6 Issue 2: Cumulative Net Increases of Criteria Pollutants Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
4.3.6.1 Impact Analysis
The project would generate criteria pollutants in the short-term during construction and the longterm during operation. To determine whether a project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria pollutant emissions for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state AAQS, the project’s emissions are evaluated based on the quantitative emission thresholds established by the SDAPCD and applicable law (as shown in Table 4.3-3). The SDAB is in non-attainment for ozone (VOCs and NOX are precursors), PM10, and PM2.5.
Construction
Construction emissions are described as “short-term” or temporary in duration; however, they have the potential to represent a significant impact with respect to air quality. Construction of the project would result in the temporary generation of VOC, NOX, CO, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions. VOC, NOX, CO, and SO2 emissions are primarily associated with mobile equipment exhaust, including off-road construction equipment and on-road motor vehicles. Fugitive PM dust
4.3 Air Quality
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.3-16
emissions are primarily associated with site preparation and vary as a function of such parameters as soil silt content, soil moisture, wind speed, acreage of disturbance area, and VMT by construction vehicles.
TCSP Area and AEN
The TCSP area and AEN temporary construction emissions were estimated using CalEEMod as described in Section 4.3.4.1. The results of the modeling of the program level construction emissions of criteria pollutants and ozone precursors are shown in Table 4.3-7, Maximum Daily Program Construction Emissions. The data are presented as the maximum anticipated daily emissions for comparison with the applicable daily thresholds.
Table 4.3-7
MAXIMUM DAILY PROGRAM CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Town Center Specific Plan 12.0 95.2 121.1 0.2 20.0 10.0 Daily Thresholds 75 250 550 250 100 67
Exceed Thresholds? No No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod; SDAPCD 2019; County 2007
VOC = volatile organic compound; NOX = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; SOX = sulfur oxides; PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter As shown in Table 4.3-7, the TCSP area and AEN temporary construction-related criteria pollutant and precursor emissions would be below the SDAPCD’s emission thresholds, including for those pollutants for which the SDAB is non-attainment (VOC, NOX, PM10, PM2.5). Therefore, the project’s construction activities would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state AAQS.
Construction-related impacts would be less than significant for the TCSP, including the AEN.
Housing Element Sites
The Housing Element sites’ temporary construction emissions were estimated using CalEEMod as described in Section 4.3.4.1. The results of the modeling of the Housing Element sites construction emissions of criteria pollutants and ozone precursors are shown in Table 4.3-8, Maximum Daily HE Site Construction Emissions. The data are presented as the maximum anticipated daily emissions for comparison with the applicable daily thresholds.
Table 4.3-8
MAXIMUM DAILY HE SITE CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Housing Element Sites 64.0 31.7 75.0 0.1 12.4 5.2
Daily Thresholds 75 250 550 250 100 67
Exceed Thresholds? No No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod; SDAPCD 2019; County 2007
VOC = volatile organic compound; NOX = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; SOX = sulfur oxides; PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter As shown in Table 4.3-8, the project’s temporary construction-related criteria pollutant and precursor emissions would be below the SDAPCD’s emission thresholds, including for those
4.3 Air Quality
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.3-17
pollutants for which the SDAB is non-attainment (VOC, NOX, PM10, PM2.5). Therefore, the project’s construction activities would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state AAQS.
Construction-related impacts would be less than significant for the Housing Element sites when considered together and, therefore, also less than significant for each of the Housing Element sites.
Operation
TCSP and AEN
The TCSP area and AEN long-term maximum daily operational emissions were estimated using CalEEMod as described in Section 4.3.4.2. The results of the modeling of the project’s operational emissions of criteria pollutants and precursors are shown in Table 4.3-9, Maximum Daily Program Operational Emissions. The data are presented as the maximum anticipated daily emissions for comparison with the applicable thresholds.
Table 4.3-9
MAXIMUM DAILY PROGRAM OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)
Source VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Mobile 167.0 105.5 1,197.2 3.3 332.0 85.4
Area 114.3 <0.1 224.5 <0.1 0.2 0.1
Energy 0.9 15.3 8.3 0.1 1.2 1.2
Total Daily Program Emissions1 282.3 120.8 1,430.0 3.4 333.4 86.7 Daily Thresholds 75 250 550 250 100 67
Exceed Daily Thresholds? Yes No Yes No Yes Yes
Source: CalEEMod (Appendix A); SDAPCD 2019; County 2007 1 Totals may not sum due to rounding.
VOC = volatile organic compound; NOX = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; SOX = sulfur oxides; PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter As shown in Table 4.3-9, the long-term emissions of criteria pollutants and precursors generated by full buildout of the TCSP would result in exceedances to SDAPCD’s daily screening thresholds for VOC, CO, PM10, and PM2.5.
On-road vehicles represent the primary source of the operational emissions exceedances to VOC, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. The project includes several transportation projects including adding new multi-use pathways and bike routes to existing roadways as well as identifying roadway connections throughout the TCSP area and AEN. The TCSP identifies improvements along portions of existing Cuyamaca Street and Riverview Parkway, and identifies new roadways including Riverview Parkway, Cottonwood Avenue, Main Street, and Walker Trails Drive. The roadway improvements on Cuyamaca Street and Riverview Parkway would contribute to the multimodal transportation network by providing new bicycle and pedestrian facilities on those roadways, which would promote non-auto use. Additionally, the proposed roadway connections along Riverview Parkway, Cottonwood Avenue, Main Street, and Walker Trails Drive would provide direct connections through the TCSP area and AEN, as well as onto major arterial roadways and would improve traffic congestion in the area. The transportation projects identified in the TCSP meet the City’s VMT Analysis Guidelines screening criteria of “closing gaps in the transportation network” and/or “adding new or enhanced bicycle or pedestrian facilities on existing streets” and are presumed not to increase vehicle travel. The transportation projects identified in
4.3 Air Quality
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.3-18
the TCSP are intended to increase pedestrian and bicycle safety and connection within the TCSP area to aid in the reduction of VMT and mobile source emissions. However, mobile source emissions remain significant. Mitigation measure AQ-1 is required to address operational source emissions impacts associated with area sources.
Housing Element Sites
The long-term maximum daily operational emissions generated by the Housing Element sites were estimated using CalEEMod as described in Section 4.3.4.2. The results of the modeling of the project’s operational emissions of criteria pollutants and precursors are shown in Table 4.3-10, Maximum Daily Housing Element Site Operational Emissions. The data are presented as the maximum anticipated daily emissions for comparison with the applicable thresholds.
Table 4.3-10
MAXIMUM DAILY HOUSING ELEMENT SITE OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)
Source VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Mobile 33.1 23.5 219.8 0.5 44.9 11.7
Area 41.5 <0.1 83.9 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Energy 0.2 3.8 1.6 <0.1 0.3 0.3
Total Daily HE Site Emissions1 74.8 27.2 305.4 0.5 45.2 12.0 Daily Thresholds 75 250 550 250 100 67
Exceed Daily Thresholds? No No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod (Appendix A); SDAPCD 2019; County 2007 1 Totals may not sum due to rounding.
VOC = volatile organic compound; NOX = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; SOX = sulfur oxides; PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter As shown in Table 4.3-10 the long-term emissions of criteria pollutants and precursors generated by the Housing Element sites would not exceed the SDAPCD daily screening thresholds, including for those pollutants for which the SDAB is non-attainment (VOC, NOX, PM10, PM2.5).
Therefore, the Housing Element sites’ operational activities would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state AAQS. Therefore, operational impacts would also be less than significant for each of the Housing Element sites.
4.3.6.2 Mitigation Measures
TCSP Area and AEN
The following mitigation measure would reduce potential area source emissions of the project:
AQ-1 Use of electrically powered landscape equipment. Electric receptacles/outlets shall be installed at the exterior of all single-family units, all multi-family buildings (including those with affordable units), and all common area buildings, so that homeowners and landscape contractors hired by the homeowners’ association may utilize electrically powered lawnmowers, leaf blowers, and chainsaws. Project plans shall include: (1) all necessary receptacles/outlets; and (2) a note that states “All landscape maintenance contracts provided by the applicable homeowners association must require that landscape contractors use electrically powered lawn mowers, leaf blowers, and chain saws.” City staff must verify both requirements prior to approval of the final plans.
4.3 Air Quality
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.3-19
Housing Element Sites
No mitigation is required.
4.3.6.3 Significance After Mitigation
TCSP Area and AEN
Electric lawn equipment including lawn mowers, leaf blowers, and chain saws are available. When electric landscape equipment is used in place of conventional gas-powered equipment, direct emissions from fossil fuel combustion are eliminated. Implementation of Measure AQ–1 would result in an average reduction of area source related VOC emissions by 20 percent (from 114.3 pounds per day to 91.5 pounds per day) and the virtual elimination of CO and particulate matter emissions. As shown in Table 4.3-11, Maximum Daily Program Operational Emissions with Mitigation, with implementation of mitigation measure MM-AQ–1, VOC, CO, PM10, PM2.5 emissions would be reduced, but remain above their respective threshold.
Table 4.3-11
MAXIMUM DAILY PROGRAM OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS WITH MITIGATION Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)
Source VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Mobile 167.0 105.5 1,197.2 3.3 332.0 85.4
Area 91.5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Energy 0.9 15.3 8.3 0.1 1.2 1.2
Total Daily Program Emissions1 259.4 120.8 1,205.5 3.4 333.2 86.6 Daily Thresholds 75 250 550 250 100 67
Exceed Daily Thresholds? Yes No Yes No Yes Yes
Source: CalEEMod (Appendix A); SDAPCD 2019; County 2007 1 Totals may not sum due to rounding.
VOC = volatile organic compound; NOX = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; SOX = sulfur oxides; PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter Impacts related to operational emissions from full buildout of the TCSP would remain significant and unavoidable. No additional feasible mitigation measures have been identified that would reduce these impacts to a less than significant level at the program-level.
Housing Element Sites
Less than significant without mitigation.
4.3.7 Issue 3: Sensitive Receptors
Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
4.3.7.1 Impact Analysis
Impacts to sensitive receptors are typically analyzed for operational period CO hotspots and exposure to TACs. An analysis of the project’s potential to generate these pollutants thereby exposing existing sensitive receptors to these pollutants is provided below.
4.3 Air Quality
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.3-20
TCSP Area, AEN and Housing Element Sites
Localized Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
CO concentration is a direct function of motor vehicle activity (e.g., idling time and traffic flow conditions) particularly during peak commute hours and meteorological conditions. Under specific meteorological conditions (e.g., stable conditions that result in poor dispersion), CO concentrations may reach unhealthy levels with respect to local sensitive land uses such as residential areas, schools, and hospitals.
A CO hotspot is an area of localized CO pollution caused by severe vehicle congestion on major roadways, typically near intersections. If a project increases average delay at signalized intersections operating at level of service (LOS) E or F or causes an intersection that would operate at LOS D or better without the project to operate at LOS E or F with the project, a quantitative screening is recommended.
The project includes several transportation projects including adding new multi-use pathways and bike routes to existing roadways as well as identifying roadway connections throughout the TCSP area and AEN. The TCSP identifies improvements along portions of existing Cuyamaca Street and Riverview Parkway, and identifies new roadway connections including Riverview Parkway, Cottonwood Avenue, Main Street, and Walker Trails Drive. The roadway improvements on Cuyamaca Street and Riverview Parkway would contribute to the multimodal transportation network by providing new bicycle and pedestrian facilities on those roadways, which would promote non-auto use. Additionally, the proposed roadway connections along Riverview Parkway, Cottonwood Avenue, Main Street, and Walker Trails Drive would provide direct connections through the TCSP area and AEN, as well as onto major arterial roadways and would improve traffic congestion in the area. The transportation projects identified in the TCSP meet the City’s VMT screening criteria of “closing gaps in the transportation network” and/or “adding new or enhanced bicycle or pedestrian facilities on existing streets” and are presumed not to increase vehicle travel or intersection delay. Therefore, air quality impacts related to the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial CO concentrations due to project traffic would be less than significant for the TCSP, AEN and Housing Element sites.
Exposure to Toxic Air Contaminants
In addition to impacts from criteria pollutants, project impacts may include emissions of pollutants identified by the state as TACs. State law has established the framework for California’s TAC identification and control program, which is generally more stringent than the federal program.
The state has formally identified more than 200 substances as TACs and is adopting appropriate control measures for their sources. The greatest potential for TAC emissions during construction would be emissions of DPM from heavy equipment operations and heavy-duty trucks. The following measures are required by state law to reduce DPM emissions:
• Fleet owners of mobile construction equipment are subject to the CARB Regulation for In-use Off-road Diesel Vehicles (13 CCR 2449), the purpose of which is to reduce DPM and criteria pollutant emissions from in-use (existing) off-road diesel-fueled vehicles. • All commercial diesel vehicles are subject to Title 13, Section 2485 of the California Code of Regulations, limiting engine idling time. Idling of heavy-duty diesel construction equipment and trucks during loading and unloading shall be limited to five minutes; electric auxiliary power units should be used whenever possible.
4.3 Air Quality
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.3-21
Health effects from carcinogenic air toxics are usually described in terms of cancer risk. SDAPCD Rule 1200 establishes acceptable risk levels and emission control requirements for new and modified facilities that may emit additional TACs. Under Rule 1200, permits to operate may not be issued when emissions of TACs result in an incremental cancer risk greater than 1 in 1 million without application of Toxics Best Available Control Technologies (T-BACT), or an incremental cancer risk greater than 10 in 1 million with application of T-BACT. “Incremental cancer risk” is the net increased likelihood that a person continuously exposed to concentrations of TACs resulting from a project over a 9-, 30-, and 70-year exposure period will develop cancer based on the use of standard Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) risk methodology.
Generation of DPM from construction projects typically occurs in a localized area (e.g., near locations with multiple pieces of heavy construction equipment working in close proximity) for a short period of time. Because construction activities and subsequent emissions vary depending on the phase of construction, the construction-related emissions to which nearby receptors are exposed to would also vary throughout the construction period. Concentrations of DPM emissions are typically reduced by 70 percent at approximately 500 feet (CARB 2005).
The dose of TACs to which receptors are exposed is the primary factor used to determine health risk. Dose is a function of the concentration of a substance in the environment and the extent of exposure a person has with the substance; a longer exposure period to a source of emissions would result in higher health risks. Current models and methodologies for conducting cancer health risk assessments are associated with longer-term exposure periods (typically 30 years for individual residents based on guidance from OEHHA) and are best suited for evaluation of long duration TAC emissions with predictable schedules and locations. These assessment models and methodologies do not correlate well with the temporary and highly variable nature of construction activities.
Cancer potency factors are based on animal lifetime studies or worker studies where there is long-term exposure to the carcinogenic agent. There is considerable uncertainty in trying to evaluate the cancer risk from projects that will only last a small fraction of a lifetime (OEHHA 2015). Moreover, as shown in Table 4.3-7, maximum daily particulate matter (i.e., PM10 or PM2.5) emissions generated by construction equipment operation and haul-truck trips during construction (exhaust particulate matter, or DPM), combined with fugitive dust generated by equipment operation and vehicle travel, would be well below the SDAPCD screening-level thresholds.
Considering this information, and the fact that any concentrated use of heavy construction equipment would occur at various locations throughout the project site only for short durations, construction of the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial DPM concentrations, and the impact would be less than significant.
Additionally, CARB has published the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (CARB 2005), which identifies certain types of facilities or sources that may emit substantial quantities of TACs and therefore could conflict with sensitive land uses, such as “schools and schoolyards, parks and playgrounds, daycare centers, nursing homes, hospitals, and residential communities.” The Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective is a guide for siting new sensitive land uses. The enumerated facilities or sources include the following:
• High-traffic freeways and roads,
• Distribution centers,
4.3 Air Quality
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.3-22
• Rail yards,
• Ports,
• Refineries,
• Chrome plating facilities,
• Dry cleaners, and
• Large gas dispensing facilities.
CARB recommends that sensitive receptors not be located downwind or in proximity to such sources to avoid potential health hazards.
The project would not include any of the previously listed land uses, so it would not expose visitors, residents, or employees of the project to TAC emissions from these sources. Impacts would be less than significant for the TCSP, AEN, and Housing Element sites.
4.3.7.2 Mitigation Measures
TCSP Area, AEN and Housing Element Sites
No mitigation is required.
4.3.7.3 Significance After Mitigation
TCSP area, AEN and Housing Element Sites
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.
4.3.8 Issue 4: Odors
Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) affecting a substantial number of people?
4.3.8.1 Impact Analysis
TCSP Area, AEN and Housing Element Sites
In the context of land use planning, one of the most important factors influencing the potential for an odor impact to occur is the distance between the odor source and receptors. The City considers prudent land use planning as the key mechanism to avoid odor impacts. The greater the distance between an odor source and receptor, the less concentrated the odor emission would be when it reaches the receptor. Odors can be generated from a variety of source types including both construction and operational activities. Although less common, construction activities that include the operation of a substantial number of diesel-fueled construction equipment and heavy-duty trucks can generate odors from diesel exhaust emissions. A project’s operations, depending on the project type, can generate a large range of odors that can be considered offensive to receptors. Examples of common land use types that typically generate significant odor impacts include, but are not limited to the following:
4.3 Air Quality
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.3-23
• Wastewater treatment plants
• Sanitary landfills
• Composting/green waste facilities
• Recycling facilities
• Petroleum refineries
• Chemical manufacturing plants
• Painting/Coating operations
• Rendering plants
• Food packaging plants
When land uses such as these or other odor-generating land uses are sited proximate to sensitive receptors, odor impacts may occur and further analysis of the nature of the odor source, the prevailing wind patterns, number of potentially effected receivers and other considerations would be warranted.
Existing sources of odors in the City include the Sycamore Landfill and a water reclamation plant.
However, these uses are located one mile or more from the TCSP area and would not result in odors affecting a substantial number of people.
Emissions from construction equipment, such as diesel exhaust, and VOCs from architectural coatings and paving activities may generate odors; however, these odors would be temporary, intermittent, and not expected to affect a substantial number of people. Additionally, noxious odors would be confined to the immediate vicinity of construction equipment. By the time such emissions reach a receptor (e.g., people in residential units, day care centers, schools, nursing homes), they would be diluted to well below any level of air quality concern. Therefore, construction would not result in emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people, and impacts would be less than significant.
Once operational, future development implemented under the project would include residential and associated commercial uses that are generally not a source of objectionable odors.
Therefore, project operation would not result in odors affecting a substantial number of people, and impacts would be less than significant for the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites.
4.3.8.2 Mitigation Measures
TCSP Area, AEN, and Housing Element Sites
No mitigation is required.
4.3.8.3 Significance After Mitigation
TCSP Area, AEN, and Housing Element Sites
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.
4.3 Air Quality
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.3-24
This page intentionally left blank
4.4 Biological Resources
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.4-1
4.4 Biological Resources
The following sections analyze the potential biological impacts that may occur as a result of implementation of the proposed project. This section is based on the Biological Resources Technical Report (HELIX 2024a) prepared for the project provided in Appendix C of this EIR.
4.4.1 Existing Conditions
4.4.1.1 Vegetation Communities
Estimated acreages of sensitive vegetation communities are reported in Table 4.4-1, Vegetation Communities by Project Location, below.
Table 4.4-1
VEGETATION COMMUNITIES BY PROJECT LOCATION
Vegetation Community
Town Center
Specific Plan
(TCSP) Area
Arts and
Entertainment
Neighborhood
(AEN)
Site 16A Site
16B
Site
20A
Site
20B
Wetland Habitats
Southern Riparian Forest (61300) 0.42 -- -- -- -- --
Southern Arroyo Willow Riparian Forest (61320) 85.31 43.19 -- -- -- -- Southern Riparian Scrub (63300) 0.84 -- -- -- -- --
Southern Riparian Scrub – Disturbed (63300) 0.68 -- -- -- -- -- Southern Riparian Scrub – Restoration (63300) 0.89 0.14 -- -- -- -- Southern Willow Scrub (63320) 0.96 0.96 0.19 -- -- --
Tamarisk Scrub (63810) 3.98 3.98 -- -- -- --
Arrowweed Scrub (63820) 2.06 0.10 -- -- -- --
Open Water (64100) 11.06 8.68 -- -- -- --
Subtotal 106.20 57.05 0.19 -- -- --
Upland Habitats
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub (32500) 0.3 -- -- -- -- --
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub, Disturbed (32500) 15.7 15.7 -- -- -- -- Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub: Baccharisdominated (32530)6.6 6.6 -- -- -- -- Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub: Baccharisdominated, Disturbed (32530)0.9 0.9 -- -- -- -- Non-native Grassland (42200) 5.1 0.9 -- -- -- --
Eucalyptus Woodland (79100) 1.7 1.3 -- -- -- --
Artificial Detention Basin (N/A) 2.0 2.0 1.3 -- -- --
Disturbed Habitat (11300) 128.4 98.2 9.5 8.5 5.9 7.9
Developed (12000)
384.6 155.2 <0.1
(0.02)
0.1 1.8 2.0
Subtotal 545.3 280.8 10.8 8.6 7.7 9.9
Total 651.50 337.85 10.99 8.6 7.7 9.9
Wetlands
Southern Riparian Forest
Southern riparian woodlands and forests are composed of winter-deciduous trees that require water near the soil surface. Willow (Salix spp.), cottonwood (Populus spp.), and western sycamore (Platanus racemosa) form a dense medium height woodland or forest in moist canyons
4.4 Biological Resources
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.4-2
and drainage bottoms. Associated understory species include mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia), stinging nettle (Urtica dioica ssp. holosericea), and wild grape (Vitis girdiana; Beauchamp 1986).
There is 0.42 acre of southern riparian forest mapped within the project area. Southern riparian forest is found in the northern portion of the project area along an unnamed tributary to the San Diego River (Figure 4.4-1, Vegetation and Sensitive Resources/Impacts).
Southern Arroyo Willow Riparian Forest
Southern arroyo willow riparian forest is an open to dense riparian community that is dominated by arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis). Arroyo willow requires moist, bare mineral soil for germination and establishment. This community occurs along large stream courses where there is an abundant supply of water at or near the surface for most of the year. Though southern arroyo willow riparian woodland may not differ in floristic composition from some riparian scrub communities, it does so in physiognomy. The absence of large, frequent disturbances, usually in the form of floods, allows the component tree species to attain a sizable height.
There are 85.31 acres of southern arroyo willow riparian forest mapped within the project area.
Southern arroyo willow riparian forest is found along the San Diego River and an unnamed tributary to the San Diego River (Figure 4.4-1).
Southern Riparian Scrub – including disturbed and restoration Southern riparian scrub is a generic term for several shrub dominated communities that occur along drainages and/or riparian corridors including southern willow scrub, mule fat scrub, and tamarisk scrub. Disturbed southern riparian scrub contains many of the same shrub species as undisturbed southern riparian scrub but is sparser and has a higher proportion of non-native perennial and annual species. Southern riparian scrub - restoration contains many of the same shrub species as naturally occurring southern riparian scrub but is less mature, artificially irrigated, and maintained.
There is 0.84 acre of southern riparian scrub, 0.68 acre of disturbed southern riparian scrub, and
0.89 acre of southern riparian scrub restoration within the project area. Southern riparian scrub (including disturbed and restoration) is found along the fringes of the San Diego River and within an unnamed tributary to the San Diego River (Figure 4.4-1).
Southern Willow Scrub
Southern willow scrub consists of dense, broad-leaved, winter-deciduous stands of trees dominated by shrubby willows in association with mule fat, and with scattered emergent cottonwood and western sycamores. This vegetation community occurs on loose, sandy, or fine gravelly alluvium deposited near stream channels during flood flows. Frequent flooding maintains this early seral community, preventing succession to a riparian woodland or forest (Holland 1986).
In the absence of periodic flooding, this early seral type would be succeeded by southern cottonwood or western sycamore riparian forest.
There is 0.96 acre of southern willow scrub mapped within the project area. Southern willow scrub is found within an unnamed drainage east of Riverview Parkway (Figure 4.4-1).
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Amendment l
Proposed Santee Town Center Specific Plan
Study Area
Proposed Arts & Entertainment District Overlay
Property 16A
- Property 168
Property 20A
Property 208
(2:) Impact Avoidance Area
Impact Avoidance Area (SD River Ttails)
Special Status Plant Species
0 San Diego Marsh Elder (Iva hayesiana)
Southwestern Spiny Rush (Juncus acutus ssp. D /eopoldii) Smooth Tarplant (Centromadia pungens ssp. /aevis)
Smooth Tarplant (Centromadia pungens ssp. laevis)
Rabbit Tobacco (Pseudognaphalium /eucacepha/um)
Holland/Oberbauer Classification
Riparian Forests and Woodlands
I
(61300) Southern Riparian Forest
(61320) Southern Arroyo Willow Riparian Forest
.., Riparian Shrub/ands
~ (63300) Southern Riparian Scrub - Disturbed
(63300) Southern Riparian Scrub - Restoration
~ (63320) Southern Willow Scrub
.§
~
(63810) Tamarisk Scrub ~' .g
ll (63820) Arrowweed Scrub ~
~ Upland Forestes and Woodlands ~I
(79100) Eucalyptus Woodland 1
Soft-leaved, Drought-Deciduous Shrub/ands i
~ (32500) Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub
:1f (32500) Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub - Disturbed
g:
::; - (32530) Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub - Baccharis-
{ dominated
j - (32530) Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub - Baccharis-
§' dominated -Disturbed
~ Upland Herbaceous Vegetation
a " (11300) Disturbed Habitat
~
~ ( 42200) Non-native Grassland .!!,
~ Unvegetated
,;:'
::; (12000) Developed
i
g - (64100) Open Water ....
0 (N/A) Artifical Dentention Basin ~ '-L----------,----------..K:J1t,l:31:;,1:2:.1c:3~ &1.lacM::~ IILJ!!i.U.l!!Jllli~.;;.ll_..Jllil O 750 Feet i
:::::E---3======E---3=======, r
HELIX Vegetation and Sensitive Resources/Impacts Environmental Planning Figure 4.4-1
4.4 Biological Resources
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.4-4
Tamarisk Scrub
Tamarisk scrub is typically composed of shrubs and/or small trees of exotic tamarisk species (Tamarix spp.) but may also contain willows, salt bushes (Atriplex spp.), catclaw acacia (Acacia greggii), and salt grass (Distichlis spicata). This habitat occurs along intermittent streams in areas where high evaporation rates increase the salinity level of the soil. Tamarisk is a phreatophyte, a plant that can obtain water from an underground water table. Because of its deep root system and high transpiration rates, tamarisk can substantially lower the water table to below the root zone of native species, thereby competitively excluding them. As a prolific seeder, it may rapidly displace native species within a drainage.
There are 3.98 acres of tamarisk scrub mapped within the project area. Tamarisk scrub is found as patches intermixed within disturbed habitat south of the San Diego River (Figure 4.4-1).
Arrowweed Scrub
Arrowweed scrub occurs as moderate to dense streamside thickets strongly dominated by arrowweed (Pluchea sericea) and may also include cattails (Typha spp.), southwestern spiny rush (Juncus acutus ssp. leopoldii), and salt grass, especially around the margins of the thickets.
There are 2.06 acres of arrowweed scrub mapped within the project area. Arrowweed scrub is found as a single patch located north of the San Diego River (Figure 4.4-1).
Open Water
Open water is an unvegetated habitat. It is made up of year-round bodies of saline or fresh water.
Fresh water bodies include lakes, streams, ponds, or rivers.
There are 11.06 acres of open water mapped within the project area. Open water occurs along the San Diego River (Figure 4.4-1).
Uplands
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub - including disturbed
Diegan coastal sage scrub is one of the two major shrub types that occur in southern California, occupying xeric sites characterized by shallow soils (the other is chaparral). Diegan coastal sage scrub may be dominated by a variety of species depending upon soil type, slope, and aspect.
Typical species found within Diegan coastal sage scrub include California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), laurel sumac (Malosma laurina), lemonadeberry (Rhus integrifolia), white sage (Salvia apiana), and black sage (Salvia mellifera).
Disturbed Diegan coastal sage scrub contains many of the same shrub species as undisturbed Diegan coastal sage scrub but is sparser and has a higher proportion of non-native perennial and annual species.
There is 0.3 acre of Diegan coastal sage scrub mapped within the project area. There are
15.7 acres of disturbed Diegan coastal sage scrub mapped within the project area. Diegan coastal sage scrub (including disturbed) is found both north and south of the San Diego River as remnant patches within disturbed habitat (Figure 4.4-1).
4.4 Biological Resources
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.4-5
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub: Baccharis Dominated – including disturbed Within Diegan coastal sage scrub: baccharis dominated, coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis) is the dominant species in the shrub canopy. Associated species include California sagebrush, California buckwheat, and goldenbush. The herbaceous layer contains codominant species which includes bromes (Bromus spp.), barleys (Hordeum spp.), Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), giant wild rye (Elymus condensatus), purple needlegrass (Stipa pulchra), and deergrass (Muhlenbergia rigens). Diegan coastal sage scrub: baccharis dominated is usually open and often occurs on floodplains as a transition between riparian and upland habitat types. Disturbed Diegan coastal sage scrub: baccharis dominated contains many of the same shrub species as undisturbed Diegan coastal sage scrub: baccharis dominated but is sparser and has a higher proportion of non-native perennial and annual species.
There are 6.6 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub: baccharis dominated mapped within the project area. There is 0.9 acre of disturbed Diegan coastal sage scrub: baccharis dominated mapped within the project area. Diegan coastal sage scrub: baccharis dominated (including disturbed) is found both north and south of the San Diego River as remnant patches within disturbed habitat (Figure 4.4-1).
Non-Native Grassland
Non-native grassland may be composed of dense to sparse cover of annual grasses. It is 0.2 to 1 meter tall. In years of high rainfall, it can be associated with native wildflowers. In San Diego County, associated species include oats (Avena spp.), bromes, filaree (Erodium spp.), mustards (Brassica spp.), tocalote (Centaurea melitensis), California poppy (Eschscholzia californica), lupines (Lupinus spp.), and plantain (Plantago spp.), among others. In some areas, depending on rainfall, forbs can be dominant. Germination often occurs with the onset of fall rains and continues through the spring. Grass species are often dead in the summer and fall. It is usually found on fine textured to clay soils.
There are 5.1 acres of non-native grassland mapped within the project area. Non-native grassland occurs as an isolated patch north of Mission Gorge Road and west of Town Center Parkway and as an isolated patch south of the San Diego River (Figure 4.4-1).
Eucalyptus Woodland
Eucalyptus woodland is dominated by eucalyptus (Eucalyptus spp.), an introduced tree that has often been planted purposely for wind blocking, ornamental, and hardwood production purposes.
Most groves are monotypic, with the most common species being either the blue gum (Eucalyptus gunnii) or red gum (E. camaldulensis ssp. obtusa). The understory within well-established groves is usually very sparse due to the closed canopy and allelopathic nature of the abundant leaf and bark litter.
There are 1.7 acres of eucalyptus woodland mapped within the project area. Eucalyptus woodland occurs as isolated patches north and south of the San Diego River (Figure 4.4-1).
Artificial Detention Basin
Artificial detention basins on-site consist of open water habitat excavated in uplands. These detention basins are considered an artificially-created community because they act as holding basins for storm water as a result of human activities in historically non-wetland areas.
4.4 Biological Resources
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.4-6
A total of three artificial detention basins totaling 2.0 acres are present in the project area (Figure 4.4-1).
Disturbed Habitat
Disturbed habitat includes those areas that have been disturbed and are no longer considered native habitat, but still have a soil substrate. Vegetation is usually made up of invasive non-native species and ornamentals, and particularly those species that take advantage of disturbed areas.
Commonly associated species include thistles (Sonchus spp.), Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), mustards, pampas grass (Cortaderia selloana), and fountain grass (Pennisetum setaceum). The habitat no longer provides animal species with many beneficial uses, other than for dispersal.
Examples of areas that are considered disturbed habitat include graded pads, areas actively managed for fuels, dirt parking lots, firebreaks, off-road vehicle trails, and home sites.
There are 128.4 acres of disturbed habitat mapped within the project area. Disturbed habitat occurs on undeveloped lands to the north and south of the San Diego River (Figure 4.4-1).
Developed Land
Developed areas are those that have been built on or physically altered to the extent that native vegetation is not supported. Developed land is often characterized by permanent or semipermanent structures, pavement, hardscape, or landscaped areas that require irrigation. Areas where no natural land is evident due to large quantities of debris or other material being placed upon it are also considered developed. Usually, plants in these areas are invasive non-native plants or ornamental.
There are 384.6 acres of developed land mapped within the project area. Developed land occurs throughout the project area (Figure 4.4-1).
4.4.1.2 Sensitive Species
Sensitive Plants
Special Status Plant Species Observed
Three special-status plant species were observed within the project area during the general biological survey and one additional special status plant species was observed within the project area during surveys for the Cottonwood and Park project (Dudek 2024):
1. Smooth tarplant
2. San Diego marsh elder
3. Southwestern spiny rush
4. White rabbit-tobacco
Sensitive Plant Species with Potential to Occur
The potential for special status plant species to occur within the project area was evaluated based on the elevation, soils, vegetation communities, and level of disturbance, as well as species
4.4 Biological Resources
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.4-7
status, previous occurrences, and distribution in the vicinity of the study area. No special status plant species were determined to have a high potential to occur within the project area.
Sensitive Wildlife
Special status animal species include those that have been afforded special status and/or recognition by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). In general, the principal reason an individual taxon (species or subspecies) is given such recognition is the documented or perceived decline or limitations of its population size or geographical extent and/or distribution, resulting in most cases from habitat loss.
Special Status Animal Species Observed
Special status animal species were not observed or detected in the project area during the general biological survey.
Sensitive Animal Species with Potential to Occur
Special status animal species that were not observed or otherwise detected, but were evaluated for the potential to occur on-site are included in Appendix D, Special Status Animal Species Observed or with Potential to Occur, of the Biological Resources Technical Report. An explanation of status codes is included as Appendix E, Explanation of Status Codes for Plant and Animal Species, of the Biological Resources Technical Report (HELIX 2024a).
A total of 11 special-status animal species were determined to have high potential to occur in the project area:
1. San Diegan legless lizard
2. California glossy snake
3. Belding’s orange-throated whiptail
4. San Diegan tiger whiptail
5. Red diamond rattlesnake
6. Blainville’s horned lizard
7. Western spadefoot toad
8. Two-striped garter snake
9. Cooper’s hawk
10. Coastal California gnatcatcher
11. Least Bell’s vireo
Nesting Birds
Trees and shrubs both within and adjacent to the project area could provide suitable nesting habitat for numerous bird species known to the region.
4.4 Biological Resources
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.4-8
Raptor Foraging
Raptor species were not observed in the project area during the biological survey. Raptor species that have shown the ability to adapt to urban and suburban environments may use the area for foraging and could use on-site trees for nesting. These include red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus) and Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii; State Watch List). Suitable foraging habitat for these species are fallow fields or open lands greater than five acres that are characterized by fossorial activity and/or the presence of trees. Raptors typically utilize tall trees for nesting and perching. Although present, the area of potential foraging habitat for raptors is limited within the project area. The habitat within the project area does not provide high-quality raptor habitat, as many on-site trees with potential for nesting are located adjacent to roadways with heavy traffic.
Additionally, potential foraging habitat (fallow fields/open lands with fossorial activity) is limited within the project area, and nearby disturbance such as roads, freeways, and proximity to human activity are also a deterrent for foraging raptors.
4.4.1.3 Jurisdictional Waters
In the context of this assessment, jurisdictional waters and wetlands include waters of the U.S., including wetlands regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) pursuant to the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404; waters of the State regulated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA and State Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act; and streambed and riparian habitat regulated by the CDFW pursuant to Sections 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code (CFG Code).
Potential jurisdictional aquatic resources present within the study area consist of waters of the U.S. subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of USACE, waters of the State subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the RWQCB, and streambed and riparian habitat subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the CDFW. These potential jurisdictional resources are primarily associated with the San Diego River, unnamed drainages, and riparian-associated vegetation occurring along the river and drainages.
The jurisdictional delineation review area consisted of the proposed Riverview Parkway project site and encompassed the entire parcel (Assessor’s Parcel Number 381-050-82-00). Within the Riverview Parkway project site, a total of 0.33 acre (2,117 linear feet) of waters of the U.S. may be subject to USACE and RWQCB regulatory jurisdiction pursuant to Sections 404 and 401 of the CWA. Additionally, 1.13 acres of streambed and riparian resources occur within the jurisdictional delineation review area and would be subject to CDFW jurisdiction pursuant to Sections 1600–1616 of the CFG Code. Figure 4.4-2, Potential Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters, shows the locations of potential jurisdictional resources in the project boundaries.
Santee Town Center S ecific Plan EIR
0 Proposed Santee Town Center Specific Plan
Q Proposed Arts and Entertainment Neighborhood
C Site 16A
Site 16B
C Site20A
Site 20B
NWI Wetland Type
- Freshwater Emergent Wetland
- Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
Freshwater Pond
Riverine
<> L,--,.,,....,_,
~,,:_~--.,,..
~
I
§
0 i
"
.
.; .
t
il:
0 800 Feet
E---3 E---3 I
HELIX Potential Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters
Environmental Planning ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Figure 4.4-2
4.4 Biological Resources
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.4-10
USACE Jurisdiction
USACE-jurisdictional waters within the jurisdictional delineation review area include wetland and non-wetland waters of the U.S. (Table 4.4-2, Aquatic Resources within the Jurisdictional Delineation Review Area). A total of 0.33 acre (2,117 linear feet) of potential waters of the U.S. were delineated in the jurisdictional delineation review area. Potential waters of the U.S. consist of 0.05 acre of wetland and 0.28 acre of non-wetland waters.
RWQCB Jurisdiction
RWQCB-jurisdictional waters within the jurisdictional delineation review area include wetland and non-wetland waters of the State (Table 4.4-2). A total of 0.33 acre (2,117 linear feet) of potential waters of the State were delineated in the jurisdictional delineation review area. Potential waters of the State consist of 0.05 acre of wetland and 0.28 acre of non-wetland waters. No isolated waters or isolated wetlands meeting the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)’s State Wetland Definition were identified in the jurisdictional delineation review area. Thus, no waters or wetlands subject to RWQCB regulation solely under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act were observed in the project area.
CDFW Jurisdiction
CDFW habitat was delineated within the jurisdictional delineation review area (Table 4.4-2). A total of 1.18 acres of CDFW jurisdictional habitat occur within the jurisdictional delineation review area, composed of 0.54 acre of riparian habitat (including vegetated streambed) and 0.64 acre of unvegetated streambed.
Table 4.4-2
AQUATIC RESOURCES WITHIN THE JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION REVIEW AREA Type Acres1 (Linear Feet)
USACE Waters of the U.S.
Wetland Waters (WW-1) 0.04 (210)
Wetland Waters (WW-2) 0.01 (68)
Non-wetland Waters (NWW-1) 0.19 (1,360)
Non-wetland Waters (NWW-2) 0.08 (366)
Non-wetland Waters (NWW-3) 0.01 (92)
Non-wetland Waters (NWW-4) <0.01 (0.001; 21)
Waters of the U.S. Total 0.33 (2,117)
RWQCB Waters of the State
Wetland Waters (WW-1) 0.04 (210)
Wetland Waters (WW-2) 0.01 (68)
Non-wetland Waters (NWW-1) 0.19 (1,360)
Non-wetland Waters (NWW-2) 0.08 (366)
Non-wetland Waters (NWW-3) 0.01 (92)
Non-wetland Waters (NWW-4) <0.01 (0.001; 21)
Waters of the State Total 0.33 (2,117)
CDFW Jurisdictional Areas
Riparian (including vegetated streambed) 0.54
Streambed 0.64
CDFW Total 1.18
1 Acreages are rounded to nearest 0.01 acre. Linear feet is rounded to the nearest foot.
4.4 Biological Resources
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.4-11
4.4.1.4 Wildlife Movement and Corridors
Wildlife corridors connect otherwise isolated pieces of habitat and allow movement or dispersal of plants and animals. Local wildlife corridors allow access to resources such as food, water, and shelter within the framework of their daily routine. Regional corridors provide these functions over a larger scale and link two or more large habitat areas, allowing the dispersal of organisms and the consequent mixing of genes between populations. A corridor is a specific route that is used for the movement and migration of species and may be different from a linkage in that it represents a smaller or narrower avenue for movement. A linkage is an area of land that supports or contributes to the long-term movement of animals and genetic exchange by providing live-in habitat that connects to other habitat areas. Many linkages occur as stepping-stone linkages that are made up of a fragmented archipelago arrangement of habitat over a linear distance.
With respect to wildlife movement in the region, conservation targets generally include conserving core blocks of coastal sage scrub and chaparral habitat, as well as maintaining linkages between critical biological resource areas. The Mission Trails/Kearny Mesa/East Elliot/Santee Biological Resource Core Area (BRCA), as identified in the Final Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Plan, surrounds the northern and western portions of the City and overlaps a small portion of the project area. This BRCA is generally associated with Mission Trails Regional Park to the west and habitat along the San Diego River. Undeveloped habitat in the project area functions as both "live-in" habitat for a wide variety of large and small wildlife, and functions as partial territory for the largest of mammals (i.e., mule deer, bobcat, and coyote). The project area also acts as a movement corridor (e.g., San Diego River) between County open space, Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Miramar, and Santee Lakes. The San Diego River is expected to be a key component for the movement of wildlife in the region, namely birds and mammals. The San Diego River supports a permanent water source and cover for a wide range of species known to the region. Large mammals, such as southern mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus fuliginata) and coyote (Canis latrans), would be expected to travel to and from the San Diego River and expansive habitat blocks associated with Mission Trails Regional Park. Large mammals would also be expected to travel along the San Diego River and riparian corridor. Birds would be expected to move unobstructed between key habitat blocks of coastal sage scrub and riparian habitat providing important breeding, foraging and dispersal functions. Key blocks of coastal sage scrub where gnatcatchers are known to occur include Mission Trails Regional Park, with additional habitat extending further north within Sycamore Canyon Preserve, and to the southeast into Crestwood Ecological Reserve.
The project area incorporates a variety of land uses and includes mixed uses that place residential use within walking distance of commercial and recreational uses (Figure 3-4, TCSP Land Uses).
The San Diego River runs through the project area, and most of the on-site reach of the river is characterized by dense southern arroyo willow riparian forest habitat. East-west wildlife movement in the region would likely follow the San Diego River. The upland vegetation communities/land use types present outside and along the San Diego River corridor provide minimal cover for wildlife movement and, as evaluated on their own, do not function as a wildlife movement corridor. However, the upland undeveloped lands in the project area are contiguous with the San Diego River, which does function as a wildlife corridor.
4.4.2 Regulatory Framework
Biological resources in the project area are subject to regulatory review by federal, state, and local agencies. Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), impacts associated with a proposed project or program are assessed with regard to significance criteria determined by the
4.4 Biological Resources
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.4-12
CEQA Lead Agency (in this case, the City) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines. Biological resourcerelated laws and regulations that apply include the federal Endangered Species Act (FESA), Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), CWA, CEQA, California Endangered Species Act (CESA), Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA), CFG Code, Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, Natural Communities Conservation Planning (NCCP) Act, MSCP, Santee General Plan, City of Santee Draft MSCP Subarea Plan, Habitat Loss Permit Ordinance, and Santee Municipal Code (SMC).
4.4.2.1 Federal
Federal Endangered Species Act
Administered by the USFWS, the FESA provides the legal framework for the listing and protection of species (and their habitats) that are identified as being endangered or threatened with extinction. Actions that jeopardize endangered or threatened species and the habitats upon which they rely are considered a “take” under the FESA. Section 9(a) of the ESA defines take as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct.” “Harm” and “harass” are further defined in federal regulations and case law to include actions that adversely impair or disrupt a listed species’ behavioral patterns.
The USFWS designates critical habitat for endangered and threatened species. Critical habitat is a term defined and used in the FESA and refers to specific geographic areas that contain features considered necessary for endangered or threatened species to recover. Critical habitat designations can include areas that are not currently occupied by the species, as the ultimate goal is to restore healthy populations of listed species within their native habitats so that they can be removed from the list of threatened or endangered species. Once an area is designated as critical habitat pursuant to the FESA, all federal agencies must consult with the USFWS to ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat. Only activities that involve a federal permit, license, or funding require consultation with the USFWS.
Sections 7 and 10(a) of the FESA regulate actions that could jeopardize endangered or threatened species. Section 7 describes a process of federal interagency consultation for use when federal actions may adversely affect listed species. In this case, take can be authorized via a letter of Biological Opinion issued by the USFWS for non-marine related listed species issues.
A Section 7 consultation (formal or informal) is required when there is a nexus between endangered species’ use of a site and if there is an associated federal action for a proposed impact (e.g., the USACE would initiate a Section 7 consultation with the USFWS for impacts proposed to USACE jurisdictional areas that may also affect listed species or their critical habitat).
Section 10(a) allows the issuance of permits for incidental take of endangered or threatened species with the preparation of a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) when there is no federal nexus.
The term “incidental” applies if the taking of a listed species is incidental to, and not the purpose of, an otherwise lawful activity. An HCP demonstrating how the taking would be minimized and how steps taken would ensure the species’ survival must be submitted for issuance of Section 10(a) permits. The MSCP is a regional HCP that was developed pursuant to Section 10(a) of the ESA.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act has protections for all migratory bird species that are native to the United States or that have territories protected under the federal MBTA, as amended under the
4.4 Biological Resources
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.4-13
Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act of 2004 (Federal Register [FR] Doc. 05-5127). The MBTA is generally protective of migratory birds but does not actually stipulate the type of protection required. In common practice, the MBTA is used to place restrictions on the disturbance of active bird nests during the nesting season (generally February 1 to September 15; beginning January 15 for raptors). In addition, the USFWS commonly places restrictions on disturbances allowed near active raptor nests.
Clean Water Act of 1972
Federal wetland regulation (non-marine issues) is guided by the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and the CWA. The Rivers and Harbors Act deals primarily with discharges into navigable waters, while the purpose of the CWA is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of all waters of the U.S. Permitting for projects filling waters of the U.S. is overseen by the USACE under Section 404 of the CWA. Most development projects are permitted using Individual Permit or Nationwide Permit instruments.
4.4.2.2 State
California Endangered Species Act
The CESA established that it is state policy to conserve, protect, restore, and enhance state endangered species and their habitats. Under state law, plant and animal species may be formally designated rare, threatened, or endangered by official listing by the California Fish and Game Commission. The CESA authorizes that private entities may “take” plant or wildlife species listed as endangered or threatened under the FESA and CESA, pursuant to a federal Incidental Take Permit, if the CDFW certifies that the incidental take is consistent with CESA (CFG Code Section 2080.1[a]). For state-only listed species, Section 2081 of the CFG Code authorizes the CDFW to issue an Incidental Take Permit for state listed threatened and endangered species if specific criteria are met. The MSCP is a regional Natural Communities Conservation Plan that was granted take coverage under Section 2081 of the CESA for specific species.
Native Plant Protection Act
Sections 1900 through 1913 of the CFG Code (Native Plant Protection Act) direct the CDFW to carry out the state legislature’s intent to “…preserve, protect, and enhance endangered or rare native plants of this state.” The NPPA gives the California Fish and Game Commission the power to designate native plants as “endangered” or “rare” and protect endangered and rare plants from “take.”
California Fish and Game Code, Section 1600
The CFG Code provides specific protection and listing for several types of biological resources.
Section 1600 of the CFG Code requires a Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA) for any activity that would alter the flow, change, or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of any perennial, intermittent, or ephemeral river, stream, and/or lake. Typical activities that require an SAA include excavation or fill placed within a channel, vegetation clearing, structures for diversion of water, installation of culverts and bridge supports, cofferdams for construction dewatering, and bank reinforcement. Notification is required prior to any such activities.
Pursuant to CFG Code Section 3503, it is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation made
4.4 Biological Resources
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.4-14
pursuant thereto. Raptors and owls, and their active nests, are protected by CFG Code Section 3503.5, which states that it is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds of prey or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird unless authorized by the CDFW.
Section 3513 states that it is unlawful to take or possess any migratory non-game bird, as designated in the MBTA. These regulations could require that construction activities (particularly vegetation removal or construction near nests) be reduced or eliminated during critical phases of the nesting cycle, unless surveys by a qualified biologist demonstrate that nests, eggs, or nesting birds will not be disturbed.
Natural Communities Conservation Planning Act
The NCCP program is a cooperative effort to protect habitats and species. It began under the state's NCCP Act of 1991, legislation broader in its orientation and objectives than the CESA or FESA. These laws are designed to identify and protect individual species that have already declined significantly in number. The NCCP Act of 1991 and the associated Southern California Coastal Sage Scrub NCCP Process Guidelines (1993), Southern California Coastal Sage Scrub NCCP Conservation Guidelines (1993), and NCCP General Process Guidelines (1998) have been superseded by the NCCP Act of 2003.
The primary objective of the NCCP program is to conserve natural communities at the ecosystem level, while accommodating compatible land use. The program seeks to anticipate and prevent the controversies and gridlock caused by species' listings by focusing on the long-term stability of wildlife and plant communities and including key interests in the process.
This voluntary program allows the state to enter into planning agreements with landowners, local governments, and other stakeholders to prepare plans that identify the most important areas for a threatened or endangered species, and the areas that may be less important. These NCCP plans may become the basis for a state permit to take threatened and endangered species in exchange for conserving their habitat. The CDFW and USFWS worked to combine the NCCP program with the federal HCP process to provide take permits for state and federal listed species.
Under the NCCP, local governments, such as the County, can take the lead in developing these NCCP plans and become the recipients of state and federal take permits.
4.4.2.3 Regional
San Diego County Multiple Species Conservation Program
The California NCCP Act of 1991 (Section 2835) allows the CDFW to authorize take of species covered by plans in agreement with NCCP guidelines. A Natural Communities Conservation Program initiated by the State of California focuses on conserving coastal sage scrub, and in concert with the USFWS and the federal ESA, is intended to avoid the need for future federal and state listing of coastal sage scrub-dependent species.
The San Diego MSCP Plan for the southwestern portion of San Diego County was approved in August 1998 and covers 85 species (County 1998). The City of San Diego, portions of the unincorporated County, and 10 additional city jurisdictions make up the San Diego MSCP Plan area. It is a comprehensive, long-term habitat conservation plan that addresses the needs of multiple species by identifying key areas for preservation as open space, to link core biological areas into a regional wildlife preserve.
4.4 Biological Resources
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.4-15
The San Diego Final MSCP Plan includes the cities of Del Mar, Poway, San Diego, Santee, El Cajon, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, National City, Chula Vista, Coronado, and Imperial Beach.
Local jurisdictions implement their respective portions of the plans by developing subarea plans which describe their specific implementing mechanisms, preserve boundaries, and species and habitats protection while preserving the integrity of the MSCP. The City is currently in the process of developing its Subarea Plan, which would provide conservation strategies to protect species and habitat in hardline conservation lands, upland standards areas, San Diego River conservation opportunities areas and City-owned preserve lands.
4.4.2.4 Local
Santee General Plan
Section 65302 (d) of the California Planning and Zoning Laws requires each City’s General Plan to contain a Conservation Element which is intended to address the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources. These resources may include water, forests, rivers, soils, minerals, fisheries, and wildlife.
Objective 7.0 of the Santee General Plan Conservation Element requires the following policies to preserve significant biological resources.
• Policy 7.1: The City shall encourage the preservation and enhancement of significant biological resources in areas designated as permanent open space. • Policy 7.2: The City shall require that all development proposals provide appropriate mitigation for identified significant biological resources including selective preservation, sensitive site planning techniques and in-kind mitigation for identified impacts. • Policy 7.3: The City shall require that, for all development proposals involving the setting aside of land for permanent open space either on-site or off-site, provisions are in place to ensure the long term management of the open space and biological resources.
MSCP Santee Subarea Plan
The City is currently participating in the MSCP through preparation of a Subarea Plan (Plan). The Plan provides a framework for promoting the protection and enhancement of natural resources, including listed species and species that may become listed during the permit term and their habitats, while streamlining the permitting process for planned development, infrastructure development, and infrastructure and facilities operations and maintenance activities (Covered Activities). The Plan will enable the City of Santee to receive listed species take permits for identified activities and projects conducted by the City and those under their jurisdiction where the City has discretion over the activity. The Plan Area covers 10,500.8 acres, including lands within the jurisdiction of the City of Santee plus offsite conservation areas. The permits that would ultimately be issued by the Wildlife Agencies will address 20 Covered Species that are currently listed as threatened or endangered or may become listed during the permit term, that may be impacted by Covered Activities, and that will benefit from Plan-related conservation and management.
4.4 Biological Resources
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.4-16
Santee Municipal Code
The SMC requires that all new developments, subdivisions, or tracts that are planned in Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ) and/or Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) areas have a minimum of 100 horizontal feet of defensible space between flammable structures and wildland areas.
Typically, defensible space comprises two brush management areas: Zone 1 (the first 50 feet from flammable structures) and Zone 2 (the second 50 feet). Zone 1 may consist of pavement; walkways; turf; and permanently landscaped, irrigated, and maintained ornamental plantings. Fire resistive trees are allowed if placed or trimmed so that crowns are maintained more than 10 feet from the structure(s). Zone 2 may include low-growing, fire resistant shrubs and ground covers.
Zone 2 must have an average plant height of under 24 inches and cover of native, non-irrigated vegetation of under 30 percent.
4.4.3 Significance Determination Thresholds
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, impacts related to biological resources would be significant if the project would:
1) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS. 2) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the CDFW or USFWS.
3) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.
4) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
5) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.
6) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted HCP, NCCP, or other approved local, regional, or state HCP.
4.4.4 Methodology
The biological resources documented in this section were determined through an extensive review of the most current biological literature and geographical information systems (GIS) data available for the City as presented in Appendix C of this EIR. This vegetation mapping was further refined based on site visits on July 25, 2023 to map existing vegetation communities, document the locations of special-status species, identify and map potential jurisdictional resources (i.e., wetlands, waters, and riparian vegetation), and evaluate the potential for other sensitive biological resources and special-status species to occur within the project area and immediate vicinity. Estimated acreages of sensitive vegetation communities are reported in Table 4.4-1 above.
4.4 Biological Resources
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.4-17
The sensitive flora and fauna species are known to occur within the City based on information obtained from the literature review, which is described in more detail in the Biological Resources Technical Report conducted for the project Appendix C). General flora and fauna species were determined based on the identified vegetation communities and the species that typically occur in these habitats. An in-house search of databases including, but not limited to, the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), California Native Plant Society Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants, and United States Fish and Wildlife Service databases was also performed to identify historical occurrences of sensitive plants and wildlife species within one mile of the undeveloped project areas. Additionally, HELIX reviewed the Riverview Parkway Project USACE Aquatic Resources Delineation Report, the Riverview Parkway CDFW Jurisdictional Delineation Report, and Restoration/Revegetation Plan for the Riverview Parkway Project.
4.4.5 Issue 1: Sensitive Species
Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS?
4.4.5.1 Impact Analysis
Impacts to Vegetation Communities
Implementation of the proposed project is anticipated to result in direct impacts to 448.89 acres of habitat (Table 4.4-3, Vegetation Community/Land Use Type Impacts and Mitigation Requirements; Figure 4.4-1). These impacts are associated with future development activities throughout the TCSP area, including supporting infrastructure and mobility improvements, such as the proposed San Diego River Bridge linking Town Center Community Park north of the river to the Trolley Square area south of the river and the Art Walk Trail along the Las Colinas Channel.
Direct impacts presented in Table 4.4-1 account for all the proposed projects known and potential impacts within the defined TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites. No additional direct impacts are anticipated to occur outside of the TCSP boundary. No direct impacts are anticipated to occur to conserved lands or land uses designated by the TCSP as Park/Open Space and Floodway/Open Space (Figure 3-4).
Impacts to Special Status Species
Several special status plant and animal species were observed in the project area during biological surveys. Project impacts would primarily occur in existing developed and disturbed areas. However, portions of the proposed project area extend into native habitats, including wetland and riparian habitats and sensitive uplands habitats, where special status plant and animal species have been detected or have the potential to occur. Potential project effects on special status plant and animal species are described below.
4.4 Biological Resources
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.4-18
Table 4.4-3
VEGETATION COMMUNITY/LAND USE TYPES IMPACTS AND MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS1,2 Vegetation Community TCSP
Area
Arts and
Entertainment
Neighborhood
Site 16A Site 16B Site 20A Site 20B Mitigatio
n Ratio
Maximum
Mitigation
Acres
Wetland Habitats
Southern Riparian Forest (61300) 0.01 -- -- -- -- -- 3:1 0.03 Southern Arroyo Willow Riparian Forest (61320) 6.57 1.52 -- -- -- -- 3:1 19.71 Southern Riparian Scrub (63300) 0.01 -- -- -- -- -- 3:1 0.03 Southern Riparian Scrub – Disturbed (63300) 0.68 -- -- -- -- -- 3:1 2.04 Southern Riparian Scrub – Restoration (63300) 0.03 0.03 -- -- -- -- 3:1 0.09 Southern Willow Scrub (63320) 0.47 0.47 0.19 -- -- -- 3:1 1.41 Tamarisk Scrub (63810) 0.16 0.16 -- -- -- -- 3:1 0.48
Arrowweed Scrub (63820) 1.96 0.03 -- -- -- -- 3:1 5.88
Open Water (64100) -- -- -- -- -- -- 3:1 --
Subtotal 9.89 2.21 0.19 -- -- -- -- 29.67
Upland Habitats
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub (32500) -- -- -- -- -- -- 2:1 -- Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub, Disturbed (32500) 8.7 8.7 -- -- -- -- 2:1 17.4 Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub: Baccharis-dominated (32530) 4.5 4.5 -- -- -- -- 2:1 13.5 Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub: Baccharis-dominated, Disturbed (32530)
0.9 0.9 -- -- -- -- 2:1 2.7
Non-native Grassland (42200) 4.2 -- -- -- -- -- 0.5:1 2.1 Eucalyptus Woodland (79100) 1.1 0.7 -- -- -- -- -- --
Artificial Detention Basin (N/A) 2.0 2.0 1.3 -- -- -- -- -- Disturbed Habitat (11300) 85.7 55.9 9.5 8.5 5.9 7.9 -- -- Developed (12000)
331.9 108.2 <0.1
(0.02)
0.1 1.8 2.0 -- --
Subtotal 439.0 189.9 10.8 8.6 7.7 9.9 -- 35.7
Total 448.89 193.11 10.99 8.6 7.7 9.9 -- 65.37
1 Vegetation categories and numerical codes are from Holland (1986) and Oberbauer (2008). 2 Upland habitats are rounded to the nearest 0.1 acre, while wetland habitats are rounded to the nearest 0.01; thus, total reflects rounding.
4.4 Biological Resources
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.4-19
TCSP and AEN
Special Status Plant Species
Development of the TCSP area and the AEN would result in impacts to three special status plant species: smooth tarplant, southwestern spiny rush, and white rabbit-tobacco. All other special status plant species observed on-site would either remain undisturbed or be conserved in open space. A total of 243 smooth tarplant individuals, two southwestern spiny rush individuals, and six white rabbit-tobacco individuals observed within the project area would be impacted by the proposed project. No special status plant species were determined to have a high potential to occur within the project area.
Federal or State Listed Plant Species
No impacts would occur to federally and/or state listed plant species as none were documented within the TCSP area or the AEN.
CRPR 1 or 2 Listed Plant Species
Generally, impacts to plant species with a California Native Plant Society (CNPS) California Rare Plant Ranks (CRPR) of 1 or 2 are considered potentially significant due to their higher sensitivity status, and the impact analysis evaluates substantial adverse effects to these species.
Implementation of the proposed project has potential to result in direct impacts to the following special status plant species with a CRPR of 1 or 2: smooth tarplant.
Smooth Tarplant
Approximately 243 individuals of smooth tarplant occur in the TCSP area and the AEN.
Implementation of mitigation measure BIO-6 would ensure that future development impacts on smooth tarplant in the TCSP area and the AEN are reduced to a less than significant level.
White rabbit-tobacco
Approximately six individuals of white rabbit-tobacco occur in the TCSP area and the AEN.
Implementation of mitigation measure BIO-6 would ensure that future development impacts on smooth tarplant in the TCSP area and the AEN are reduced to a less than significant level.
CRPR 3 or 4 Listed Plant Species
CRPR 3 and 4 species are relatively widespread and impacts to such species would not substantially reduce their populations in the region and are not significant. Implementation of the project is anticipated to result in direct impacts to the following special status plant species with a CRPR of 3 or 4: southwestern spiny rush.
Southwestern Spiny Rush
One individual occurs within the TCSP area on conserved land designated as Park/Open Space along an unnamed tributary to the San Diego River. A second individual occurs within the TCSP area outside conserved lands at the southern terminus of Park Center Drive. Additionally, a third individual occurs within the TCSP area and AEN outside conserved lands at the southern terminus of Park Center Drive. Project impacts to southwestern spiny rush would be less than
4.4 Biological Resources
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.4-20
significant because this relatively widespread species is known to occur elsewhere in the project vicinity, such that the local long-term survival of the species would not be impacted by impacts to two individuals. The impacted individuals are not part of a population at the periphery of the species’ range, located in an area where the taxon is especially uncommon, or occurring on unusual substrates. Lastly, there are numerous documented occurrences of this species throughout the region, including on conserved lands, indicating that the project does not represent a geographically significant population.
Other Special Status Plant Species
Implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in impacts to other special status plant species known from or with high potential to occur in the project area. These species are expected to be avoided by project activities due either to the species’ location being outside of the proposed development footprint, or the lack of suitable conditions (habitat, soils, hydrology, elevations, etc.) within the development footprint. However, due to the long-term nature of the project, potential additional or new populations of special status plant species could be discovered in the future, including MSCP Narrow Endemic species. Project impacts to special status plant species may be considered significant depending on the species, sensitivity, and the number of plants to be impacted. Significant impacts to special status plant species, if determined to occur, would require mitigation, including species-specific mitigation, consistent with the City’s General Plan (City 2003b). Implementation of mitigation measure BIO-6 would ensure that future development impacts on sensitive resources that occur adjacent to project work limits are avoided. Additionally, mitigation measure BIO-5 would ensure that temporary impacts to vegetation communities will be revegetated to native habitats following completion of construction activities.
Special Status Animal Species
Implementation of the proposed project has potential to result in direct impacts to habitats occupied or suitable for special status wildlife species. These habitats include wetland and riparian habitats, open water/lake, Diegan coastal sage scrub and various subtypes of this habitat, and non-native grassland. Such impacts would be a result of development activities such as vegetation removal, which could cause loss of habitat and/or direct injury or mortality to individuals. These impacts are described below.
Federally or State Listed Animal Species
Implementation of the proposed project would impact locations where the following three listed animal species have been documented within the proposed project area or have high potential to occur: coastal California gnatcatcher, least Bell’s vireo, and western spadefoot toad; additional information is provided below. Nesting and migratory birds also may be impacted by future development.
Coastal California Gnatcatcher
Implementation of the proposed project within both the TCSP area and AEN would result in impacts to coastal California gnatcatcher (CAGN) from the removal of 14.1 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub (comprising disturbed, baccharis-dominated, and disturbed baccharisdominated). Impacts from the TCSP area and AEN total no more than 8.7 acres of disturbed Diegan coastal sage scrub and 5.4 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub: Baccharis dominated
4.4 Biological Resources
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.4-21
(including disturbed). Impacts to occupied and potential CAGN habitat within the TCSP area and AEN are considered significant and would require mitigation.
If construction or operational activities in the TCSP area or AEN were to occur during the gnatcatcher breeding season (March 1 through August 15) and impact occupied CAGN habitat, direct impacts to nesting CAGN would be considered significant and would require mitigation.
Through the implementation of mitigation measures BIO-6, BIO-7, BIO-8, and BIO-9 impacts to this species would be reduced to less than significant. Additionally, mitigation measure BIO-5 would ensure that temporary impacts to vegetation communities will be revegetated to native habitats following completion of construction activities.
Least Bell’s Vireo
A maximum amount of 7.93 acres of suitable habitat for least Bell’s vireo may be impacted by development of the TCSP area, AEN, and Site 16A areas. Suitable breeding habitat for the least Bell’s vireo within the TCSP area comprises 0.01 acre of southern riparian forest, 6.57 acres of southern arroyo willow riparian forest, 0.72 acre of southern riparian scrub (including disturbed and restoration), 0.47 acre of southern willow scrub, and 0.16 acre of tamarisk scrub. Suitable breeding habitat for the least Bell’s vireo within the AEN comprises 1.52 acres of southern arroyo willow riparian forest, 0.03 acre of southern riparian scrub (restoration), 0.47 acre of southern willow scrub, and 0.16 acre of tamarisk scrub. If construction or operational activities were to occur during the vireo breeding season (March 15 through September 15) and impact occupied least Bell’s vireo habitat, direct impacts to nesting least Bell’s vireo would be considered significant and would require mitigation. Additionally, indirect impacts to least Bell’s vireo would occur if construction activities were to take place during the vireo breeding season and were to generate noise levels greater than 60 A-weighted decibels (dBA), or exceed ambient noise levels if greater than 60 dBA, within occupied least Bell’s vireo habitat. Through the implementation of mitigation measures BIO-6, BIO-7, BIO-8, and BIO-9, impacts to this species would be reduced to less than significant. Additionally, mitigation measure BIO-5 would ensure that temporary impacts to vegetation communities will be revegetated to native habitats following completion of construction activities.
Western Spadefoot Toad
The western spadefoot toad has high potential to occur in sparse riparian habitat along the San Diego River. Construction activities related to the implementation of the proposed project could impact western spadefoot toad. Through implementation of mitigation measure BIO-6 and BIO10 impacts to this species would be reduced to less than significant. Additionally, mitigation measure BIO-5 would ensure that temporary impacts to vegetation communities will be revegetated to native habitats following completion of construction activities. Therefore, impacts to western spadefoot toad would be less than significant.
Nesting Birds
The project area contains trees, shrubs, and other vegetation that provide suitable nesting habitat for common birds, including raptors (such as Cooper’s hawk), protected under the MBTA and CFG Code. Construction of the proposed project could result in the removal or trimming of trees and other vegetation during the general bird nesting season (January 15 through July 15 for raptors and February 1 – September 15 for general avian species) and, therefore, could result in impacts to nesting birds in violation of the MBTA and CFG Code. The proposed project construction or operation within 500 feet of breeding habitat for nesting birds could result in
4.4 Biological Resources
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.4-22
adverse indirect impacts related to construction or operational noise. Impacts to nesting birds and temporary (foraging, migration, and dispersal) habitat would be significant. However, through the implementation of mitigation measures BIO-7, BIO-8, and BIO-9, impacts to nesting birds would be reduced to less than significant.
Other Special Status Animal Species
Implementation of the proposed project could result in impacts to the following seven other special status animal species with high potential to occur: San Diegan legless lizard, California glossy snake, Belding’s orange-throated whiptail, San Diegan tiger whiptail, red diamond rattlesnake, Blainville’s horned lizard, and two-striped garter snake.
Potential impacts to other special status animal species would result from the removal of
9.89 acres of wetland and riparian habitats, 18.3 acres of sensitive upland habitats, and 420.7 acres of non-sensitive upland habitats that may support these species. These impacts would be less than significant due to the small number of individuals that would potentially be affected, the relatively small amount of habitat to be impacted, and the large amount of suitable habitat in the project area that would be avoided by activities and would continue to be preserved within conserved lands. Impacts to MSCP-covered species would be less than significant based on adequate species coverage and suitable habitats protected under the MSCP.
Housing Element Sites
Special Status Plant Species
The Housing Element sites would result in impacts to two special status plant species: smooth tarplant and southwestern spiny rush. All other special status plant species observed on-site would either remain undisturbed or be conserved in open space. A total of 110 smooth tarplant individuals observed within the Housing Element sites would be impacted by the proposed project.
No special status plant species were determined to have a high potential to occur within the project area.
Federal or State Listed Plant Species
No impacts would occur to federally and/or state listed plant species as none were documented within the Housing Element sites.
CRPR 1 or 2 Listed Plant Species
Generally, impacts to plant species with a CNPS CRPR of 1 or 2 are considered potentially significant due to their higher sensitivity status, and the impact analysis evaluates substantial adverse effects to these species. Implementation of the proposed project has potential to result in direct impacts to the following special status plant species with a CRPR of 1 or 2: smooth tarplant.
Smooth Tarplant
Approximately 110 individuals of Smooth Tarplant occur on Site 16A (Figure 4.4-1). Mitigation measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 would reduce proposed project impacts on Site 16A to less than significant. Mitigation measure BIO-3 and BIO-4 would require the installation of temporary construction fencing and biological monitoring where work limits occur adjacent to known
4.4 Biological Resources
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.4-23
sensitive resources to be avoided, including smooth tarplant individuals. Implementation of mitigation measures BIO-3 and BIO-4 would ensure that additional impacts on sensitive resources that occur adjacent to project work limits are avoided. Additionally, Mitigation measure BIO-5 would ensure that temporary impacts to vegetation communities will be revegetated to native habitats following completion of construction activities.
CRPR 3 or 4 Listed Plant Species
CRPR 3 and 4 species are relatively widespread and impacts to such species would not substantially reduce their populations in the region and are not significant. Implementation of the project is not anticipated to result in direct impacts to the following special status plant species with a CRPR of 3 or 4: southwestern spiny rush, as these individuals do not occur on sites 16A, 16B, 20A, and 20B (Figure 4.4-1).
Other Special Status Plant Species
Implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in impacts to other special status plant species known from or with high potential to occur in the project area. These species are expected to be avoided by project activities due either to the species’ location being outside of the proposed development footprint, or the lack of suitable conditions (habitat, soils, hydrology, elevations, etc.) within the development footprint. However, due to the long-term nature of the project, potential additional or new populations of special status plant species could be discovered in the future, including MSCP Narrow Endemic species. Project impacts to special status plant species may be considered significant depending on the species, sensitivity, and the number of plants to be impacted. Significant impacts to special status plant species, if determined to occur, would require mitigation, including species-specific mitigation, consistent with the City’s General Plan (City 2003b). Implementation of mitigation measure BIO-6 would ensure that future development impacts on sensitive resources that occur adjacent to project work limits are avoided. Additionally, mitigation measure BIO-5 would ensure that temporary impacts to vegetation communities will be revegetated to native habitats following completion of construction activities.
Special Status Animal Species
Implementation of the proposed project has potential to result in direct impacts to habitats occupied or suitable for special status wildlife species. These habitats include wetland and riparian habitats, open water/lake, Diegan coastal sage scrub and various subtypes of this habitat, and non-native grassland. Such impacts would be a result of development activities such as vegetation removal, which could cause loss of habitat and/or direct injury or mortality to individuals. These impacts are described below.
Federally or State Listed Animal Species
Implementation of the proposed project would impact locations where the following three listed animal species have been documented within the proposed project area or have high potential to occur: coastal California gnatcatcher, least Bell’s vireo, and western spadefoot toad; additional information is provided below. Nesting and migratory birds also may be impacted by future development as follows.
4.4 Biological Resources
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.4-24
Coastal California Gnatcatcher
Habitat suitable for CAGN does not occur on sites 16A, 16B, 20A, or 20B. Impact to Coastal California Gnatcatcher would be less than significant in the Housing Element sites.
Least Bell’s Vireo
Suitable breeding habitat for the least Bell’s vireo within Site 16A comprises 0.19 acre of southern willow scrub. If construction activities were to occur during the vireo breeding season (March 15 through September 15) and impact occupied least Bell’s vireo habitat, direct impacts to nesting least Bell’s vireo would be considered significant and would require mitigation. Additionally, indirect impacts to least Bell’s vireo would occur if construction activities were to take place during the vireo breeding season and were to generate noise levels greater than 60 dBA, or exceed ambient noise levels if greater than 60 dBA, within occupied least Bell’s vireo habitat. Through the implementation of mitigation measures BIO-6, BIO-7, and BIO-8 impacts to this species would be reduced to a less than significant level. Additionally, mitigation measure BIO-5 would ensure that temporary impacts to vegetation communities will be revegetated to native habitats following completion of construction activities.
Western Spadefoot Toad
The western spadefoot toad has high potential to occur in sparse riparian habitat along the San Diego River. Construction related to the implementation of the proposed project, including the Housing Element sites, could impact western spadefoot toad. Through implementation of mitigation measure BIO-6 and BIO-10 impacts to this species would be reduced to less than significant. Additionally, mitigation measure BIO-5 would ensure that temporary impacts to vegetation communities will be revegetated to native habitats following completion of construction activities. Therefore, impacts to western spadefoot toad would be less than significant in the Housing Element sites.
Nesting Birds
The project area contains trees, shrubs, and other vegetation that provide suitable nesting habitat for common birds, including raptors (such as Cooper’s hawk), protected under the MBTA and CFG Code. Construction of the proposed project could result in the removal or trimming of trees and other vegetation during the general bird nesting season (January 15 through July 15 for raptors and February 1 through September 15 for general avian species) and, therefore, could result in impacts to nesting birds in violation of the MBTA and CFG Code. The proposed project construction within 500 feet of breeding habitat for nesting birds could result in adverse indirect impacts related to construction noise. Impacts to nesting birds and temporary (foraging, migration, and dispersal) habitat would be significant. However, through the implementation of mitigation measures BIO-7 and BIO-8, impacts to nesting birds would be reduced to less than significant.
Other Special Status Animal Species
Implementation of the proposed project could result in impacts to the following seven other special status animal species with high potential to occur: San Diegan legless lizard, California glossy snake, Belding’s orange-throated whiptail, San Diegan tiger whiptail, red diamond rattlesnake, Blainville’s horned lizard, and two-striped garter snake.
4.4 Biological Resources
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.4-25
Potential impacts to other special status animal species would result from the removal of
9.89 acres of wetland and riparian habitats, 18.3 acres of sensitive upland habitats, and 420.7 acres of non-sensitive upland habitats that may support these species. These impacts would be less than significant due to the small number of individuals that would potentially be affected, the relatively small amount of habitat to be impacted, and the large amount of suitable habitat in the project area that would be avoided by activities and would continue to be preserved within conserved lands. Impacts to MSCP-covered species within the Housing Element sites would be less than significant based on adequate species coverage and suitable habitats protected under the MSCP.
4.4.5.2 Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures would ensure that potential impacts on special status plant and animal species are avoided by the project.
TCSP Area, AEN, and Housing Element Sites
BIO-1 Focused surveys for smooth tarplant will be completed during the blooming period for this species (April to September) before clearing and grubbing for development of sites 16A, 16B, 20A, and 20B. Smooth tarplant observed in a proposed impact area will be flagged and avoided during construction. If impacts to smooth tarplant individuals cannot be avoided, mitigation will consist of on- or off-site preservation, translocation, and/or restoration within a BRCA, with a preference for species salvage and transplantation on-site if feasible, as determined by a qualified biologist and approved by the City. Seed material will be sourced from within 25 miles of the project area, but if seed is not available, due to seasonality or a poor seeding year, seed collected from southeastern San Diego County may be used. If species are transplanted for mitigation, these species will be included in a plant salvage and translocation plan according to mitigation measure BIO-2.
BIO-2 Prior to vegetation clearing for development of the sites 16A, 16B, 20A, and 20B, if smooth tarplant is being impacted and translocation is selected as part of the mitigation package according to mitigation measure BIO-1, a plant salvage and translocation plan shall be prepared for smooth tarplant impacted by the project. The plan shall, at a minimum, evaluate options for plant salvage and relocation, including native plant mulching, selective soil salvaging, and application/relocation of resources within the project area. Relocation efforts may include seed collection and/or transplantation to a suitable receptor site and will be based on the most reliable methods of successful relocation. The program shall contain a recommendation for method of salvage and relocation/application based on the feasibility of implementation and the likelihood of success. The program shall include, at a minimum, an implementation plan, maintenance and monitoring program, success criteria, estimated completion time, and any relevant contingency measures. The resource salvage plan shall be prepared by a qualified biologist and shall be implemented according to the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project, to the satisfaction of the City.
BIO-3 To help ensure errant impacts to sensitive vegetation communities and jurisdictional waters outside of the impact footprint are avoided during construction in the Housing Element sites, environmental exclusionary fencing, where determined necessary by the qualified biologist, would be installed at the edges of the impact limits before the initiation of grading. All construction staging shall occur within the approved limits of
4.4 Biological Resources
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.4-26
construction. A qualified biologist will monitor the installation of environmental fencing wherever it would abut sensitive vegetation communities. The biologist will periodically monitor the limits of construction operations to ensure that avoidance areas are delineated with temporary fencing and that fencing remains intact. Unless otherwise determined by the monitoring biologist, periodically means once every 14 days after environmental exclusionary fencing has been installed at the edges of the impact limits.
BIO-4 Prior to vegetation clearing for development of the Housing Element sites a qualified biologist shall conduct a Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training session for project and construction personnel prior to the commencement of work.
The training shall include a description of the species of concern and their habitats, the general provisions of the Endangered Species Acts (FESA and CESA), the penalties associated with violating the provisions of the acts, the general measures that are being implemented to conserve the species of concern as they relate to the project, and the access routes to and project area boundaries.
BIO-5 Immediately following completion of temporary construction activities within the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites, the contractor shall restore the temporary impact areas to pre-construction contours and revegetate the areas with native plant material, as follows: excavated soils and cleared native plant material shall be stockpiled within an appropriate staging area along the edge of the work corridor to the extent feasible; excavated soils shall be backfilled upon completion of construction and recontoured to pre-existing conditions; cleared native plant material shall be distributed over the temporarily disturbed areas; native seed application and installation of native container plants. Plant and seed material will be sourced from within 25 miles of the project area, but if plant and seed material is not available, due to seasonality or a poor seeding year, seed collected from southeastern San Diego County may be used. Maintenance and monitoring of the revegetation shall be provided for a period up to 25 months or for a period sufficient to establish native plant material and to provide vegetative cover that prevents soil erosion. Appropriate landscaping will be selected based on the vegetation communities within the portion of the study area adjacent to the project. In areas supporting native (or disturbed native) vegetation communities, revegetation of temporarily impacted areas will be with appropriate native plant materials. Only non-invasive plant species will be included in the revegetation plans (species not listed on the California Invasive Plant Inventory prepared by the California Invasive Plant Council ([Cal-IPC] 2024). A qualified landscape architect and/or qualified biologist shall review landscape plant palettes prior to implementation to ensure that no invasive species are included. Any planting stock brought onto the project area shall be inspected to ensure it is free of pest species that could invade natural areas, including but not limited to, Argentine ants (Linepithema humile) and South American fire ants (Solenopsis invicta).
Inspections of planting stock for habitat revegetation shall be by a qualified biologist.
Any planting stock found to be infested with such pests shall be quarantined, treated, or disposed of according to best management practices (BMPs) by qualified personnel, in a manner that precludes invasions into natural habitats. Temporary irrigation via irrigation lines and appurtenances (or alternate method approved by the City and qualified biologist) shall be provided by the contractor for a period sufficient to establish plant material and to provide vegetative cover that prevents soil erosion.
Irrigation shall be performed in a manner that avoids runoff, seepage, and overspray
4.4 Biological Resources
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.4-27
onto adjacent properties, non-irrigated areas, walls, roadways, waterways, or structures.
TCSP Area and AEN Only (No Housing Element Sites)
BIO-6 Applications for future development outside of sites 16A, 16B, 20A, and 20B, where the City has determined a potential for impacts to sensitive biological resources, shall be required to comply with the following mitigation measure:
a. Prior to issuance of any construction permit or any earth-moving activities, a site specific general biological resources survey shall be conducted to identify the presence of any sensitive biological resources, including any sensitive plant or wildlife species. A biological resources report shall be submitted to the City to document the results of the biological resources survey. The report shall include (1) the methods used to determine the presence of sensitive biological resources; (2) vegetation mapping of all vegetation communities and/or land cover types; (3) the locations of any sensitive plant or wildlife species; (4) an evaluation of the potential for occurrence of any listed, rare, and narrow endemic species; and (5) an evaluation of the significance of any potential direct or indirect impacts from the proposed project. If suitable habitat for sensitive species is identified based on the general biological survey, then focused presence/absence surveys shall be conducted in accordance with applicable resource agency survey protocols and incorporated into the biological resources report. If potentially significant impacts to sensitive vegetation communities and biological resources are identified, project-level grading and site plans shall incorporate project design features to avoid or minimize direct impacts on sensitive biological resources to the extent feasible, and the report shall also recommend appropriate mitigation to reduce the impacts to below a level of significance, where feasible. Mitigation measures shall be consistent with the standards contained in the Santee Subarea Plan, and projects shall be required to obtain all necessary permits to ensure compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations, such as the federal and state Endangered Species Acts. Mitigation ratios for sensitive vegetation community impacts are:
• Wetland habitats – 3:1 ratio
• Diegan coastal sage scrub – 2:1 ratio
• Non-native grassland – 0.5:1 ratio
Mitigation ratios shall be doubled for sensitive vegetation community impacts within the Preserve and Open Space System designated by the Santee Subarea Plan, once adopted.
b. Environmentally Sensitive Areas shall be identified in the biological resources report and avoided to the maximum extent practicable. In areas near or adjacent to Environmentally Sensitive Areas (i.e., natural habitats and vegetation, wetlands, wildlife areas, wildlife corridors), the biological resources report will consider the following measures:
4.4 Biological Resources
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.4-28
Avoidance of Environmentally Sensitive Areas. In areas near or adjacent to Environmentally Sensitive Areas, construction limits shall be clearly demarcated using highly visible barriers (such as silt fencing), which shall be installed under the supervision of a qualified biologist prior to the commencement of work. Construction personnel shall strictly limit their activities, vehicles, equipment, and construction materials to the project footprint, including designated staging areas, and routes of travel. The construction areas shall be limited to the minimal area necessary to complete the proposed project. The fencing shall remain in place until the completion of all construction activities and shall be promptly removed when construction is complete.
Biological Monitoring. A qualified biological monitor shall conduct construction monitoring of all work conducted within/adjacent to environmentally sensitive areas during all vegetation removal and ground-disturbing activities such as staging and grading, for the duration of the proposed project to ensure that practicable measures are being employed to avoid incidental disturbance of habitat outside the project footprints and to survey for sensitive wildlife species.
When vegetation removal and ground-disturbing activities are not occurring, as needed monitoring at the project areas shall occur.
Worker Environmental Awareness Program. In areas near or adjacent to Environmentally Sensitive Areas, a qualified biologist shall conduct a WEAP training session for project and construction personnel prior to the commencement of work. The training shall include a description of the species of concern and their habitats, the general provisions of the Endangered Species Acts (FESA and CESA), the penalties associated with violating the provisions of the acts, the general measures that are being implemented to conserve the species of concern as they relate to the project, and the access routes to and project area boundaries.
Best Management Practices. During future project construction activities, the following BMPs shall be implemented:
• All equipment maintenance, staging, and dispensing of fuel, oil, or any other such activities shall occur in developed or designated nonsensitive upland habitat areas. The designated upland areas shall be located to prevent runoff from any spills from entering Waters of the US.
• A construction Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and a soil erosion and sedimentation plan shall be developed (where requirements are met) to minimize erosion and identify specific pollution prevention measures that shall eliminate or control potential point and nonpoint pollution sources onsite during and following the project construction phase. The SWPPP shall identify specific BMPs during project construction to prevent any water quality standard exceedances. In addition, the SWPPP shall contain provisions for changes to the plan such as alternative mechanisms, if necessary, during project design and/or construction to achieve the stated goals and performance standards.
4.4 Biological Resources
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.4-29
• Trash shall be stored in closed containers so that it is not readily accessible to scavengers and shall be removed from the construction site on a daily basis.
• Water quality shall be visually monitored by the biological monitor to ensure that no substantial increases in turbidity occur during construction. All relevant natural resource permits and authorizations shall be obtained from appropriate agencies (i.e., USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW) prior to the initiation of construction activities. Permit conditions contained within the permits and authorizations shall be employed throughout the duration of the project.
• Hydrologic connectivity shall be maintained within drainages during the duration of construction. Brush, debris material, mud, silt, or other pollutants from construction activities shall not be placed within drainages and shall not be allowed to enter a flowing stream. • Dust control measures shall be implemented by the contractor to reduce excessive dust emissions. Dust control measures shall be carried out at least two times per day on all construction days, or more during windy or dry periods, and may include wetting work areas, the use of soil binders on dirt roads, and wetting or covering stockpiles. • No pets shall be allowed in, or adjacent to, the project areas. • Rodenticides, herbicides, insecticides, or other chemicals that could potentially harm wildlife or native plants shall not be used near or within Environmentally Sensitive Areas within or near the roadway segments. • Construction equipment shall be cleaned of mud or other debris that may contain invasive plants and/or seeds and inspected to reduce the potential of spreading noxious weeds before mobilizing to the site and before leaving the site during construction.
• The cleaning of equipment will occur at least 300 feet from Environmentally Sensitive Area fencing.
• Use of Native Plants. All project-related planting and landscaping shall not use plants listed on California Invasive Plant Council. Locally native plants shall be used near open space and native areas to the greatest extent feasible.
TCSP Area, AEN, and Housing Element Sites
BIO-7 Grubbing or clearing of vegetation within the TCSP area, AEN, or Housing Element sites during the general avian breeding season (February 1 to September 15), least Bell’s vireo breeding season (March 15 to September 15), coastal California gnatcatcher breeding season (March 1 to August 15), or raptor breeding season (January 15 to July 15) shall be avoided to the extent feasible. If grubbing, clearing, or grading would occur during the breeding season, a pre-construction survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than three days prior to the commencement
4.4 Biological Resources
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.4-30
of activities to determine if active bird nests are present in the affected areas. If there are no nesting birds (includes nest building or other breeding/nesting behavior) within 300 feet of the survey area (500 feet for raptors), clearing, grubbing, and grading shall be allowed to proceed in that area. Furthermore, if clearing, grubbing, or grading activities are to resume in an area where they have not occurred for a period of seven or more days during the breeding season, an updated survey for avian nesting will be conducted by a qualified biologist within three days prior to the commencement of clearing, grubbing, or grading activities in that area. If active nests or nesting birds are observed within 300 feet of the survey area (500 feet for raptors), the biologist shall flag a buffer around the active nests, and clearing, grubbing, or grading activities shall not occur within 300 feet of active nests (500 feet for raptors) until nesting behavior has ceased, nests have failed, or young have fledged as determined by a qualified biologist. If the qualified biologist determines that the species will not be impacted with a reduced buffer (i.e., less than 300 feet for general avian species and 500 feet for raptors), potentially with the implementation of avoidance measures to reduce noise, as necessary, and/or the qualified biologist monitors the active nest during clearing, grubbing, or grading to ensure no impacts to the species occur, these activities may occur outside the reduced buffer during the breeding season, as long as the species is not impacted.
BIO-8 If heavy equipment would be in operation during construction within the TCSP area, AEN, or Housing Element sites during the breeding season for least Bell’s vireo (March 15 to September 15), coastal California gnatcatcher (March 1 to August 15), or raptors (January 15 to July 15), pre-construction survey(s) shall be conducted by a qualified biologist, as appropriate, to determine whether these species occur within the areas potentially impacted by noise. If pre-construction surveys determine that active nests belonging to these species are absent from the potential noise impact area (within 300 feet for vireo or gnatcatcher, 500 feet for raptors, or as otherwise determined by a qualified biologist), clearing, grubbing, and grading shall be allowed to proceed. If pre-construction surveys determine the presence of active nests belonging to these species, then clearing, grubbing, and grading within 300 feet of the nest location(s) for vireo or gnatcatcher and 500 feet for raptors, shall: (1) be postponed until a permitted biologist determines the nest is no longer active; (2) be allowed to continue if nest monitoring by a qualified biologist determines that noise levels are not adversely affecting the nesting birds, or (3) not occur until a temporary noise barrier or berm is constructed at the edge of the clearing, grubbing, or grading footprint an d/or around the piece of equipment to ensure that noise levels are reduced to below 60 dBA hourly average or to the or maximum hourly average ambient noise level if it already exceeds 60 dBA at the nest location. Decibel output for Item (3) will be confirmed by a qualified noise specialist and intermittent monitoring by a qualified biologist will be required to ensure that conditions have not changed.
BIO-9 If periodic noise (such as events) or continuous noise (such as mechanical equipment) generated by standard operational operation of land usesactivities within the TCSP, AEN, or Housing Element sites 16A, 16B, 20A, and 20B will produce noise levels that will adversely affect nesting birds during the breeding season for least Bell’s vireo (March 15 to September 15), coastal California gnatcatcher (March 1 to August 15), or raptors (January 15 to July 15), activities nearby to suitable special-status species habitat on preserved land will be designed and implemented to minimize noise impacts to preserves and wildlife. Operational activities shall (1) be allowed to continue if a temporary noise barrier or berm is constructed at the edge of the suitable special-
4.4 Biological Resources
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.4-31
status species habitat to ensure that noise levels are reduced to below 60 A-weighted decibels (dBA) hourly average or the maximum hourly average ambient noise level measured existing ambient if it already exceeds 60 dBA at the edge of suitable habitat during the breeding season., or (2) operational activities that would be above 60 dBA Leq hourly at the edge of suitable habitat shall be allowed to continue with incorporation of noise reduction strategies in equipment, siting and site design, features, timing, noise barriers, landscaping, and buffer separation.
BIO-10 A focused pre-construction survey for special status animal species will be completed by a qualified biologist prior to clearing and grubbing within the TCSP area, AEN, or sites 16A, 16B, 20A, and 20B. Aside from birds, which are covered by other mitigation measures, this survey will focus on the special status animal species identified as having high potential to occur on-site: western spadefoot toad, San Diegan legless lizard, California glossy snake, Belding’s orange-throated whiptail, San Diegan tiger whiptail, red diamond rattlesnake, Blainville’s horned lizard, and two-striped garter snake. Occupied special status species habitat observed in the proposed impact area will be flagged and avoided during construction until the qualified biologist determines that special status species are no longer using the habitat.
4.4.5.3 Significance After Mitigation
TCSP Area, AEN, and Housing Element Sites
Implementation of mitigation measures BIO-1 through BIO-10 would reduce impacts to less than significant in the TCSP, AEN, and Housing Element sites.
4.4.6 Issue 2: Sensitive Vegetation Communities
Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by CDFW or USFWS?
4.4.6.1 Impact Analysis
TCSP Area
The project would result in impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and riparian habitats as defined by the USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW and shown in Figure 4.4-2. These impacts would be considered potentially significant. These impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level through the implementation of mitigation measure BIO-11, which requires the project to obtain wetland permits through the appropriate wetland permitting agencies and would require the in-kind creation of new wetland of the same type lost, at a ratio determined by the applicable regulatory agencies that would prevent any net loss of wetland functions and values.
Indirect impacts to adjacent jurisdictional waters and wetlands could occur through inadvertent intrusion into these adjacent areas by construction vehicles, equipment, and personnel. These impacts would be mitigated through the implementation of mitigation measure BIO-6.
The proposed project, if fully built out, would result in impacts to Diegan coastal sage scrub (including disturbed), Diegan coastal sage scrub: Baccharis-dominated, and non-native grassland, which are considered sensitive natural communities and require mitigation. The project would also result in impacts to eucalyptus woodland, artificial detention basin, disturbed habitat,
4.4 Biological Resources
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.4-32
and developed land, which are not considered sensitive natural communities. Impacts to nonsensitive vegetation communities are not considered significant and, therefore, do not require mitigation.
Impacts to up to 8.7 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub (disturbed), 5.4 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub: Baccharis-dominated (including disturbed), and 4.2 acres of non-native grassland, totaling 18.3 acres) would be reduced to less than significant through implementation of mitigation measure BIO-6. Additionally, mitigation measure BIO-5 would ensure that temporary impacts to vegetation communities will be revegetated to native habitats following completion of construction activities.
AEN
The AEN portion of the project would result in impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and riparian habitats as defined by the USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW. These impacts would be considered potentially significant. These impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level through the implementation of mitigation measure BIO-11, which requires the project to obtain wetland permits through the appropriate wetland permitting agencies and would require the in-kind creation of new wetland of the same type lost, at a ratio determined by the applicable regulatory agencies that would prevent any net loss of wetland functions and values.
Indirect impacts to adjacent jurisdictional waters and wetlands could occur through inadvertent intrusion into these adjacent areas by construction vehicles, equipment, and personnel. These impacts would be mitigated through the implementation of mitigation measure BIO-6.
The AEN portion of the proposed project would result in impacts to Diegan coastal sage scrub (including disturbed) and Diegan coastal sage scrub: Baccharis-dominated, which are considered sensitive natural communities and require mitigation. The project would also result in impacts to eucalyptus woodland, artificial detention basin, disturbed habitat, and developed land, which are not considered sensitive natural communities. Impacts to non-sensitive vegetation communities are not considered significant and, therefore, do not require mitigation.
Impacts to 8.7 acres Diegan coastal sage scrub (disturbed) and 5.4 acres Diegan coastal sage scrub: Baccharis-dominated (including disturbed; totaling 14.1 acres) would be reduced to less than significant through implementation of mitigation measure BIO-6. Mitigation measure BIO-5 would ensure that temporary impacts to vegetation communities will be revegetated to native habitats following completion of construction activities.
Site 16A
Development of Site 16A would not result in impacts to sensitive upland natural communities requiring mitigation. Site 16A would result in impacts to artificial detention basin, disturbed habitat, and developed land, which are not considered sensitive natural communities. Impacts to southern willow scrub are discussed below under CDFW jurisdiction.
Waters of the U.S.
According to the Biological Resources Technical Report prepared for the project (Appendix C), development of Site 16A would impact a total of 0.37 acre of wetland and non-wetland waters of the U.S. (Table 4.4-4, Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters [River Parkways Project]), comprising 0.04 acre of wetland waters of the U.S. and 0.32 acre of non-wetland waters of the U.S. Mitigation
4.4 Biological Resources
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.4-33
would require re-aligning and widening the Las Colinas Channel as mitigation for the Riverview Parkway Project, comprising creation of 0.74 acre waters of the U.S. and 1.24 acres riparian habitat. Additionally, 0.08 acre of existing waters of the U.S. that would be temporarily affected by recontouring (will remain within the widened Las Colinas Channel) will also be revegetated and maintained. These impacts would be mitigated through the implementation of mitigation measure BIO-12. Implementation of mitigation measures BIO-3 and BIO-4 would ensure that additional impacts on sensitive resources that occur adjacent to project work limits are avoided.
Table 4.4-4
IMPACTS TO JURISDICTIONAL WATERS (RIVER PARKWAYS PROJECT)1 Habitat USACE RWQCB CDFW
Wetlands/Riparian
Wetland waters of the U.S./State 0.04 0.04 --
Southern willow scrub -- -- 1.18
Subtotal 0.04 0.04 1.18
Non-wetland Waters
Non-wetland waters of the U.S./State 0.32 0.32 --
Subtotal 0.32 0.32 --
Total 0.37 0.37 1.18
1 Impacts are presented in acre(s) rounded to the nearest 0.01. Totals calculated by adding the raw acreage and then rounding to the nearest 0.01.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Jurisdiction Development of Site 16A would impact a total of 1.18 acres of CDFW jurisdictional streambed and riparian areas (Table 4.4-4). A total of 0.19 acre of CDFW jurisdictional habitat, comprising southern willow scrub, occurs within Site 16A. By re-aligning and widening the Las Colinas Channel, mitigation will comprise restoration of 1.24 acres riparian habitat. These impacts would be mitigated through the implementation of mitigation measure BIO-12. Implementation of mitigation measures BIO-3 and BIO-4 would ensure that additional impacts on sensitive resources that occur adjacent to project work limits are avoided.
Sites 16B, 20A, and 20B
The proposed sites 16B, 20A, and 20B would not result in impacts to sensitive natural communities requiring mitigation. Sites 16B, 20A, and 20B would result in impacts to disturbed habitat and developed land, which are not considered sensitive natural communities. Impacts to non-sensitive vegetation communities are not considered significant and, therefore, do not require mitigation. Implementation of mitigation measures BIO-3 and BIO-4 would ensure that additional impacts on sensitive resources that occur adjacent to project work limits are avoided. Additionally, mitigation measure BIO-5 would ensure that temporary impacts to vegetation communities will be revegetated to native habitats following completion of construction activities.
4.4 Biological Resources
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.4-34
4.4.6.2 Mitigation Measures
TCSP Area, AEN, and Housing Element Sites
BIO-11 Applications where the City has determined a potential for impacts to jurisdictional waters and wetlands shall be required to comply with the following permitting and mitigation framework.
Before the issuance of any construction permit or any earth-moving activities, a site specific general biological resources survey (BIO-6) shall be conducted to identify the presence of any sensitive biological resources, including any wetlands. Should any potential jurisdictional waters or wetlands be identified on-site during the general biological resources survey, then a jurisdictional wetlands delineation shall be conducted following the methods outlined in the USACE’s 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Delineation Manual for the Arid West Region or most current USACE guidance. The limits of any riparian habitats on-site under the sole jurisdiction of CDFW shall also be delineated, as well as any special aquatic sites that may not meet federal jurisdictional criteria but are regulated by the RWQCB.
Avoidance measures based on project-level grading and site plans shall be incorporated into the project design to minimize direct impacts to jurisdictional waters consistent with federal, state, and City guidelines. Unavoidable impacts to wetlands shall be minimized to the maximum extent practicable and would be subject to alternatives and mitigation analyses consistent with the USACE’s and RWQCB’s permit processes. Unavoidable impacts would require the project to submit permit applications to the USACE under CWA Section 404, the RWQCB under CWA Section 401 and/or the State Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and/or the CDFW under CFG Code Sections 1600 et seq., depending on the jurisdictional resources impacted. The permits issued for the project will set the mitigation requirements, which typically require the in-kind creation of new wetland of the same type lost, at a ratio determined by the applicable regulatory agencies that would prevent any net loss of wetland functions and values. (See mitigation measure BIO-12 for the proposed mitigation package for the Riverview Parkway Project.) Wetland creation on-site or within the same wetland system should be given preference over replacement off-site or within a different system. The City shall also control use and development in surrounding areas of influence to wetlands with the application of buffer zones as may be required for wetlands pursuant to federal and/or state permits in accordance to the Land Use Adjacency Guidelines, conservation measures and wetland protection standards in the Draft Subarea Plan Chapter 5. Use and development within buffer areas shall be limited to minor passive recreational uses, such as trails, with fencing, desiltation, or erosion control facilities, or other improvements deemed necessary to protect the habitat, to be located in the upper (upland) half of the buffer when feasible.
All wetlands and buffers shall be permanently conserved or protected through the application of an open space easement or other suitable device.
Housing Element Site 16A Only
BIO-12 Site 16A would result in impacts to 0.37 acre of wetland and non-wetland waters of the U.S., 0.37 acre of wetland and non-wetland waters of the State, and 1.18 acres CDFW Jurisdictional Habitat. By re-aligning and widening the Las Colinas Channel,
4.4 Biological Resources
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.4-35
mitigation will comprise creation of 0.74 acre waters of the U.S., 0.74 acre waters of the State, and 1.24 acres riparian habitat. Additionally, 0.08 acre of existing waters of the U.S./State that would be temporarily affected by recontouring (will remain within the widened Las Colinas Channel) will also be revegetated and maintained.
4.4.6.3 Significance After Mitigation
TCSP Area, AEN, and Housing Element Sites
The proposed project would result in significant impacts to sensitive natural communities; however, with the implementation of mitigation measures BIO-3, BIO-4, BIO-5, BIO-6, BIO-11, and BIO-12 (Site 16A only), impacts on sensitive natural communities would be reduced to a less than significant level.
4.4.7 Issue 3: Wetlands
Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
4.4.7.1 Impact Analysis
TCSP Area, AEN, and Housing Element Site 16A
As previously stated in Section 4.4.6.1, implementation of Site 16A would result in a total of 0.37 acre of wetland and non-wetland waters of the U.S. Impacts to wetland and non-wetland waters of the U.S. would be considered potentially significant. Development of the Riverview Parkway Property, which is inclusive of Site 16A and associated mitigation within the Las Colinas Channel, would impact a total of 1.18 acres of CDFW jurisdictional streambed and riparian areas. A total of
0.19 acre of CDFW jurisdictional habitat, comprising southern willow scrub, occurs within Site 16A. By re-aligning and widening the Las Colinas Channel as mitigation for the Riverview Parkway Project, the mitigation will comprise the restoration of 1.24 acres of riparian habitat.
These impacts would be mitigated through the implementation of mitigation measure BIO-12.
Implementation of mitigation measures BIO-3 and BIO-4 would ensure that additional impacts on sensitive resources that occur adjacent to project work limits are avoided.
Impacts to USACE wetland and non-wetland waters, which are anticipated in Site 16A and in other portions of the AEN and TCSP area as determined through future site-specific studies, would require the implementation of mitigation measures BIO-6, BIO-11, and BIO-12 above.
These measures require the project to obtain wetland permits through the appropriate wetland permitting agencies and would require the in-kind creation of new wetland of the same type lost, at a ratio determined by the applicable regulatory agencies that would prevent any net loss of wetland functions and values.
Potential indirect impacts on jurisdictional resources would be prevented during construction through successful implementation of standard BMPs as part of the project’s SWPPP.
Implementation of a SWPPP and associated BMPs are a regulatory requirement for the proposed project. Specific BMPs may include but would not necessarily be limited to maintaining the project work areas free of trash and debris; employing appropriate standard spill prevention practices and clean-up materials; installing and maintaining sediment and erosion control measures; maintaining effective control of fugitive dust; and properly storing, handling, and disposing of
4.4 Biological Resources
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.4-36
toxins and pollutants, including waste materials. Mitigation measures BIO-3 and BIO-4 identified in Section 4.4.5 would further ensure that no impacts on adjacent resources occur.
Housing Element Sites 16B, 20A, and 20B
No impact to wetlands is anticipated to occur in Housing Element sites 16B, 20A, and 20B. The Housing Element sites 16B, 20A, and 20B would result in impacts to disturbed habitat and developed land, which are not considered sensitive natural communities. Impacts to non-sensitive vegetation communities are not considered significant and, therefore, do not require mitigation.
4.4.7.2 Mitigation Measures
TCSP Area, AEN, and Housing Element Sites
Implementation of required BMPs in combination with mitigation measures BIO-3 and BIO-4 identified in Section 4.4.5 would ensure that construction activities are contained within the proposed work limits and that potentially significant direct and indirect impacts on jurisdictional resources are avoided. Implementation of mitigation measures BIO-6, BIO-11, and BIO-12 (Site 16A only) would ensure that the project does not have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands.
4.4.7.3 Significance After Mitigation
TCSP Area, AEN, and Housing Element Sites
The proposed project would result in significant impacts to jurisdictional resources; however, with the implementation of mitigation measures BIO-3, BIO-4, BIO-6, BIO-11, and BIO-12 (Site 16A only) impacts on federally protected wetlands would be reduced to less than significant.
4.4.8 Issue 4: Wildlife Corridors
Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
4.4.8.1 Impact Analysis
TCSP Area and AEN
The TCSP and AEN contain areas associated with the San Diego River and its tributaries. While the City of Santee Draft Subarea Plan identifies the San Diego River as a regionally significant wildlife movement corridor, the City of Santee Draft Subarea Plan shows the TCSP area and AEN development areas as being located outside of the Preserve. Retention of the river corridor as Open Space consistent with the TCSP and the implementation of Objective Design Standards related to Bird Friendly Design would ensure no impact to wildlife corridors would occur associated with the TCSP or AEN.
Housing Element Sites
Housing Element sites 16A, 16B, 20A, and 20B are primarily surrounded by developed land.
Although Housing Element sites 16A and 16B are bounded, in part, by undeveloped land, they
4.4 Biological Resources
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.4-37
do not meet the criteria for a wildlife movement corridor as they are restricted by roads and other development. Additionally, they are not identified as a wildlife movement corridor in the City of Santee Draft Subarea Plan. No impact to wildlife corridors would occur within the Housing Element sites.
4.4.8.2 Mitigation Measures
TCSP Area, AEN, and Housing Element Sites
No mitigation is required.
4.4.8.3 Significance After Mitigation
TCSP Area, AEN, and Housing Element Sites
No impact would occur.
4.4.9 Issue 5: Habitat Conservation Planning
Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted HCP, NCCP, or other approved local, regional, or state HCP?
4.4.9.1 Impact Analysis
TCSP Area, AEN, and Housing Element Sites
As noted above, the project area is located within the planning area for the City of Santee Draft Subarea Plan, which has not been adopted. Therefore, the project, as proposed, would not conflict with an adopted HCP, NCCP, or any other approved local, regional, or state HCP.
However, in anticipation of the future adoption of the Santee Draft Subarea Plan within the lifetime of future development activities covered by the proposed TCSP, implementation of BIO-6 and BIO-11 is recommended to ensure future development within the project area is consistent with the City of Santee Draft Subarea Plan by requiring site-specific surveys to be conducted for future project-level review to verify the presence of sensitive biological resources occurring on individual sites; determine the extent of any potential impacts; and provide mitigation to reduce the impacts to below a level of significance.
Further, all future projects (discretionary projects and ministerial projects as discussed in SMC Chapter 13.11) would be required to address sensitive species and vegetation communities identified in the City of Santee Draft Subarea Plan, once adopted, and therefore impacts associated with conflicts with an adopted HCP, NCCP, or any other approved local, regional, or state HCP would be less than significant.
Additionally, SMC Code Chapter 8.06 regulates the planting, maintenance, and removal of public trees and Chapter 11.38 regulates the obstruction or interference of any natural watercourse or channel. Chapters 13.08 and 13.16 also require development review procedures and standards pertaining to biological resources. Future development, discretionary or ministerial, would be subject to the City’s adopted regulations pertaining to trees or natural water courses. All future projects and residents within the project area would be required to adhere to these policies and regulations; therefore, impacts in the TCSP, AEN, and Housing Element sites would be less than significant.
4.4 Biological Resources
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.4-38
4.4.9.2 Mitigation Measures
TCSP Area, AEN, and Housing Element Sites
Compliance with existing regulations and implementation of mitigation measures BIO-6 and BIO-11 would ensure future projects remain consistent with the appropriate habitat conservation plans.
4.4.9.3 Significance After Mitigation
TCSP Area, AEN, and Housing Element Sites
With implementation of MM-BIO-6 and MM-BIO-11, impacts to habitat conservation plans associated with future development should the Santee Draft Subarea Plan be adopted, would be less than significant.
4.4.10 Issue 6: Policies and Ordinances Protecting Biological Resources Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
4.4.10.1 Impact Analysis
TCSP Area, AEN, and Housing Element Sites
The project does not propose any activities that would conflict with the San Diego Final MSCP Plan, City of Santee Draft Subarea Plan, or local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Future development would be required to implement the mitigation framework, including BIO-5, BIO-6, BIO-7, BIO-8, BIO-11, and BIO-12 as applicable to ensure impacts associated with biological resources would be reduced to a level that is less than significant.
4.4.10.2 Mitigation Measures
TCSP Area, AEN, and Housing Element Sites
Compliance with existing regulations and implementation of mitigation measures BIO-5, BIO-6, BIO-7, BIO-8, BIO-11, and BIO-12 would ensure project consistency with the San Diego Final MSCP Plan and the City of Santee Draft Subarea Plan.
4.4.10.3 Significance After Mitigation
TCSP Area, AEN, and Housing Element Sites
The project could result in potential significant impacts to sensitive biological resources addressed under the MSCP; however, compliance with existing regulations and implementation of measures BIO-6, BIO-7, BIO-11, and BIO-12 would help ensure that impacts are avoided and the project activities are not in conflict with the San Diego Final MSCP Plan or the City of Santee Subarea Plan, once adopted.
4.5 Cultural Resources
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.5-1
4.5 Cultural Resources
The following section analyzes the potential environmental impacts that may occur to cultural resources as a result of implementation of the proposed project.
4.5.1 Existing Conditions
The following information is from the cultural resources report prepared for the proposed project by HELIX Environmental Planning (HELIX) and included as Appendix D of this EIR.
4.5.1.1 Cultural Setting
Prehistoric Period
The following culture history outlines and describes the known prehistoric background for the San Diego area with references to cultural traditions of potential relevance to prehistoric resources in the project area and vicinity. The approximately 10,000 years of documented prehistory of the San Diego region has often been divided into three periods: Early Prehistoric Period (San Dieguito Tradition/complex), Archaic Period (Milling Stone Horizon, Encinitas Tradition, La Jolla, and Pauma complexes), and Late Prehistoric Period (Cuyamaca and San Luis Rey complexes).
Early Prehistoric Period
The Early Prehistoric Period represents the time period of the first known inhabitants in California.
In some areas of California, it is referred to as the Paleo-Indian period and is associated with the Big-Game-Hunting activities of the peoples of the last Ice Age occurring during the Terminal Pleistocene (between 15,000 and 11,000 years ago) and the Early Holocene, beginning circa 10,000 years ago. In the western United States, most evidence for the Paleo-Indian or Big-GameHunting peoples, derives from finds of large, fluted spear and projectile points (Fluted-Point Tradition) in places such as Clovis and Folsom in the Great Basin and the Desert Southwest. In California, most evidence for the Fluted-Point Tradition derives principally from areas along the margins of the Great Basin and the Desert Southwest such as the Sierras, the southern Central Valley, and the deserts of southeastern California, with several, mostly isolated, occurrences of fluted spear points encountered on or near the coast of California. Three of these isolated fluted points or point fragments have occurred in San Diego County, all occurring in the mountainous or eastern areas of the county. One was found in relative proximity to the east of the project area in the Cuyamaca Pass area, another approximately 7.5 miles northeast of Warner Springs, and the other near Ocotillo Wells in the east county area. Several others have occurred in proximity to the county, including one along the coast in adjacent Orange County to the northwest and two in Baja California to the south.
Results from recent archaeological investigations on the northern Channel Islands west of Santa Barbara have revealed that humans that were not Big Game hunters (e.g., no fluted points have been found on the islands, to date) were occupying the islands as early as the terminal Pleistocene, roughly 12,000 years ago. These results, instead, document a fully maritime-adapted population on the islands at this early date that was exploiting shellfish and using seaworthy boats to navigate the channel waters. Fishing has also been documented in the islands as early as 10,000 years ago by the presence of bone-gorge fishhooks. Such early dates, however, for a similar cultural pattern are still lacking for the adjacent southern California mainland. This absence on the mainland may be due to the rise in sea level brought about by post-Pleistocene deglaciation that possibly inundated sites located along this lower elevation, late Pleistocene/early Holocene
4.5 Cultural Resources
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.5-2
coastline. At this time in San Diego County, the shoreline stood two to six kilometers farther seaward than today’s coast.
Despite the occurrence of isolated fluted points in the San Diego area and vicinity, the earliest archaeological site documented to be 10,000 years old belongs to the San Dieguito Tradition.
The San Dieguito Tradition, with an artifact assemblage distinct from that of the Fluted Point Tradition, has been documented mostly in the coastal and near coastal areas in San Diego County, as well as in the southeastern California deserts, but with some evidence for it recently proposed at a site to the east in the mountains of San Diego County and at a site in the coastal area to the north in Los Angeles County. The content of the earliest component of the C.W. Harris Site (CA-SDI-149), located along the San Dieguito River and approximately 15 miles to the northwest of the project area, formed the basis upon which Warren and others identified the “San Dieguito complex,” and which Warren later reclassified as the San Dieguito Tradition. This tradition is characterized by an artifact inventory consisting almost entirely of flaked stone biface and scraping tools, but lacking the fluted points associated with the Fluted Point Tradition.
Diagnostic artifact types and categories associated with the San Dieguito Tradition include elongated bifacial knives; scraping tools; crescentics; leaf-shaped projectile points; and in the desert, Silver Lake and Lake Mojave projectile points.
The subsistence system or emphasis of the San Dieguito Tradition, while not yet entirely agreed upon, is suggested by Warren as having an orientation toward a hunting rather than a gathering economy. This characterization is based on an artifact assemblage of primarily hunting associated tools, in contrast to the more gathering-oriented complexes that were to follow in the Archaic Period. Other researchers have interpreted the San Dieguito subsistence system to be possibly ancestral to, or a developmental stage for, the predominantly gathering-oriented “La Jolla/Pauma complex” of the subsequent Archaic Period. Based on uncalibrated radiocarbon dates, Warren originally indicated the San Dieguito Tradition to have begun sometime circa 9000 years before present (BP) and to have ended sometime between 8500 and 7500 BP. Recent calibrations of these dates, however, have indicated that some are significantly earlier, i.e., circa 10,000 BP.
Archaic Period
In the southern coastal region, the subsequent Archaic Period dates from circa 8600 BP to circa 1300 BP. A large number of archaeological site assemblages dating to this period have been identified at a range of coastal and near coastal inland sites. This appears to indicate that a relatively stable, sedentary hunting and gathering complex, possibly associated with one people, was present in the coastal and immediately inland areas of what is now San Diego County for more than 7,000 years. These assemblages, designated as the La Jolla/Pauma complexes, are considered part of Warren’s “Encinitas Tradition” and Wallace’s “Milling Stone Horizon.” In general, the content of these site assemblages includes manos and metates; shell middens; terrestrial and marine mammal remains; burials; rock features; bone tools; doughnut stones; discoidals; stone balls; plummets; biface points/knives; beads made of stone, bone, or shell; and cobble-based tools at coastal sites and increased hunting equipment and quarry-based tools at inland sites. As defined by True, the “Pauma complex” aspect of this culture is associated with sites located in inland areas that lack shellfish remains but are otherwise similar in content to the La Jolla complex. The Pauma complex may, therefore, simply represent a non-coastal expression of the La Jolla complex. During the latter half of the Archaic Period, artifacts such as dart points, mortars, and pestles, which are essentially absent during the Early Archaic Period, begin to occur in site assemblages dating after circa 5500 BP. Also noted by Warren was an increase in the presence of larger mammal remains in La Jolla complex faunal assemblages during the latter part of the Archaic Period. This new, and subsequently increasing, use of these resources represents
4.5 Cultural Resources
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.5-3
a significant shift in the Encinitas/La Jolla/Pauma complex subsistence system in the southern coastal region.
Sites dating to the Archaic Period are more numerous along the coast. Inland archaeological sites in the San Diego County area, attributable to the Early Milling Stone Horizon, Encinitas Tradition, and/or the La Jolla/Pauma complex are known. However, similar to the San Dieguito complex, most of the substantiating archaeological evidence for the Encinitas Tradition/La Jolla/Pauma complex (Milling Stone Horizon) in present-day San Diego County is derived from sites in nearcoastal valleys, estuaries, and/or embayments that are present along the San Diego coast south of the San Luis Rey River. The location of the project area, approximately 10 to 15 miles from the coast, places it within the rising elevation, near coastal, inland foothill area where sites that can be radiometrically dated to the Archaic Period, and that contain La Jolla or Pauma complex assemblages, are less common.
While not plentiful, sites in inland foothill circumstances with evidence for exclusively Archaic Period occupation are rare. Instead, many inland sites with evidence for Archaic Period occupation also have evidence for subsequent Late Prehistoric occupation as well. One such site located adjacent to the project area along the San Diego River in the Mission Gorge area, approximately 14 miles from the ocean, CA-SDI-9243, has produced radiocarbon dates of circa 5400 and 5700 BP and Elko-eared style projectile points. The artifact assemblage and the radiocarbon results from the site also appear to indicate that it was repeatedly occupied over a period of nearly 6,000 years, with the last occupation occurring during the Late Prehistoric Period.
Sites in the foothills along Santa Maria Creek, near Ramona, have produced an Elko-eared style projectile point and a radiocarbon date of circa 2000 BP, documenting an occupation during the Late Archaic Period, but with subsequent occupation occurring during the Late Prehistoric Period.
East of the project area, in the upper foothills, near Alpine, radiocarbon dates of 2550 BP and 2900 BP from two sites also suggested a Late Archaic Period occupation of these sites with subsequent occupation occurring during the Late Prehistoric Period. Similar to the long and repeated occupation at site CA-SDI-9243, the Scripps Poway Parkway site (CA-SDI-4608), located along the Beeler Canyon drainage, and situated approximately 15.3 miles from the ocean, has been radiocarbon dated to as early as 5800 BP. This site is described as associated with the “transitional periods between the San Dieguito and La Jolla complexes and the later Archaic/Late Prehistoric transition.” La Jolla complex artifacts recovered from the site included doughnut stones; discoidals; and Pinto, Elko, and large side-notched points. Also, in the Poway area, archaeological investigations along Poway/Peñasquitos Creek, have produced both radiocarbon dates and projectile points (Elko, Gypsum Cave, large side-notched, and Pinto points) that indicate there was an Archaic occupation with subsequent occupation occurring during the Late Prehistoric Period.
As noted above, it has been previously observed in San Diego County that during the Late Prehistoric Period, sites attributable to the San Luis Rey or Cuyamaca complexes occur in greater frequency in inland areas of the County. McDonald, for example, has stated that “most sites in the Laguna Mountains can be expected to date from late prehistoric or ethnohistoric occupation of the region, and Archaic Period remains, while not unknown, are relatively rare,” and Gallegos states that “for San Diego County, there is temporal patterning, as the earliest sites are situated in coastal valleys and around coastal lagoons. Late Prehistoric Period sites are also found in coastal settings but are more common along river valleys and interior locations.” It is also possible to observe, however, that while a number of examples of Late Prehistoric Period sites that appear to be attributable exclusively to the San Luis Rey or Cuyamaca complexes have been identified for the near-coastal inland foothill areas of the County through diagnostic artifacts and/or radiocarbon dating, a number of sites containing evidence for both Late Prehistoric Period and
4.5 Cultural Resources
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.5-4
Archaic Period occupations have also been documented. It appears possible, therefore, that, as more archaeological data accumulates, this geographic dichotomy of site locations between the Archaic and Late prehistoric periods within the County, may be found to not be completely valid.
Late Prehistoric Period
While there has been considerable debate about whether San Dieguito and La Jolla patterns might represent the same people using different environments and subsistence techniques, or whether they are separate cultural patterns, abrupt shifts in subsistence practices and the use of new tool technologies are documented in the archaeological record to have occurred at the onset of the Late Prehistoric Period (ca. 1500 to 1300 BP). The Late Prehistoric Period (ca. 1500 BP to A.D. 1769) is also characterized by higher population densities and intensification of social, political, and technological systems. The technological changes observed include a shift from the use of atlatl and dart to the bow and arrow; subsistence shifts that include a reduction in shellfish gathering in some areas (possibly due to silting of the coastal lagoons); and the storage of crops, such as acorns. New traits such as the production of pottery and cremation of the dead, were also introduced during the Late Prehistoric Period.
Movements of people during the last 2,000 years can account for at least some of these changes.
Yuman-speaking people had occupied the Gila/Colorado River drainages of what is now western Arizona by 2,000 years ago and then continued to migrate westward. An analysis by Moriarty of materials recovered from the Spindrift site in La Jolla indicated a preceramic Yuman phase. Based on this analysis and a limited number of radiocarbon samples, Moriarty concluded that Yuman speakers, lacking ceramic technology, penetrated and occupied what is now the San Diego coastline circa 2000 BP Subsequently, approximately 1200 to 1300 BP, ceramic technology diffused into the coastal area from the eastern deserts. Although these Yuman speakers may have shared cultural traits with the people occupying what is now eastern San Diego County before 2000 BP, their influence is better documented throughout present-day San Diego County after 1300 BP with the introduction of small points, ceramics, Obsidian Butte obsidian, and the practice of cremation of the dead.
Based on early research by Meighan and True, two distinct archaeological complexes have been proposed for the Late Prehistoric Period in what is now San Diego County. The Cuyamaca complex is based on analysis by True of archaeological excavations within Cuyamaca Rancho State Park and of San Diego Museum of Man (now Museum of Us) collections. Based on the results of this analysis, True defined a Late Prehistoric Period complex for southern San Diego County that was distinct from Meighan’s San Luis Rey complex in the northern county area. The presence or absence, or differences in the relative occurrence, of certain diagnostic artifacts in site assemblages, provide the principal distinctions between these archaeological complexes.
Cuyamaca complex sites, for example, generally contain both Cottonwood Triangular-style points and Desert Side-notched arrow points, while Desert Side-notched points are quite rare or absent in San Luis Rey complex sites. Other examples include Obsidian Butte obsidian, which is far more common in Cuyamaca complex sites than in San Luis Rey complex sites, and ceramics; while ceramics are present during the Late Prehistoric Period throughout what is now San Diego County, they are more common in the southern or Cuyamaca complex portions of San Diego County where they occur earlier in time and appear to be somewhat more specialized in form.
Both complexes have produced a variety of ceramic vessel types, along with straight and bowshaped ceramic pipes and effigies. Interment of the dead at Cuyamaca complex sites is almost exclusively by cremation, often in special burial urns for interment, while archaeological evidence from San Luis Rey complex sites indicates both inhumation and cremation. Based on ethnographic data, including the areas defined for the Hokan-based Yuman-speaking peoples
4.5 Cultural Resources
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.5-5
(Diegueño/Kumeyaay) and the Takic-speaking peoples (Luiseño) at the time of contact, it is generally accepted that the Cuyamaca complex is associated with the Diegueño/Kumeyaay people and the San Luis Rey complex with the Luiseño people.
The project area lies within the area currently defined for the Cuyamaca complex. A Cuyamaca complex artifact assemblage commonly contains Tizon Brown Ware pottery, various cobblebased tools (e.g., scrapers, choppers, and hammerstones), arrow shaft straighteners, pendants, manos and metates, and mortars and pestles. The arrow point assemblage often includes Desert Side-notched and Cottonwood Triangular points with the Dos Cabezas Serrated type also sometimes occurring.
Compared to Archaic Period sites, Late Prehistoric Period sites attributable to the Cuyamaca or San Luis Rey complexes are less common in the near-coastal areas of the County. Gallegos states that “for San Diego County, there is temporal patterning, as the earliest sites are situated in coastal valleys and around coastal lagoons. Late Prehistoric Period sites are also found in coastal settings but are more common along river valleys and interior locations.” In contrast, numerous Late Prehistoric Period sites, attributable to the San Luis Rey or Cuyamaca complexes have been identified for the near-coastal inland foothill areas of the County through diagnostic artifacts and/or radiocarbon dating, including some sites containing evidence for both Late Prehistoric Period and Archaic Period occupations.
4.5.1.2 Ethnohistory
The project area is located within the traditional territory of the Kumeyaay people, also known as Ipai, Tipai, or Diegueño (named for Mission San Diego de Alcalá). At the time of Spanish contact, Yuman-speaking Kumeyaay bands occupied southern San Diego and southwestern Imperial counties and northern Baja California. The Kumeyaay are a group of exogamous, patrilineal territorial bands that lived in semi-sedentary, politically autonomous villages or rancherias. Most rancherias were the seat of a clan, although it is thought that, aboriginally, some clans had more than one rancheria, and some rancherias contained more than one clan. Several sources indicate that large Kumeyaay villages or rancherias were located in river valleys and along the shoreline of coastal estuaries. They subsisted on a hunting and foraging economy, exploiting San Diego’s diverse ecology throughout the year; coastal bands exploited marine resources, while inland bands might move from the desert, ripe with agave and small game, to the acorn and pine-nutrich mountains in the fall.
At the time of Spanish colonization in the late 1700s, several major Kumeyaay villages were located in proximity to the study area. The closest of these settlements was the village of Micheagua, located along the San Diego River east of Mission Gorge and possibly within and immediately adjacent to the project area. Archaeological site CA-SDI-5669, located partially within the project area and extending to the east of the Town Center Specific Plan (TCSP) area, has been recently suggested as the possible location of this village. Other nearby villages include the village of Nipaguay, located along the north side of the San Diego River approximately eight miles southwest of the project area, at the second and final location of the Mission San Diego de Alcalá; the village of Cosoy, located approximately 13 miles to the southwest of the project area along the San Diego River near the location of the San Diego Presidio and the first location of the Mission San Diego de Alcalá; and the village of Jamo (Rinconada), located approximately 14 miles to the west of the study area, where the Rose Canyon drainage enters into Mission Bay.
These latter two village locations (Cosoy and Jamo) were documented as inhabited at the inception of Spanish colonization when they were visited by the Spanish during the initial Portolá expedition in 1769.
4.5 Cultural Resources
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.5-6
Some native speakers referred to river valleys as oon-ya, meaning trail or road, describing one of the main routes linking the interior of San Diego with the coast; the floodplain from the Mission San Diego de Alcalá to the ocean was hajir or qajir. Inland travel in prehistoric times along major drainages, such as the San Diego River and its tributaries, may reflect coastal Kumeyaay bands accessing inland resources such as outcrops of metavolcanic and quartz toolstone, and/or vegetal resources such as seeds from grassland and sage scrub habitats adjacent to the river and acorns from riparian and oak woodland habitats along the river as well as the bedrock outcrops needed to process these vegetal foodstuffs. It is also likely that the Kumeyaay people used the San Diego River valley and some of its larger tributaries as travel corridors from interior coastal plain areas to and from villages located along, and at the mouth of, the San Diego River, such as Nipaguay, Micheagua. Cosoy, and Jamo, as well as other villages along the coast to the north of the river and the study area, such as Ystagua and Onap.
4.5.1.3 Historical Background
Spanish Period
While Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo visited San Diego briefly in 1542, the beginning of the historic period in the San Diego area is generally given as 1769. In the mid-eighteenth century, Spain had escalated its involvement in California from exploration to colonization, and in that year, a Spanish expedition headed by Gaspar de Portolá and Junípero Serra established the Royal Presidio of San Diego. Portolá then traveled north from San Diego seeking suitable locations to establish military presidios and religious missions to extend the Spanish Empire into Alta California.
Initially, both a mission and a military presidio were located on Presidio Hill overlooking the San Diego River and the Kumeyaay village of Cosoy. A small pueblo, now known as Old Town San Diego, developed below the presidio. Five years later, Father Junipero Serra moved the Mission six miles upriver, near the Kumeyaay village of Nipaguay. The missions and presidios stood, literally and figuratively, as symbols of Spanish colonialism, importing new systems of labor, demographics, settlement, and economies to the area. Cattle ranching, animal husbandry, and agriculture were the main pursuits of the missions. Much of the inland San Diego area was used by the mission as grazing lands.
The Mission needed a dependable water source after droughts in 1801 and 1803—one was found six miles to the east of the Mission, in what is now the Mission Trails Regional Park. Using labor from the local Kumeyaay Indians, construction of the dam along the San Diego River began in 1809 and was completed by 1815. Following the secularization of the missions in 1833, the dam and flume were not maintained; flume tiles were taken to be used for homes of pioneers; and floods, particularly the flood of 1916, washed away most of the flume.
Mexican Period
Although Mexico gained its independence from Spain in 1821, Spanish patterns of culture and influence remained for a time. The missions continued to operate as they had in the past, and laws governing the distribution of land were also retained in the 1820s. Following the secularization of the missions in 1834, large ranchos were granted to prominent and wellconnected individuals, ushering in the Rancho Era, with the society making a transition from one dominated by the church and the military to a more civilian population, with people living on ranchos or in pueblos. With the numerous new ranchos in private hands, cattle ranching expanded and prevailed over agricultural activities.
4.5 Cultural Resources
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.5-7
These ranches put new pressures on California’s native populations, as grants were made for inland areas still occupied by the Kumeyaay, forcing them to acculturate or relocate farther into the backcountry. In rare instances, former mission neophytes were able to organize pueblos and attempt to live within the new confines of Mexican governance and culture. The most successful of these was the Pueblo of San Pasqual, located inland along the San Dieguito River Valley, founded by Kumeyaay who were no longer able to live at the Mission San Diego de Alcalá.
The project area is located within the El Cajon Rancho. In 1845, most of the neighboring El Cajon Valley was granted to Dona Maria Antonia Estudillo de Pedrorena by Governor Pio Pico at the insistence of Don Miguel Telesforo de Pedrorena. The rancho, which was renamed Rancho El Cajon, totaled roughly 48,800 acres and encompassed present day El Cajon, Bostonia, Santee, Lakeside, Flinn Springs, and the eastern part of La Mesa. The Pedrorenas used the area extensively for cattle grazing; the croplands and vineyards tended during the Spanish Period fell into neglect.
American Period
American governance began in 1848, when Mexico signed the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, ceding California to the United States at the conclusion of the Mexican–American War. A great influx of settlers to California and the San Diego region occurred during the American Period, resulting from several factors, including the discovery of gold in the state in 1848, the end of the Civil War, the availability of free land through the passage of the Homestead Act, and later, the importance of San Diego County as an agricultural area supported by roads, irrigation systems, and connecting railways. The increase in American and European populations quickly overwhelmed many of the Spanish and Mexican cultural traditions, and greatly increased the rate of population decline among Native American communities.
While the American system required that the newly acquired land be surveyed prior to settlement, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo bound the United States to honor the land claims of Mexican citizens who were granted ownership of ranchos by the Mexican government. The Land Act of 1851 established a board of commissioners to review land grant claims, and land patents for the land grants were issued throughout the following years. The confirmation of ranchos’ boundaries in the late 1860s and early 1870s drew additional settlers as land became officially conveyable.
Under the Homestead Act of 1862, settlers could claim up to 160 acres of public land for the cost of a filing fee of $10, on condition that the land was occupied for at least five years and that certain improvements were made. The increase of land claims significantly reduced the remaining lands which sustained the Native American populations, as settlers marked, surveyed, and fenced property, which in turn changed the landscape of what is now San Diego County. The increase of land claims pushed for Native American reservations to be established in what were lands of poor subsistence, making indigenous people increasingly reliant on the Euro-American economic system as an alternative to the reservations.
A claim for Rancho El Cajon was filed in 1852 by Thomas Sutherland, the guardian of Pedrorena’s heirs. This claim was confirmed by the United States Supreme Court in 1856, and the grant was patented in 1876. Nearly destitute, Don Miguel Jr. sold approximately 10,000 acres of the El Cajon rancho to Elder Jacob Knapp for roughly $9,000. Knapp then sold the land to Los Angeles land developer Isaac Lankershim, who would later purchase the rest of the rancho in 1868 for a total of $64,000.
4.5 Cultural Resources
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.5-8
Following the Civil War, a surge of settlers in search of new lands caused a population boom in California. Squatters and land-grabbers flooded the El Cajon Rancho. In response, Lankershim hired former Union Major Levi Chase as his agent and promptly launched a legal battle to evict the squatters. It was soon discovered that the U.S. Land Offices did not officially recognize the El Cajon Rancho. After seven years of litigation and close to $60,000 in legal fees, President U.S.
Grant signed the patents, confirming the ownership of the land to Isaac Lankershim. In return, Chase received close to 8,000 acres of land in the southern portion of the ranch, which he deemed Chase Ranch.
In San Diego County, the 1880s were characterized by “boom and bust” cycles that brought thousands of people to the area. By the end of the decade, many had left, although some remained to form the foundations of small communities based on dry farming, orchards, dairies, and livestock ranching. During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, rural areas of San Diego County developed small agricultural communities, consisting of individuals and families tied together through geographical boundaries, a common schoolhouse, and a church.
The small town of Stowe was established in the 1880s in Sycamore Canyon, west of the project area. Stowe flourished as a small ranching and farming community. The local post office was established in 1889, and a one-room schoolhouse was established at the junction of Beeler and Sycamore Canyons in 1890. Unfortunately, the town of Stowe was short lived; the post office closed in 1905 and the schoolhouse closed in 1906.
4.5.1.4 Project Vicinity
In 1877, George A. Cowles purchased approximately 4,000 acres of land for a vineyard in what would later be known as the Santee area. Originally known as Cowleston, Santee gained its name in 1891 when Cowles’s widow Jennie married Milton Santee, a local realtor and surveyor (City 2024a). Agriculture remained the area’s primary focus through the late 1800s, with dairies and barns dotting the landscape. One such dairy farm was the Edgemoor Farm. Edgemoor Farm, established in 1908, was later purchased by the County of San Diego to be used as a geriatric hospital (Santee Historical Society 2024). As time went on, the County added new buildings to the property while still maintaining the original barn, though the dairy and farm had fallen into disuse by the 1950s.
Northwest of Santee lies Fanita Ranch, which was established in 1885 when Hosmer P. McKoon purchased 9,543 acres of land. Portions of the ranch were sold off in the ensuing years, and in 1898, the Scripps family purchased 7,000 acres of the Fanita Ranch to be used for cattle ranching and as a country resort (City 2020a). Portions of the ranch were later sold to the federal government and became Camp Elliot, which contains portions of today’s Marine Corps Air Station Miramar.
By the 1950s and 1960s, most of San Diego County experienced an increase in residential, commercial, and infrastructure development. The Rio San Diego Municipal Water District was established in 1955 to import water from the San Diego County Water Authority. In 1956, the Santee County Water District was formed, due to the County Water District Laws of the State of California (Padre Dam Municipal Water District [PDMWD] 2024). Due to the increased population in the area, the Santee County Water District realized that it needed a place to dump partially treated wastewater; in 1959, district manager Ray Stoyer visited Sycamore Canyon and discovered a series of excavated mining beds. These mining beds, owned by Bill Mast, would later be donated to the Water District and turned into the Santee Lakes in exchange for water rights to a portion of the treated water. The Santee Lakes would open for fishing and boating in
4.5 Cultural Resources
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.5-9
1961 and for swimming in 1965 (PDMWD 2024). The Padre Dam Municipal Water District was created when the Rio San Diego Water District and the Santee County Water District merged in 1976 (PDMWD 2024).
4.5.1.5 Existing Resources
Cultural resources typically include prehistoric and historic archaeological sites, buildings, structures, features (including significant trees or other landscaping), places, or other objects of historical, archaeological, scientific, educational, cultural, architectural, aesthetic, or traditional significance to the citizens of Santee and the region. Prehistoric site examples would include habitation debris, temporary camps, lithic and ceramic scatters, quarries, and trails.
Historic archaeological sites typically consist of trash dumps/scatters but may also include structure remains. Historic structures may include houses, apartment buildings, commercial buildings, bridges, towers, and other standing structures. Although historic structures could potentially occur anywhere in the City, there is a greater potential for these resources to occur in the older neighborhoods of Santee. Generally, structures 50 years of age or older have the potential to be historic resources, based on National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) guidelines. Structures must have retained their original integrity and context to be considered a historic resource. Any project area that is presently developed has the potential, however, to contain a historical structure(s).
Undeveloped sites have the potential for the presence of unknown archaeological resources as the likelihood of encountering archaeological resources is greatest on sites that have been minimally excavated in the past (e.g., undeveloped parcels, vacant lots, and lots containing undeveloped areas). Previously excavated areas are generally considered to have a low potential for archaeological resources, since the soil containing the archaeological resources has been removed or previously disturbed; however, there is still a potential for buried archaeological resources as shown on Figure 4.5-1, Archaeological Sensitivity.
4.5.1.6 Records Search Results
HELIX requested a records search from the South Coastal Information Center (SCIC) at the San Diego State University on May 3, 2022 with an updated records search conducted on August 23, 2023 to include the updated project area and slightly expanded radius. The records search covered a quarter-mile radius around the TCSP area and included the identification of previously recorded cultural resources and locations and citations for previous cultural resources studies. A review of the California Historical Resources and the state Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) historic properties directories, and Local Register, was also conducted.
The records search results identified 39 previous cultural resource studies which overlap with the project area (HELIX 2024b; Appendix D). Of these 39 studies, seven identified resources within the search radius.
The SCIC has a record of 9 previously recorded cultural resources, which are located within or immediately adjacent to the overall project area. The resources that have been documented within or immediately adjacent to the overall project area are described below. Of the nine resources recorded within the project area, four are located within the Arts and Entertainment Neighborhood (AEN), including a historic refuse scatter (P-37-009245/CA-SDI-9245), two prehistoric lithic isolates (P-37-025303 and P-37-028466), and a prehistoric lithic and ground stone scatter (P-37- 030482/CA-SDI-19370). The resources are discussed in more detail below.
Archaeological Resource Sensitivity Map
Figure 4.5-1
I:\PROJECTS\M\MW_SteeleGroup_01427\00004_SanteeHAP\Map\EIR\Fig4.5-1_ArchaeologicalSensitivity.indd 01427.00004.001 02/29/2024 - RK Source: City of Santee General Plan 2020
Santee Town Center Specific Plan EIR
˘
ˇ ˇ
˘
ˇ ˇ
Proposed Santee Town Center Specific Plan
HELIX
Envlronmenta/Plannlng -----------------------------
4.5 Cultural Resources
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.5-11
4.5.1.7 Historic Resources
Table 4.5-1, Previously Recorded Historical Resources, summarizes previously recorded historical resources within one-quarter mile of the project area and within the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites. Sites and resources are described in more detail below.
Table 4.5-1
PREVIOUSLY RECORDED HISTORICAL RESOURCES
Primary Number
(P-37-##)
Trinomial
(CA-SDI-#) Age Description Recorder, Date
Search Radius
029009 -- Historic Historic single-family
residence dating to the
1950s
Hope, 2000
029011 -- Historic Historic single-family
residence dating to the
1930s
Hope, 2000
035505 -- Historic Rectangular Modern
Industrial warehouse
structure
Loftus, 2013
039090 22955 MulticomponentBedrock milling features
with historic features
associated with the Santee
School
Strother and Smolik,
2019
TCSP
*032655 20693 Historic Historic refuse scatter
generally dating to the
1930s
Robbins-Wade,
Linton, Van Wormer,
Giletti, Walter, and
Koehen, 2012
*032878 20778 MulticomponentGround stone, flaked stone tools, debitage, shell, two
features, historic refuse,
and probable human
remains, found in
subsurface context during
monitoring
Davison and Giletti,
2012; Robbins Wade,
2015
AEN
**009245 9245 Historic Historic refuse scatter Valois, 1982 Housing Element Sites
***020175 -- Historic Edgemoor Senior Center Unknown, 1985 ****N/A N/A Historic The Edgemoor Farm
Historic District (see
description below)
Stiegler and
Furlonger, 2008
* Within the TCSP
** Within the Arts and Entertainment Neighborhood
*** Within Site 20A
**** Within sites 20A and 20B; not included in the SCIC records search results
4.5 Cultural Resources
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.5-12
Search Radius
Four historic resources have been recorded outside of but within a quarter-mile radius of the TCSP.
• Site P-37-029009 (no trinomial) was recorded by Hope in 2000. It consists of a historic, single-story, T-shaped single-family residence constructed in 1951. It was noted as unaltered on its exterior, with the exception of new paint on its masonry walls. • Site P-37-029011 (no trinomial) was recorded by Hope in 2000 and consists of a historic single-family residence dating to the 1930s comprised of two parallel single-story buildings connected by an additional wing. The additional wing was likely added at a later date. • Site P-37-035505 (no trinomial) was recorded by Loftus in 2013 and consists of a rectangular historic Modern Industrial-style warehouse originally dating to the 1960s with multiple additions from subsequent decades. It appears to have been heavily modified over the years and does not retain historical integrity. • P-37-039090 (CA-SDI-22955) recorded by Strother et al. in 2019 and is a multi-component site comprised of prehistoric bedrock milling features, a sparse artifact scatter, and historic features associated with the Santee School (1891-2009). The prehistoric component of the site consists of 11 bedrock milling features, with numerous slick and basin elements, and a low-density artifact scatter including flaked stone, ground stone, faunal bone, shell, sherds of Tizon brownware, and fire-affected rock. The historic portion of the site is comprised of seven features related to the historic schoolground including concrete pads and foundations, a brick-and-mortar chimney, ceramic drainage pipes, and a rock-andmortar wall, as well as a scatter of historic and modern materials that were not temporally diagnostic. Subsurface testing indicated a high level of disturbance at the site with prehistoric, historic, and modern materials intermixed.
TCSP
Two historic resources have been identified within or immediately adjacent to the TCSP. • Site P-37-032655 (CA-SDI-20693) is a historic refuse scatter recorded by Robbins-Wade et al. in 2012. Located north of Las Colinas, it consists of glass and ceramics, along with butchered bone, dating to the 1930s. Ceramics were primarily comprised of hotel ware and Fiesta ware. It is likely associated with the Edgemoor Farm and the San Diego County Home for the Aged and Indigent.
• Site P-37-032878 (CA-SDI-20778) is a multi-component artifact scatter, originally recorded by Davison and Giletti in 2012, and updated by Robbins-Wade in 2015. All the cultural material was found in a subsurface context during construction monitoring.
Located in the Las Colinas project area, it is comprised of two prehistoric features, scattered manos, metates, lithic flakes, and shellfish remains, along with ceramics, glass fragments, and metal fragments, all recovered between the surface and up to five feet below the surface. Prehistoric artifacts consist of 21 manos, 40 mano fragments, a metate, fragments of two additional metates, five lithic cores, one utilized flake, one hammerstone, and 40 lithic flakes. Historic artifacts consisted primarily of commercial-grade ceramic ware, which show a temporal range between the late 1800s to the mid-1900s. The prehistoric component is likely associated with the habitation site (CA-SDI-5669 and CA-
4.5 Cultural Resources
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.5-13
SDI-19370), while the historic component is likely associated with the Edgemoor site and the Edgemoor Farm and San Diego County Home for the Aged and Indigent. During additional monitoring in 2015, three mano fragments were identified in the southern portion of the site, as well as fragments of human bones in two distinct locations in the northern portion of the site. The human remains were fragments of foot and wrist bones and were situated within disturbed fill soils that included modern debris intermixed with sediment.
AEN
One historic resource has been identified within or immediately adjacent to the AEN. • Site P-37-009245 (CA-SDI-9245) is located within the AEN. It is a historic refuse scatter that was recorded by Valois in 1982. Located in an open pasture east of Cuyamaca Street and north of Mission Gorge Road, it is described as a dense concentration measuring 30 meters by 30 meters, comprised of ceramics, metal fragments and objects, glass bottles, and butchered bones. It is likely a multi-event dump site from the 1930s and 1940s.
Site 16A and 16B
No historical resources were identified in Site 16A or Site 16B.
Site 20A and 20B – Edgemoor Farm
The only historic resource identified within or immediately adjacent to any of the Housing Element sites is located adjacent to Site 20A:
• Resource P-37-020175 is the historic Edgemoor Senior Center, also known as the Heartland Senior Day Health Center. Originally constructed as a dairy barn in 1914, the building underwent several modifications, including the addition of two wings and an extensive remodeling to transform it into a geriatric hospital. It was informally evaluated for NRHP eligibility in 1985 and found then to be ineligible due to a lack of integrity (Sorlie 1985).
The Edgemoor Farm property is also located adjacent to Site 20A in the southeastern corner of the AEN of the proposed project. This historic complex is eligible for listing on the NRHP at the state level under Criteria A, for being “associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States;” B, for being “associated with the lives of persons important to local, California or national history;” and C, for embodying “the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values” (Office of Historic Preservation n.d.). It has also been determined eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources and on the San Diego County Local Register of Historical Resources as a Historic District (Stiegler and Furlonger 2008).
Edgemoor Farm was originally owned by the millionaire-socialite Walter Hamlin Dupee from 1913 to 1921, who used it as a world-famous scientific dairy, tourist attraction, and polo pony farm.
Edgemoor’s association with Walter Dupree made it eligible for NRHP-listing under Criterion B.
The Edgemoor Dairy Farm Barn, commonly referred to as the Edgemoor Polo Barn, built in 1913, was the first part of the district to be listed on the NRHP in 1984 and is listed individually, not as a part of the historic district. In 1923, the property became the Edgemoor Farm and San Diego County Home for the Aged and Indigent, which was “one of the last and largest publicly-funded
4.5 Cultural Resources
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.5-14
indigent farm homes in the state and the nation” (Stiegler and Furlonger 2008: 1). For 80 years, it functioned as a nursing home for the poorest citizens of San Diego County and in this way made a significant contribution to the cultural heritage of California and the nation (NRHP Criterion A).
Six of the buildings from the Home for the Aged and Indigent were constructed in the TransitionalModern, Proto-International Style in the 1920s by the Quayle Brothers, Master Architects. This qualified the District for NRHP-listing under Criterion C.
Twenty-six of the structures within Edgemoor Farm and the San Diego County Home for the Aged and Indigent were demolished during the Edgemoor Facility Demolition Project (Dehoney 2008).
The Edgemoor Polo Barn is the only remaining structure within the Edgemoor Farm District, which was converted into the headquarters for the Santee Historical Society and a museum commemorating the history of Edgemoor Farm. The Edgemoor Polo Barn is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
4.5.1.8 Archaeological Resources
Table 4.5-2, Previously Recorded Archaeological Resources, summarizes previously recorded historical resources within one-quarter mile of the project area, within the TCSP, and within the AEN. Resources within the TCSP and AEN are described in more detail below.
Table 4.5-2
PREVIOUSLY RECORDED PREHISTORIC RESOURCES
Primary
Number
(P-37-##)
Trinomial
(CA-SDI-#) Age Description Recorder, Date
Search Radius
035815 21860 Prehistoric Artifact scatter with
ground stone, flaked
stone, and fire-affected
rock, found in
monitoring
Robbins-Wade, Falvey,
Kandybowicz, Villalobos,
Figueroa, Arrowsmith,
Curo, and Curo, 2015
039090 22955 MulticomponentBedrock milling features
with historic features
associated with the
Santee School
Strother and Smolik,
2019
TCSP
*005669 5669 Prehistoric Pre-contact village site
with habitation debris,
lithics, brown ware,
milling, and possible
human remains
Polan, 1978; Thesken,
1983; Duran, Campbell,
and Haas, 2015;
Campbell, Douglas,
Duncan, Menchaca,
Smolik, and Duran, 2017
*007603 7603 Prehistoric Pre-contact village site
with widely scattered
artifacts
Norwood, 1979; Hector,
1981
*032878 20778 MulticomponentGround stone, flaked
stone tools, debitage,
shell, two features,
historic refuse, and
probable human
remains, found in
subsurface context
during monitoring
Davison and Giletti, 2012;
Robbins Wade, 2015
4.5 Cultural Resources
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.5-15
Primary
Number
(P-37-##)
Trinomial
(CA-SDI-#) Age Description Recorder, Date
AEN
**025303 -- Prehistoric Isolated lithic tool Kyle, 2001 **028466 -- Prehistoric Three secondary
metavolcanic flakes
Price, 2004
**030482 19370 Prehistoric Light density lithic and
ground stone artifact
scatter encountered in a
subsurface context in
monitoring
Giletti, 2009
* Within the TCSP
** Within the Arts and Entertainment Neighborhood
Search Radius
Two prehistoric resources have been identified outside of but within a quarter-mile radius of the TCSP.
• Site P-37-035815 (CA-SDI-21860) is a prehistoric artifact scatter recorded during monitoring efforts by Robbins-Wade and Falvey in 2015. Artifacts consisted of ground stone, flaked stone, Tizon brownware, faunal bone, shell, and fire-affected rock found out of context in spoils piles from grading west of the project site. • P-37-039090 (CA-SDI-22955) is a multi-component site comprised of prehistoric bedrock milling features, a sparse artifact scatter, and historic features associated with the Santee School (1891-2009) recorded by Strother et al. in 2019. This resource is detailed in Section
4.5.1.7. TCSP
Three prehistoric resources have been identified within, or immediately adjacent to, the TCSP and outside of the AEN and Housing Element sites.
• Site P-37-005669 (CA-SDI-5669) is a large site recorded as consisting of three loci, one which is located within the TCSP, and two of which are just east of the project area. The site was originally recorded in 1978 (Polan) and has been described as a village. It has been the subject of several excavation projects, including extensive data recovery excavations, at various of the three recorded loci (Duran et al. 2015). Cultural material recovered included projectile points, flaked stone and ground stone tools, shell and stone beads, pottery, faunal material (animal bone and marine shell), and human remains (identified as “likely” or “possibly” human). Hearth features and a possible pit feature were identified at the site (Thesken 1983).
• Site P-37-007603 (CA-SDI-7603) is a prehistoric artifact scatter first recorded by Norwood in 1979. Located along the southern bank of the San Diego River, it was first described as a light density, widely disbursed artifact scatter of lithics, ground stone and thermally affected rocks in a 150-meter by 150-meter area. Hector described the site in 1981 as the widely scattered remains of a village, comprised of ground stone and lithics, with no distinct boundary. It had been heavily impacted by historic agriculture and development of the Santee area. It was noted by Hector to have been destroyed.
4.5 Cultural Resources
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.5-16
• Site P-37-032878 (CA-SDI-20778) is a multi-component artifact scatter, originally recorded by Davison and Giletti in 2012, and updated by Robbins-Wade in 2015. All the cultural material was found in a subsurface context during construction monitoring.
Located in Las Colinas project area, it is comprised of two prehistoric features, scattered manos, metates, lithic flakes, and shellfish remains, along with ceramics, glass fragments, and metal fragments, all recovered between the surface and up to five feet below the surface. Prehistoric artifacts consist of 21 manos, 40 mano fragments, a metate, fragments of two additional metates, five lithic cores, one utilized flake, one hammerstone, and 40 lithic flakes. Historic artifacts consisted primarily of commercial-grade ceramic ware, which show a temporal range between the late 1800s to the mid-1900s. The prehistoric component is likely associated with the habitation site (CA-SDI-5669 and CASDI-19370), while the historic component is likely associated with the Edgemoor site and the Edgemoor Farm and San Diego County Home for the Aged and Indigent. During additional monitoring in 2015, three mano fragments were identified in the southern portion of the site, as well as fragments of human bones in two distinct locations in the northern portion of the site. The human remains were fragments of foot and wrist bones and were situated within disturbed fill soils that included modern debris intermixed with sediment.
AEN
Three prehistoric resources have been identified within or immediately adjacent to the AEN and outside of the Housing Element sites.
• Cultural resource P-37-025303 consists of an isolated metavolcanic lithic tool located within the AEN. It was recorded by Kyle in 2001, located on a small knoll east of Cuyamaca Street and north of the San Diego River.
• Cultural resource P-37-028466 is a prehistoric lithic isolate located within the AEN. The isolate, recorded by Price in 2004, consists of three secondary metavolcanic flakes. One flake shows evidence of being retouched or modified, while the other two are unmodified secondary flakes.
• Site P-37-030482 (CA-SDI-19370) is a prehistoric artifact scatter recorded by Giletti in 2009. Located on an alluvial terrace on the south side of the San Diego River, south and west of the intersection of Magnolia Avenue and Chubb Lane, it is described as a light density lithic and ground stone artifact scatter over a large area. Components consist of metate fragments, manos, modified flake tools, metavolcanic flakes, and quartz debitage found at varying depths between two and 10 feet “in an obvious alluvial setting directly adjacent to the San Diego River”. The cultural material was all observed and recovered during construction monitoring.
Housing Element Sites
No archaeological sites or resources were identified within any of Housing Element sites 16A, 16B, 20A, or 20B.
4.5.1.9 Other Archival Research
Various additional archival sources were also consulted for the entire project area, including historic topographic maps and aerial imagery. These include aerials from 1953, 1964, 1966, 1968, 1971, 1980, 1985, 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, and 2010 (NETR Online 2022); and several historic
4.5 Cultural Resources
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.5-17
USGS topographic maps, including the 1893 El Cajon (1:62,500), 1903 Cuyamaca (1:125,000), the 1942 El Cajon (1:62,500) and the 1955, 1967, 1975, and 1996 El Cajon (1:24,000) topographic maps; and the 1928 and 1929 County Assessor Tax Factor aerial photographs. The purpose of this research was to identify historic structures and land use in the area.
No structures appear within the project area on the 1893 El Cajon (1:62,500) topographic map, though the San Diego River is recorded passing through the center of the area, and a single road is located to the south. Santee and the San Diego Cuyamaca and Eastern Railway are recorded to the southeast and east of the project area. The 1903 Cuyamaca (1:125,000) topographic map includes much the same information, though a trail and the community of Riverview are recorded to the east. Edgemoor Farm is recorded within the boundary of the project area on the El Cajon (1: 62,500) map – several structures are recorded in the eastern portion of the project site, and Mission Gorge Road is recorded along the southern boundary. Several structures are seen to the south and southeast of the project site, and Santee is recorded at the intersection of what appears to be Mission Gorge Road, Magnolia Avenue, and Woodside Avenue. The railroad seen on the previous maps is also recorded on this map, and Fanita Ranch is recorded to the west of the project site.
The expansion of the Santee south of the project site is visible on the 1955, 1967, and 1975 El Cajon (1:24,000) topographic maps. On the 1955 map, Edgemoor Farm, a windmill, two sand pits, a residential neighborhood, the San Diego River, and a few trails are visible within the project area. The Edgemoor Home for the Aged and Indigent, two sand pits, the Grossmont-Santee Adult School, a fire station, the San Diego River, and a water feature are all recorded within the 1967 topographic map. The 1975 map depicts the expansion of Santee to the north and the construction of the northern alignment of Cuyamaca Street through the project area. Finally, the 1996 El Cajon topographic map remains relatively unchanged, save for the presence of a transit line extending into the project site from the intersection of Mission Gorge Road and Cuyamaca Street and expanded residential and commercial development.
The earlyiest aerial photographs available are from the 1928 and 1929 County Assessor photograph series. These show Mission Gorge Road and Magnolia Avenue in their current alignments with a cluster of buildings at their intersection. Edgemoor Farm is shown including the Polo Barn and additional buildings associated with the Edgemoor Farm and San Diego County Home for the Aged and Indigent, as discussed in Section 4.5.1.7 above. The surrounding area attests to aerial photographs depict the agricultural nature of the region— several farm plots are visible within and around the project site. In the 1964 aerial photograph, several structures are seen within the southwest corner of the project area, and several structures associated with Edgemoor Farm are visible in the eastern portion of the project boundaries. The subsequent photographs show the urban development of the region, with neighborhoods appearing to the north and south of the project area. The project area remains relatively unchanged in the 1968 and 1971 aerial photographs. By the time the 1980 photograph was taken, the area now containing the Santee Town Center appears to have been cleared or graded. In fact, much of the area has been graded, likely for the further development of the area seen in the 1995 and 2000 aerial photographs. By the time, the 2005 and 2010 aerial photographs were taken, the current Santee Town Center and the modern alignment of State Route 52 had been completed.
4.5 Cultural Resources
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.5-18
4.5.2 Regulatory Framework
4.5.2.1 Federal
National Register of Historic Places
Federal regulations that would be applicable to the project if there is a federal nexus (e.g., permitting or funding from a federal agency) include the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and its implementing regulations (16 United States Code 470 et seq., 36 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 800). Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings on “historic properties”, that is, properties (either historic or archaeological) that are eligible for the NRHP. To be eligible for the NRHP, a historic property must be significant at the local, state, or national level under one or more of the following four criteria:
A. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history;
B. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; and/or
D. Has yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history
4.5.2.2 State
California Register of Historic Resources
Similar to the NRHP, the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) program established in 1992, encourages public recognition and protection of resources of architectural, historical, archaeological, and cultural significance; identifies resources for planning purposes; determines eligibility of state historic grant funding; and provides certain protections under CEQA. State criteria are those listed in CEQA and used to determine whether an historic resource qualifies for the CRHR.
A resource may be listed in the CRHR if it is significant at the federal, state, or local level under one or more of the four criteria listed below.
1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history and cultural heritage of California or the U.S.
2. Is associated with the lives of persons important to the nation or to California’s past.
3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values.
4.5 Cultural Resources
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.5-19
4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history of the state or nation.
CEQA Sections 15064.5 and 21083.2(g) define the criteria for determining the significance of historical resources. Archaeological resources are considered “historical resources” for the purposes of CEQA.
Since resources not listed or determined eligible for the state or local registers may still be historically significant, their significance shall be determined if they are affected by a project. The significance of a historical resource under criterion 4 rests on its ability to address important research questions.
4.5.2.3 Local
Santee General Plan
Section 65302 (d) of the California Planning and Zoning Laws requires the City’s General Plan to contain a Conservation Element to address the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources, including cultural resources. The City defines cultural resources as environmental components that are fragile and non-renewable evidence of human activity as reflected in districts, sites, structures, artifacts, works of art, and natural features that were of importance in human events. As contained within the Santee City limits, these primarily consist of archaeological sites, features, and structures ranging from early prehistoric to recent historic age.
To ensure their consideration and preservation where appropriate, the City has developed policies to address cultural resources within the City limits:
Community Enhancement Element
Objective 12.0: Recognize historic structures for their ability to strengthen place identity. • Policy 12.1: The City should ensure that future development respects and enhances the Edgemoor “Polo Barn” setting.
Conservation Element
Objective 8.0: Preserve significant cultural resources. • Policy 8.1 The City shall require either the preservation of significant historic or prehistoric sites, or the professional retrieval of artifacts prior to the development of a site, consistent with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. Preservation may include various measures including avoidance, preservation in place, incorporation into open space, or covering or capping. The type of preservation would depend upon the nature and significance of the archaeological resource and the practical requirements of the proposed land use.
• Policy 8.2 The City should require curation of any recovered artifacts as a condition of any cultural resources mitigation program.
4.5 Cultural Resources
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.5-20
4.5.3 Significance Determination Thresholds
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, impacts related to cultural resources would be significant if the project would:
1) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5.
2) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5.
3) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
4.5.4 Methodology
HELIX was contracted to conduct a cultural resources study for the project, including a records search of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), a Sacred Lands File search, Native American outreach, a review of historic aerial photographs and maps, and a cultural resources sensitivity analysis. The following analysis is based on information discussed in the cultural resources report (Appendix D).
4.5.5 Issue 1: Historic Resources
Would the project result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5?
4.5.5.1 Impact Analysis
TCSP Area
As shown in Table 4.5-1, the TCSP area contains previously recorded historic resources. While the TCSP does not specifically propose alteration of a known historic resource, it can be assumed that future development within the TCSP area could have the potential to impact resources directly or indirectly through such activities. The TCSP area has the potential to contain buildings or structures that may be 50 years of age or older at the time of future development and, therefore, may need to be evaluated for historical significance. Direct impacts to historical resources could potentially result from the physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of potential historic resources within the project areas. Policies 8.1 in the Conservation Element and 12.1 in the Community Enhancement Element of the City’s General Plan (City 2003a; City 2003b) are aimed at the protection of historic buildings. As future projects are proposed, they must adhere to these policies and regulations through application of requirements for development review.
However, because site-specific details of specific projects are not known at this program-level of analysis including project footprints, project designs, and timelines for development, impacts to historic resources within the TCSP would be considered significant. The implementation of the mitigation measures CUL-1, CUL-2, CUL-3, and CUL-4 will reduce these impacts to a level less than significant.
AEN
As shown in Table 4.5-1, the AEN contains previously recorded historic resources. While the AEN does not specifically propose alteration of a known historic resource, it can be assumed that future
4.5 Cultural Resources
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.5-21
development within the AEN could have the potential to impact resources directly or indirectly through such activities. The AEN has the potential to contain buildings or structures that may be 50 years of age or older at the time of future development and, therefore, may need to be evaluated for historical significance. Direct impacts to historical resources could potentially result from the physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of potential historic resources within the project areas. Policies 8.1 in the Conservation Element and 12.1 in the Community Enhancement Element of the City’s General Plan (City 2003a; City 2003b) are aimed at the protection of historic buildings. As future projects are proposed, they must adhere to these policies and regulations through application of requirements for development review. However, because site-specific details of specific projects are not known at this program-level of analysis including project footprints, project designs, and timelines for development, impacts to historic resources within the AEN would be considered significant. The implementation of mitigation measures CUL1, CUL-2, CUL-3, and CUL-4 will reduce these impacts to a level less than significant.
Housing Element Sites
Site 16A
Although no specific historical resources have been identified in Site 16A, the presence of historical resources throughout the TCSP area suggests that there is a potential for encountering previously unidentified resources. Based on this, future development of Site 16A has the potential to cause substantial adverse changes to historical resources, which is a significant impact. The implementation of mitigation measures CUL-1, CUL-2, CUL-3, and CUL-4 will reduce these impacts to a level less than significant.
Site 16B
Although no specific historical resources have been identified in Site 16B, the presence of historical resources throughout the TCSP area suggests that there is a potential for encountering previously unidentified resources. Based on this, future development of Site 16B has the potential to cause substantial adverse changes to historical resources, which is a significant impact. The implementation of mitigation measures CUL-1, CUL-2, CUL-3, and CUL-4 will reduce impacts to a level less than significant.
Site 20A
Site 20A is located adjacent to the Edgemoor Polo Barn, a documented historic resource. The presence of additional historical resources throughout the TCSP area suggests that there is a potential for encountering previously unidentified resources. Future development of Site 20A has the potential to cause substantial adverse changes to historical resources, which is a significant impact. As described in the “Historic Site Adjacency” Objective Design Standards in Chapter 2, Land Use, of the TCSP, development proposals must respect and enhance the Edgemoor Polo Barn historic site and demonstrate how they would adhere to the Secretary of Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Specific standards include:
• Pedestrian connectivity between proposed uses and Polo Barn historic site. • Landscaping that enhances the Polo Barn historic site. • Building design that incorporates transitions in bulk and scale on areas adjacent to the Polo Barn historic site.
4.5 Cultural Resources
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.5-22
• Development proposals within Site 20A shall demonstrate how they would adhere to the Secretary of Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and standards and guidelines prescribed by the State Office of Historic Preservation.
The implementation of mitigation measures CUL-1, CUL-2, CUL-3, CUL-4, and CUL-5 will reduce these impacts to a level less than significant.
Site 20B
Although no specific historical resources have been identified in Site 20B, the presence of historical resources throughout the TCSP area and Site 20B’s proximity to the Edgemoor Polo Barn to the north suggests that there is a potential for encountering previously unidentified resources. Based on this, future development of Site 20B has the potential to cause substantial adverse changes to historical resources, which is a significant impact. The implementation of mitigation measures CUL-1, CUL-2, CUL-3, and CUL-4 will reduce impacts to a level less than significant
4.5.5.2 Mitigation Measures
Mitigation is proposed for the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites. The following mitigation measures would be required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
TCSP, AEN, and Housing Element Sites
MM-CUL-1 Prior to approval of an individual project (including the four Housing Element sites) under the TCSP area or AEN, a cultural resources survey shall be conducted for that project. If cultural resources are identified in conjunction with the cultural resources survey, they must be evaluated to assess their eligibility for the CRHR and, thus, whether the project would have an effect on historic properties (cultural resources) per CEQA. If significant effects to historic properties/cultural resources are identified, appropriate avoidance or mitigation measures must be developed as part of the cultural resources study and implemented prior to project development.
MM-CUL-2 Prior to issuance of grading permits for any projects (including the Housing Element sites) within the TCSP area or AEN: The applicant/developer shall provide evidence to the City of Santee that a qualified professional archaeologist has been contracted to implement a Cultural Resources Management Plan (CRMP), the City must agree to the selected archaeologist and agree to the implementation prescribed in the CRMP. A CRMP shall be developed in coordination with the consulting tribe(s) that addresses the details of all activities and provides procedures that must be followed to reduce the impacts to cultural and historic resources to a level that is less than significant, as well as address potential impacts to undiscovered buried archaeological resources associated with this project.
For each construction project within the TCSP, AEN, or Housing Element sites, the CRMP shall contain, at a minimum, the following:
Archaeological Monitoring. An adequate number of qualified archaeological monitors shall be on site to ensure all earth-moving activities are observed in areas
4.5 Cultural Resources
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.5-23
being monitored. This includes all grubbing, grading, and trenching on-site and for all off-site improvements. Inspections will vary based on the rate of excavation, the materials excavated, and the presence and abundance of artifacts and features.
The frequency and location of inspections will be determined and directed by the Project Archaeologist.
Cultural Resources Sensitivity Training. The Project Archaeologist and a representative designated by the consulting Tribe(s) shall attend the pre-grading meeting with the contractors to provide Cultural Resources Sensitivity Training for all construction personnel. Training will include a brief review of the cultural sensitivity of the project and the surrounding area; the areas to be avoided during grading activities; what resources could potentially be identified during earthmoving activities; the requirements of the monitoring program; the protocols that apply in the event unanticipated cultural resources are identified, including who to contact and appropriate avoidance measures until the find(s) can be properly evaluated; and any other appropriate protocols. This is a mandatory training, and all construction personnel must attend prior to beginning work on the project site.
Unanticipated Resources: If previously unidentified potentially significant cultural resources are discovered, the Archaeological and/or Tribal Monitor(s) shall have the authority to divert or temporarily halt ground disturbance operations in the area of discovery to allow evaluation of potentially significant cultural resources. The Project Archaeologist, in consultation with the Tribal monitor, shall determine the significance of the discovered prehistoric archaeological resources. The Project Archaeologist shall determine the significance of discovered historic-period archaeological resources. Further, before construction activities are allowed to resume in the affected area, the artifacts shall be recovered and features recorded using professional archaeological methods. The Project Archaeologist shall determine the amount of material to be recovered for an adequate artifact sample for analysis. Isolates and clearly non-significant deposits shall be minimally documented in the field, and the monitored grading can proceed.
Artifact Disposition: The landowner(s) shall relinquish ownership of all cultural resources that are unearthed on the project property during any ground-disturbing activities, including previous investigations and/or Phase III data recovery.
Recovered cultural artifacts shall be curated with accompanying catalog to current professional repository standards or be returned to the appropriate Native American Tribe(s), as agreed upon by the Principal Investigator, Native American representative(s), and City staff.
MM-CUL-3 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the developer/permit applicant shall enter into an agreement(s) with the consulting tribe(s) for a Kumeyaay Native American Monitor(s).
In conjunction with the Archaeological monitor(s), the Kumeyaay Native American Monitor(s) shall attend the pre-grading meeting with the contractors to provide Cultural Resources Sensitivity Training for all construction personnel. In addition, an adequate number of Kumeyaay Native American Monitor(s) shall be on-site during all initial ground-disturbing activities and excavation of each portion of the project site, including clearing, grubbing, tree removals, grading, and trenching. In conjunction with the archaeological monitor(s), the Kumeyaay Native American
4.5 Cultural Resources
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.5-24
Monitor(s) shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect, or halt the ground disturbance activities to allow identification, evaluation, and potential recovery of cultural resources.
MM-CUL-4 In the event that potential human remains are encountered, ground-disturbing activities within 100 feet of the discovery will be halted, and the requirements of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 will be implemented. The archaeological monitor will immediately notify the Project Archaeologist, who will notify the County Medical Examiner’s (ME’s) Office. A representative of the ME’s Office will determine whether the human remains appear to be Native American in origin. If so, the ME’s Office will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) who will designate the Most Likely Descendant (MLD). The MLD will make recommendations for the appropriate treatment of the remains and any associated grave goods. The County ME’s office will make the determination of the origin of the remains within two working days and will notify the NAHC within 24 hours of their decision if the human remains are determined to be Native American. In the event human remains or burial items are discovered, all parties will refrain from publicly disclosing the reburial location unless otherwise required by law.
Housing Element Site 20A
MM-CUL-5 Avoidance is the preferred measure to mitigate adverse effects to the Edgemoor Polo Barn. Future plans must design around the Polo Barn consistent with the TCSP “Historic Site Adjacency” Objective Design Standard. If avoidance is not possible, the preferred alternative is to preserve the Polo Barn by moving it to another location in accordance with mitigation measures previously published by Bull and Price, as referenced in the Cultural Resources Report (HELIX 2024b; Appendix D).
4.5.5.3 Significance After Mitigation
TCSP, AEN, and Housing Element Sites
Significant impacts to historical resources would be reduced to a less than significant level in the TCSP, AEN, and Housing Element sites 16A, 16B, and 20B through the application of mitigation measures CUL-1 through CUL-4 and CUL-1 through CUL-5 for Housing Element Site 20A only.
4.5.6 Issues 2: Archaeological Resources
Would the project result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
4.5.6.1 Impact Analysis
TCSP Area
As shown in Table 4.5-2, the TCSP area contains previously recorded archaeological resources (P-37-005669, P-37-007603, and P-37-032878). Future proposed projects within the TCSP area have the potential to cause substantial adverse changes to archaeological resources, including previously unidentified resources. The implementation of mitigation measures CUL-1, CUL-2, CUL-3, and CUL-4 will reduce these impacts to a less than significant level.
4.5 Cultural Resources
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.5-25
AEN
As shown in Table 4.5-2, the AEN contains previously recorded archaeological resources (P-37- 025303, P-37-028466, and P-37-030482). Future proposed projects within the AEN have the potential to cause substantial adverse changes to archaeological resources, including previously unidentified resources. The implementation of mitigation measures CUL-1, CUL-2, CUL-3, and CUL-4 will reduce these impacts to a less than significant level.
Housing Element Sites
Although no archaeological resources have been identified within Housing Elements 16A, 16B, 20A, and 20B, the presence of archaeological resources throughout the TCSP area suggests that there is a potential for encountering previously unidentified resources. Based on this, future proposed projects within Housing Element sites 16A, 16B, 20A, and 20B have the potential to cause substantial adverse changes to archaeological resources. The implementation of mitigation measures CUL-1, CUL-2, CUL-3, and CUL-4 will reduce these impacts to a less than significant level.
4.5.6.2 Mitigation Measures
TCSP, AEN, and Housing Element Sites
Mitigation is proposed for the TCSP, AEN, and Housing Element sites. Mitigation measures CUL1, CUL-2, CUL-3, and CUL-4, as described in Section 4.5.5.2 above, would be required to reduce archaeological resource impacts to a less than significant level.
4.5.6.3 Significance After Mitigation
TCSP, AEN, and Housing Element Sites
Significant impacts to archaeological resources within the TCSP, AEN, and Housing Element sites would be mitigated to a less than significant level through the application of mitigation measures CUL-1 through CUL-4.
4.5.7 Issue 3: Human Remains
Would the project result in the disturbance of any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
4.5.7.1 Impact Analysis
TCSP Area
Two previously recorded resources within the TCSP area include the discovery of probable or identifiable human remains. While the proposed project does not specifically propose the disturbance of known human remains, it can be assumed that future development within the TCSP area could have the potential to impact resources directly or indirectly through such activities. Records searches have demonstrated the possible presence of human remains in the project area and potential direct and/or indirect impacts to human remains would be significant.
Mitigation measure CUL-4 would be required to reduce impacts to human remains to a less than significant level within the TCSP area.
4.5 Cultural Resources
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.5-26
AEN
The AEN is located entirely within the TCSP area, and it can therefore be assumed that future development within the AEN could have the potential to impact human remains directly or indirectly through such activities. Mitigation measure CUL-4 would be required to reduce impacts to human remains to a less than significant level within the AEN.
Housing Element Sites
Housing sites 16A, 16B, 20A, and 20B are located entirely within the TCSP, and it can therefore be assumed that future development within the Housing Element sites could have the potential to impact human remains directly or indirectly through such activities. Mitigation measure CUL-4 would be required to reduce impacts to human remains to a less than significant level within the Housing Element sites.
4.5.7.2 Mitigation Measures
TCSP, AEN, and Housing Element Sites
Mitigation is proposed for implementation of the TCSP area, AEN, and Housing Element sites.
Future development of the proposed project would require implementation of mitigation measure CUL-4, as described in Section 4.5.5.2 above.
4.5.7.3 Significance After Mitigation
TCSP, AEN, and Housing Element Sites
Significant impacts to human remains within the TCSP, AEN, and Housing Element sites would be mitigated to a less than significant level through the application of mitigation measure CUL-4.
4.6 Energy
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.6-1
4.6 Energy
The following section analyzes the potential environmental impacts that may occur as a result of implementation of the proposed project. Energy modeling data are contained in Appendix G of this Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
4.6.1 Existing Conditions
4.6.1.1 Environmental Setting
Electricity
Electricity usage for different land use categories varies depending on the type of electricity uses in a building, the types of construction materials used in constructing the building, and the efficiency of the electricity-consuming devices used within the building. Electricity usage per capita in California has remained stable for more than thirty years because of the state’s energy efficiency building standards and efficiency and conservation programs, even as the national average electricity usage per capita has steadily increased (California Energy Commission [CEC] 2014).
California’s electricity system has been undergoing a considerable shift from non-renewable to renewable sources in recent years. The energy resource mix has substantially changed in the past decade as new renewable energy sources have come online, and the CEC anticipates that out-of-state coal energy sources will be eliminated from the mix entirely by 2025 (CEC 2020).
SDG&E serves approximately 3.7 million customers in a 4,100-square-mile service area that includes San Diego and southern Orange Counties (SDG&E 2024). SDG&E currently provides electricity to the Town Center Specific Plan (TCSP) area and would continue upon project implementation. According to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), SDG&E customers consumed approximately 19,169 million kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity in 2015 (CPUC 2016). By 2030, SDG&E anticipates that it will achieve its goal of 60 percent of energy from renewable sources, all of which will be from long-term contracts (SDG&E 2022).
In 2022, total utility-scale electricity generation in the state of California was 287,220 gigawatthours (GWh), which was an increase of approximately 3.4 percent from 2021 (CEC 2022). CEC forecasts of future electricity demand anticipate that consumption will grow by between 0.99 and
1.59 percent per year from 2017 to 2030, with peak demand forecasts growing by 0.30 to
1.52 percent annually from 2017 to 2030 (CEC 2018). In San Diego County, the CEC reported an annual electrical consumption of approximately 19 billion kWh total with 6.6 billion kWh for residential use and 12.4 billion kWh for non-residential use in 2019 (CEC 2020).
Natural Gas
Natural gas utility rates and services are regulated by the CPUC. In 2018, California gas utilities forecasted that they would deliver approximately 4,740 million cubic feet per day of gas to their customers, on average, under normal weather conditions. The majority of natural gas utility customers in California are residential and small commercial customers, although these customers consume only approximately 35 percent of natural gas used in the state. SDG&E provides natural gas services to San Diego County and the TCSP area and would continue to provide natural gas to the project site upon implementation of the project. SDG&E is a wholesale customer of Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) and currently receives all its natural
4.6 Energy
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.6-2
gas supply from the SoCalGas System. SDG&E provides service to over 800,000 customers (CPUC 2023).
The majority of natural gas used in California is sourced from out-of-state natural gas basins. The state does not receive liquefied natural gas supplies. Biogas, including gas from wastewater treatment plants and dairy farms, has recently begun to be used, and the State has been encouraging its development and expansion. Natural gas from out-of-state production basins is delivered to California via the interstate natural gas pipeline system. This gas is then delivered via SoCalGas and Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E)’s statewide network to local transmission and distribution pipelines, or local storage fields (CPUC 2023).
Statewide natural gas demand is expected to decrease at an annual average rate of 1.0 percent through 2035. The decline in throughput demand is due to modest economic growth, CPUCmandated energy efficiency standards and programs, and Senate Bill (SB) 350 goals. Other factors that contribute to the downward trend are tighter standards created by revised Title 24 Codes and Standards, renewable electricity goals, a decline in core commercial and industrial demand, and conservation savings linked to Advanced Metering Infrastructure (California Gas and Electric Utilities 2020).
Transportation Fuel
Automobiles and trucks consume gasoline and diesel fuel, which are non-renewable energy products derived from petroleum. As of the end of 2023, California had approximately 35.7 million registered vehicles which consumed approximately 13.6 billion gallons of gasoline during the year (California Department of Motor Vehicles [DMV] 2024, California Department of Tax and Fee Administration 2024). Gasoline and other vehicle fuels are commercially provided commodities that would be available to the proposed project through commercial outlets.
The 2021 Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR) provides the CEC’s assessment of energy issues facing the state of California. The IEPR includes a transportation energy and demand forecast that considers vehicles and associated fuels, consumer preferences, regulatory impacts, economic and demographic factors, and projected improvements in technology. The most recent forecast estimated that between 2021 and 2035, gasoline fuel demand for transportation in California will decline primarily due to increases in electrification and the use of zero emission vehicles. Petroleum-based fuels will continue to represent the largest shares of transportation energy demand. Under the high-demand case for light duty vehicles, gasoline consumption will drop from approximately 13.8 billion gross gasoline equivalents (GGE) in 2020 to approximately 11 billion GGE in 2035. Electricity consumption for transportation would increase from less than one billion GGE in 2020 to approximately four billion GGE, which includes raw energy used by the plug in-vehicles (PEV), but also the gasoline energy avoided by using more PEVs. Diesel energy forecast is less than one GGE in 2020 and will remain roughly the same in 2035 (CEC 2021).
4.6.2 Regulatory Framework
4.6.2.1 Federal
At the federal level, the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) are three agencies with significant influence over energy policies and programs. Generally, federal agencies influence and regulate transportation energy consumption through the establishment and enforcement of
4.6 Energy
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.6-3
fuel economy standards for automobiles and light trucks, through funding of energy-related research and development projects, and through funding for transportation infrastructure improvements. Major relevant federal energy-related laws and plans are discussed below.
Federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act
First enacted in 1975, the Federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) established fuel economy standards for on-road motor vehicles in the United States. The National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration (NHTSA), which is part of USDOT, is responsible for establishing additional vehicle standards and revising the existing standards under EPCA. Current standards require a combined passenger car and light duty truck average fuel economy of 49 miles per gallon by 2026 (NHTSA 2022). Heavy duty vehicles (i.e., vehicles and trucks over 8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight) are not currently subject to fuel economy standards. Fuel economy is determined based on each manufacturer’s average fuel economy for their fleet of vehicles available for sale in the United States. Based on information gathered under the program, USDOT is authorized to assess penalties for noncompliance. Over its nearly 40-year history, this regulatory program has resulted in vastly improved fuel economy throughout the United States’ vehicle fleet.
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
The federal Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007 set increased fuel economy standards for motor vehicles as well as a renewable fuel standard, building energy efficiency standards, and appliance and lighting efficiency standards. The lighting efficiency standards required increasing levels of energy efficiency, ultimately requiring light bulbs by 2020 to consume 60 percent less energy and effectively phasing out the incandescent lightbulb.
Under the EISA, the USEPA is responsible for developing and implementing regulations to ensure that transportation fuel sold in the United States contains a minimum volume of renewable fuel.
Under the EISA, the renewable fuels program was expanded to include diesel fuel in addition to gasoline. The EISA also required the USEPA to apply lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) performance threshold standards to ensure that each category of renewable fuel emits fewer GHGs than the petroleum fuel it replaces. Additional provisions of the EISA address energy savings in government and public institutions, research for alternative energy, additional research in carbon capture, international energy programs, and the creation of “green” jobs.
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) promoted the development of inter-modal transportation systems to maximize mobility, as well as to address national and local interests in air quality and energy. The ISTEA contained factors that metropolitan planning organizations were required to address in developing transportation plans and programs, including some energy-related factors. To meet the new ISTEA requirements, metropolitan planning organizations adopted explicit policies defining the social, economic, energy, and environmental values that were to guide transportation decisions in that metropolitan area. The planning process for specific projects would then address these policies. Another requirement was to consider the consistency of transportation planning with federal, state, and local energy goals. Through this requirement, energy consumption was expected to become a decision criterion, along with cost and other values that determine the best transportation solution (USDOT 2020).
4.6 Energy
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.6-4
The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) builds upon the initiatives established in the ISTEA legislation discussed previously. TEA-21 authorizes highway, highway safety, transit, and other efficient surface transportation programs. TEA-21 continues the program structure established for highways and transit under ISTEA, such as flexibility in the use of funds, emphasis on measures to improve the environment, and focus on a strong planning process as the foundation of good transportation decisions. TEA-21 also provides for investment in research and its application to maximize the performance of the transportation system through, for example, deployment of Intelligent Transportation Systems, to help improve operations and management of transportation systems and vehicle safety (USDOT 2020)
4.6.2.2 State
At the state level, the CEC, CPUC, and California Air Resources Board (CARB) all regulate different aspects of energy. The CPUC regulates privately-owned utilities in the energy, rail, telecommunications, and water sectors. The CEC collects and analyzes energy-related data, prepares statewide energy policy recommendations and plans, promotes and funds energy efficiency programs, and adopts and enforces appliance and building energy efficiency standards.
California is exempt under federal law from setting state fuel economy standards for new on-road motor vehicles. CARB has responsibility for mobile source emissions in the state.
This section focuses primarily on policies, regulations, and laws in the state of California that directly pertain to the regulation of energy resources. Refer to Section 4.8 for a discussion of policies, regulations, and laws that target the reduction of GHG emissions and are expected to achieve co-benefits in the form of reduced demand for energy-related resources and enhanced efficiencies related to energy consumption.
State of California Energy Action Plan
The CEC and CPUC approved the first State of California Energy Action Plan in 2003. The plan established shared goals and specific actions to ensure that adequate, reliable, and reasonably priced electrical power and natural gas supplies are provided, and identified policies, strategies, and actions that are cost-effective and environmentally sound for California's consumers and taxpayers. In 2005, a second Energy Action Plan was adopted by the CEC and CPUC to reflect various policy changes and actions of the prior two years. In 2008, the CEC and CPUC determined that it was not necessary or productive to prepare a new energy action plan. This determination was based in part on a finding that the state’s energy policies have been significantly influenced by the passage of Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (discussed below). Rather than produce a new energy action plan, the CEC and CPUC prepared an “update” that examines the state’s ongoing actions in the context of global climate change.
Renewable Portfolios Standard Program
Established in 2002 under SB 1078, accelerated in 2006 under SB 107, in 2011 under SBX1-2, in 2015 under SB 350, and again in 2018 under SB 100, California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) required retail sellers of electric services to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 33 percent of total retail sales by 2020. Initially, the RPS provisions applied to investor-owned utilities, community choice aggregators, and electric service providers.
SBX1-2 added, for the first time, publicly owned utilities to the entities subject to RPS.
4.6 Energy
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Draft EIR
4.6-5
SB 350, signed in 2015, increased the RPS from 33 percent in 2020 to 50 percent by 2030. This will increase the use of RPS eligible resources, including solar, wind, biomass, and geothermal.
In addition, large utilities are required to develop and submit Integrated Resource Plans to detail how each entity will meet their customers resource needs, reduce GHG emissions, and increase the use of clean energy.
SB 100, subsequently signed in 2018, increased the standards set forth in SB 350 establishing that 44 percent of the total electricity sold to retail customers in California per year by December 31, 2024, 52 percent by December 31, 2027, and 60 percent by December 31, 2030, be secured from qualifying renewable energy sources. SB 100 states that it is the policy of the state that eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources supply 100 percent of the retail sales of electricity to California. This bill requires that the achievement of 100 percent zero-carbon electricity resources do not increase the carbon emissions elsewhere in the western grid and that the goal not be realized through resource shuffling.
SB 1020 (September 2022) revises the standards from SB 100, requiring the following percentage of retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers come from eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources:
• 90 percent by December 31, 2035;
• 95 percent by December 31, 2040; and
• 100 percent by December 31, 2045.
AB 32 (2006) and SB 32 (2016)
The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, widely known as AB 32, requires that CARB develop and enforce regulations for the reporting and verification of statewide GHG emissions.
CARB is directed by AB 32 to set a GHG emission limit, based on 1990 levels, to be achieved by 2020.
SB 32 (Amendments to the California Global Warming Solutions Action of 2006) extends California’s GHG reduction programs beyond 2020. SB 32 amended the H&SC to include Section 38566, which contains language to authorize CARB to achieve a statewide GHG emission reduction of at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by no later than December 31, 2030. SB 32 codified the targets established by Executive Order (EO) B-30-15 for 2030, which set the next interim step in the State’s continuing efforts to pursue the long-term target expressed in EO S-3-05 of 80 percent below 1990 emissions levels by 2050. Additional details of AB 32 and SB 32 are provided in Section 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions.