853194745A — Santee City Council, February 26, 2025 (part 2 of 3)

Moderate. This species has
been documented in 1997
within mule fat scrub along the
San Diego River to the west the
intersection of Cottonwood
Avenue and Chubb Lane
(SanBIOS 2023).

Appendix D: Special-Status Animal Species Potential to Occur for the Santee Town Center Specific Plan Amendment D-13
Scientific Name Common Name Status Habitat Associations Potential to Occur Falco mexicanus Prairie Falcon BCC/WL In California, the species is an uncommon permanent resident and migrant that
ranges from southeastern deserts
northwest along the inner coastal
mountains and Sierra Nevada but is absent
from northern coastal fog belt. Primary
habitats include grasslands, savannahs,
alpine meadows, some agricultural fields
during the winter season, and desert scrub
areas where suitable cliffs or bluffs are
present for nest sites. Requires sheltered
cliff ledges for cover and nesting which may
range in height from low rock outcrops of
thirty feet to cliffs up to and higher than
400 feet.

Low. The project area does not
contain suitable nesting habitat
for the species. The project area
remnant sage scrub patches in
disturbed undeveloped areas
that would provide limited
foraging habitat for the species.

Polioptila californica
californica
Coastal California
Gnatcatcher
FT/SSC Year-round resident of California occurring
from Ventura County south to San Diego
County, and east within the western
portions of San Bernardino and Riverside
Counties. Typically occurs in arid, open sage
scrub habitats on gently sloping hillsides to
relatively flat areas at elevations below
3,000 feet. The composition of sage scrub
in which gnatcatchers are found varies;
however, California sagebrush is at least
present as dominant or co-dominant
species. Mostly absent from areas
dominated by black sage, white sage, or
lemonadeberry, though may occur more
regularly in inland regions dominated by
black sage.

High. This species has been
documented in multiple
locations in sage scrub habitat
along the San Diego River as
recently as 2016 (USFWS 2023).

Though the species has high
potential to occur in the project
area, suitable habitat present is
limited to small remnant
patches of coastal sage scrub
within disturbed undeveloped
land and do not connect to
larger blocks of coastal sage
scrub off site. The species may
utilize these areas onsite for
foraging opportunities but
would most likely breed off site
in more extensive, higher quality
habitat.

Appendix D: Special-Status Animal Species Potential to Occur for the Santee Town Center Specific Plan Amendment D-14
Scientific Name Common Name Status Habitat Associations Potential to Occur Vireo bellii pusillus Least Bell’s Vireo FE/SE In California, breeds along the coast and western edge of the Mojave Desert from
Santa Barbara County south to San Diego
County, and east to Inyo, San Bernardino,
and Riverside Counties. Breeding habitat
consists of early to mid-successional
riparian habitat, often where flowing water
is present, but also found in dry
watercourses within the desert. A
structurally diverse canopy and dense shrub
cover is required for nesting and foraging.

Dominant species within breeding habitat
includes cottonwood and willows with mule
fat, oaks, and sycamore, and mesquite
(Prosopis glandulosa) and arrowweed
(Pluchea sericea) within desert habitats.

The species can be tolerant of the presence
of non-native species such as tamarisk.

High. Suitable habitat for this
species occurs along the San
Diego River and along an
unnamed drainage that is
tributary to the San Diego River.

This species has been
documented in multiple
locations along the San Diego
River where is runs through the
project site, as recently as 2008
(USFWS 2023).

Mammals
Antrozous pallidus pallid bat --/SSC Locally common species found at low elevations in California. Associated with
arid and open habitats including grasslands,
shrublands, woodlands, and forests, often
with open water nearby. Prefers rocky
outcrops, cliffs, and crevices with access to
open habitats for foraging. Day roosts in
caves, crevices, mines, and occasionally
hollow trees and buildings. Appears to be
intolerant of most human disturbances,
being mostly absent from urban and
suburban areas.

Low. The species was
documented on the southeast
portion of the project area in
1951, the area has since been
developed (SanBIOS 2022). The
site lacks suitable roosting
habitat, though the species may
utilize the site for foraging
opportunities. The species
would likely utilize preserved
and open space areas found to
the north and west of the
project area that provide higher
quality foraging and roosting
habitat.

Appendix D: Special-Status Animal Species Potential to Occur for the Santee Town Center Specific Plan Amendment D-15
Scientific Name Common Name Status Habitat Associations Potential to Occur Lasiurus xanthinus Western yellow bat --/SSC Occurs in wooded areas and desert scrub.

Roosts in foliage, particularly in thorny
vegetation palms and other desert riparian
habitats. Rare visitor to San Diego County.

Low. The site lacks suitable
roosting habitat, though the
species may utilize the site for
foraging opportunities. The
species would likely utilize
preserved and open space areas
found to the north and west of
the project area that provide
higher quality foraging and
roosting habitat.

Lepus californicus bennettii San Diego black-tailed
jackrabbit
--/SSC Occurs along the coastal regions of
southern California south to northern Baja
California. Found in arid regions preferring
grasslands, agricultural fields, and sparse
scrub. Typically absent from areas with
high-grass or dense brush, such as closedcanopy chaparral, primarily occupying short-grass and open scrub habitats.

Moderate. Though remnant
patches of coastal sage scrub
occur within disturbed
undeveloped areas, these areas
are small in size lacking
preferred shrub cover inhabited
by the species. The species has
been documented in
undeveloped lands in the
northern portion of the City of
Santee as recently as 1998
(CNDDB 2023) and would likely
utilize preserved and open
space areas found to the north
and west of the project area
that provide higher quality
foraging and nesting habitat.

Neotoma bryanti [formerly
lepida] intermedia
San Diego Bryant's
(formerly desert) woodrat
--/SSC Occurs along the coastal regions of
California being found as far north as San
Luis Obispo County, south to San Diego
County, and in the western portions of San
Bernardino and Riverside Counties. Inhabits
a variety of shrub and desert habitats such
as coastal sagebrush scrub, chaparral,
pinyon-juniper woodland, and Joshua tree
woodland among others. Often associated
with rock outcroppings, boulders, cacti
Low. Though remnant patches
of coastal sage scrub occur
within disturbed undeveloped
areas, these areas are small in
size lacking preferred shrub
cover and rocky areas inhabited
by the species. The species has
been documented in
undeveloped lands in the
northern portion of the City of
Appendix D: Special-Status Animal Species Potential to Occur for the Santee Town Center Specific Plan Amendment D-16
Scientific Name Common Name Status Habitat Associations Potential to Occur patches, and areas with dense
understories. Construct dens used for
shelter, food storage, and nesting around
rock outcroppings and cacti using various
materials such as twigs, sticks, and other
debris.

Santee as recently as 1998
(CNDDB 2023) and would likely
utilize preserved and open
space areas found to the north
and west of the project area
that provide higher quality
foraging and nesting habitat.

Nyctinomops femorosaccus Pocketed free-tailed bat --/SSC Rare in California occurring from Los Angeles County eastwards to San
Bernardino County, and southwards to San
Diego County. Closely associated with their
preferred roosting habitats consisting of
vertical cliffs, quarries, and rocky outcrops.

Sometimes roosts under tiled roofs and
observed utilizing bat boxes. Habitat
generalists foraging in grasslands,
shrublands, riparian areas, oak woodlands,
forests, meadows, and ponds favoring
larger water bodies for drinking.

Low. The species was
documented adjacent to the
project area in 1980, the area
has since been developed
(SanBIOS 2022). The site lacks
suitable roosting habitat, though
the species may utilize the site
for foraging opportunities. The
species would likely utilize
preserved and open space areas
found to the north and west of
the project area that provide
higher quality foraging and
roosting habitat.

Nyctinomops macrotis Big free-tailed bat --/SSC Rare in California with species found in urban areas of San Diego County. Closely
associated with their preferred roosting
habitats consisting of vertical cliffs,
quarries, and rocky outcrops. Also roosts in
buildings and occasionally holes in trees.

Associated with coastal and desert scrub,
forests, riparian zones, and montane
woodlands. Probably does not breed in
California.

Appendix D: Special-Status Animal Species Potential to Occur for the Santee Town Center Specific Plan Amendment D-17
Scientific Name Common Name Status Habitat Associations Potential to Occur Onychomys torridus
ramona
Southern grasshopper
mouse
--/SSC Ranges from the San Joaquin Valley of Los
Angeles County south to northwest Baja
California. Typically found in open valleys
on the coastal side of the mountains but
may extend a short distance onto the
eastern desert slopes. Within San Diego
County, has only been found on the eastern
desert slopes within Dameron Valley, San
Felipe Valley, and Scissors Crossing. Prefers
open habitats with soft terrain and friable
soils within grasslands, coastal sage scrub,
alluvial fans, and desert scrub.

None. The project site is located
outside of the known
distribution of the species.

Taxidea taxus American badger --/SSC Uncommon, permanent resident found through California, except for the extreme
north coast areas. Associated with large
blocks of undeveloped land composed of
open valleys, alluvial fans, meadows,
grasslands, and sandy desert. Dens function
as sites for resting and parturition. Friable,
easily crumbled soils are important for
denning.

Low. Though the project area is
within the historical range of the
species and potentially suitable
habitat is present in the project
area, the suitable habitat onsite
has been significantly degraded
due to adjacent surrounding
development. There are no
recent records of the species
within the project vicinity. 1 Listing codes are as follows: FE = Federally Endangered; FT = Federally Threatened; FC= Federal Candidate species; BCC = Birds of Conservation Concern; SE = State of California Endangered; FP = State of California Fully Protected; WL = State of California Wait-Listed; SSC = State of California Species of Special Concern.

Not Likely to Occur - There are no present or historical records of the species occurring on or in the immediate vicinity, (within 3 miles) of the Project Site and the diagnostic habitats strongly associated with the species do not occur on or in the immediate vicinity of the Site.

Low Potential to Occur - There is a historical record of the species in the vicinity of the Project Site and potentially suitable habitat on Site, but existing conditions, such as density of cover, prevalence of non-native species, evidence of disturbance, limited habitat area, isolation, substantially reduce the possibility that the species may occur. The Site is above or below the recognized elevation limits for this species.

Moderate Potential to Occur - The diagnostic habitats associated with the species occur on or in the immediate vicinity of the Project Site, but there is not a recorded occurrence of the species within the immediate vicinity (within 3 miles). Some species that contain extremely limited distributions may be considered moderate, even if there is a recorded occurrence in the immediate vicinity.

High Potential to Occur - There is both suitable habitat associated with the species and a historical record of the species on or in the immediate vicinity of the Project Site (within 3 miles).

Species Present - The species was observed on the Project Site at the time of the survey or during a previous biological survey Appendix E
Explanation of Status Codes for Plant
and Animal Species
Appendix E: Explanation of Status Codes for Plant and Animal Species for the Santee Town Center Specific Plan Amendment E-1

FEDERAL AND STATE CODES
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
BCC Bird of Conservation Concern
FE Federally listed endangered
FT Federally listed threatened
USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC)
The primary legal authority for Birds of Conservation Concern (2008) is the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980 (FWCA), as amended. Other authorities include the Endangered Species Act, Fish and Wildlife Act (1956) and 16 USC §701. A FWCA 1988 amendment (Public Law 100-653, Title VIII) requires the Secretary of the Interior through the USFWS to “identify species, subspecies, and populations of all migratory non-game birds that, without additional conservation actions, are likely to become candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.” The 2008 BCC report is the most recent effort by the USFWS to carry out this proactive conservation mandate.

The BCC report aims to identify accurately the migratory and non-migratory bird species (beyond those already designated as federally threatened or endangered) that represent the USFWS’ highest conservation priorities and draw attention to species in need of conservation action. The USFWS hopes that by focusing attention on these highest priority species, the report will promote greater study and protection of the habitats and ecological communities upon which these species depend, thereby ensuring the future of healthy avian populations and communities. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008 lists are available online at https://ecos.fws.gov/ServCat/DownloadFile/134745.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)
SCE State candidate for listing as endangered
SCT State candidate for listing as threatened
SE State listed endangered
SR State listed rare
ST State listed threatened
SSC State species of special concern
WL Watch List
FP Fully Protected species refers to all vertebrate and invertebrate taxa of concern to the Natural Diversity Data Base regardless of legal or protection status. These species may not be taken or possessed without a permit from the Fish and Game Commission and/or CDFW.

Special Animal Refers to all vertebrate and invertebrate taxa of concern to the Natural Diversity Database regardless of legal or protection status.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
For plants with no current federal or state legal standing, “CEQA” refers to the fact that under the Act, impacts to species may be found significant under certain circumstances (e.g., the species are regionally sensitive and/or are protected by a local policy, ordinance, or habitat conservation plan; or the impact involves interference with certain movements or migrations, with wildlife corridors or with nursery sites).

Appendix E: Explanation of Status Codes for Plant and Animal Species for the Santee Town Center Specific Plan Amendment E-2

OTHER CODES AND ABBREVIATIONS
California Native Plant Society California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) Codes Lists List/Threat Code Extensions
1A = Presumed extirpated in California and
either rare or extinct elsewhere. Eligible
for state listing.
1B = Rare, threatened, or endangered in
California and elsewhere. Eligible for
state listing.
2A = Presumed extirpated in California but
common elsewhere. Eligible for state
listing.
2B = Rare, threatened, or endangered in
California but more common
elsewhere. Eligible for state listing.
3 = Review List: Plants about which more
information is needed. Some eligible for
state listing.
4 = Watch List: Plants of limited
distribution. Needs monitoring for
changes in population status. Few (if
any) eligible for state listing.
.1 = Seriously threatened in California (over 80
percent of occurrences threatened/high degree
and immediacy of threat)
.2 = Moderately threatened in California (20-80%
occurrences threatened / moderate degree and
immediacy of threat)
.3 = Not very threatened in California (less than 20%
of occurrences threatened / low degree and
immediacy of threat or no current threats
known)
A “CA Endemic” entry corresponds to those taxa that
only occur in California.

All List 1A (presumed extinct in California) and some
List 3 (need more information; a review list) plants
lacking threat information receive no extension.

Threat Code guidelines represent only a starting point
in threat level assessment. Other factors, such as
habitat vulnerability and specificity, distribution, and condition of occurrences, are considered in setting
the Threat Code.

Appendix D
Cultural Resources Sensitivity Analysis
This page intentionally left blank
Santee Town Center Specific
Plan Update
Cultural Resources Sensitivity Analysis
February 2024 | 01427.00004.001
Submitted to:

City of Santee
10601 Magnolia Avenue
Santee, CA 92071
Prepared for:

M.W. Steele Group
1805 Newton Avenue, Suite A
San Diego, CA 92113
Prepared by:

HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
7578 El Cajon Boulevard
La Mesa, CA 91942
Mary Robbins-Wade
Cultural Resources Group Manager
This page intentionally left blank
National Archaeological Database Information
Authors: Mary Robbins-Wade, M.A., RPA, Theodore G. Cooley, M.A., RPA, James Turner, M.A., RPA, Trevor Gittelhough, M.A., RPA, Nicole Falvey, B.A.

Firm: HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.

Client/Project: M. W. Steele Group, Inc. / Santee Art and Entertainment Overlay Project
Report Date: February 2024
Report Title: Cultural Resources Sensitivity Analysis for the Santee Town Center Specific Plan Housing Acceleration Program Project, Santee, California Submitted to: City of Santee
Type of Study: Cultural Resources Analysis
New Sites: None
Updated Sites: None – no fieldwork
USGS Quad: El Cajon 7.5' Quadrangle
Acreage: Approximately 651.42
Key Words: San Diego County; Santee; El Cajon Land Grant; Edgemoor Farm; P-37- 005669 (CA-SDI-5669); P-37-007603 (CA-SDI-7603); P-37-009245 (CASDI-9245); P-37-020175; P-37-025303; P-19-028466; P-19-030482 (CASDI-19370); P-37-032655 (CA-SDI-20693); P-37-032878 (CA-SDI-20778); Township 15 South, Range 1 West
This page intentionally left blank
i
TABLE of CONTENTS
Section Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................. ES-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Project Location .................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Project Description ............................................................................................................. 1

1.2.1 Town Center Specific Plan ..................................................................................... 1

1.2.2 Arts & Entertainment Neighborhood .................................................................... 2

1.2.3 Four Strategic Housing Element Sites (2021-2029 Sixth Cycle)............................. 3

1.3 Regulatory Framework ....................................................................................................... 4

1.3.1 Federal ................................................................................................................... 4

1.3.2 State....................................................................................................................... 4

1.3.3 Integrity.................................................................................................................. 5

1.3.4 City of Santee Policy .............................................................................................. 5

1.3.5 Native American Heritage Values.......................................................................... 6

1.4 Project Personnel................................................................................................................ 6

2.0 PROJECT SETTING............................................................................................................................. 7

2.1 Natural Setting.................................................................................................................... 7

2.2 Cultural Setting ................................................................................................................... 8

2.2.1 Prehistoric Period .................................................................................................. 8

2.2.2 Ethnohistory......................................................................................................... 12

2.2.3 Historical Background.......................................................................................... 13

2.2.4 Project Vicinity..................................................................................................... 16

3.0 ARCHIVAL RESEARCH AND CONTACT PROGRAM .......................................................................... 16

3.1 Cultural Resources Surveys for the HE Properties............................................................ 16

3.2 Records Search.................................................................................................................. 17

3.2.1 Previous Surveys.................................................................................................. 17

3.2.2 Previously Recorded Resources........................................................................... 17

3.3 Other Archival Research ................................................................................................... 21

3.3.1 Edgemoor Farm ................................................................................................... 22

3.4 Native American Contact Program................................................................................... 22

4.0 CULTURAL RESOURCES SENSITIVITY .............................................................................................. 24

4.1 Arts and Entertainment Neighborhood............................................................................ 24

4.2 Housing Element SITES ..................................................................................................... 24

5.0 SUMMARY AND MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................ 24

5.1 Management Recommendations..................................................................................... 25

5.1.1 Santee Town Center Specific Plan Mitigation Measures..................................... 25

5.1.2 Arts and Entertainment Neighborhood Mitigation Measures ............................ 27 ii
TABLE of CONTENTS (cont.)
Section Page

5.1.3 Housing Element 16A Mitigation Measures........................................................ 28

5.1.4 Housing Element 16B Mitigation Measures........................................................ 30

5.1.5 Housing Element 20A Mitigation Measures........................................................ 31

5.1.6 Housing Element 20B Mitigation Measures........................................................ 33

6.0 REFERENCES................................................................................................................................... 35 LIST of APPENDICES
A Resumes
B Records Search Maps (Confidential, Bound Separately)
C Table of Previous Reports within One Quarter Mile
D Native American Correspondence (Confidential, Bound Separately) iii
TABLE of CONTENTS (cont.)

LIST OF TABLES
No. Title Page
1 Housing Element Sites Zoning.......................................................................................................... 3 2 Previously Recorded Resources Within One-Quarter Mile of the Project Area............................18 3 Native American Contact Program Responses..............................................................................23 iv
This page intentionally left blank
v

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AB Assembly Bill
AEN Arts and Entertainment Neighborhood
ALUCP Airport Safety Zone 4 as designated in the Gillespie Field Land Use Compatibility Plan
AMSL above mean sea level
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
BP Before Present
CCR California Code of Regulations
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CHRIS California Historical Resources Information System CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
DPR Department of Parks and Recreation
HAP Housing Acceleration Program
HE Housing Elements
HELIX HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.

NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
OHP Office of Historic Preservation
PRC Public Resources Code
SANDAG San Diego Association of Governments
SCIC South Coastal Information Center
SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer
TCSP Town Center Specific Plan
TCP Traditional Cultural Properties
TCR Tribal Cultural Resources
THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
vi
This page intentionally left blank
Cultural Resources Sensitivity Analysis for the Santee Town Center Specific Plan Project PRELIMINARY DRAFT| February 2024
ES-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Santee (City) Town Center Specific Plan (TCSP) Amendment Project (project) proposes updates to the existing TCSP and to the Santee Arts and Entertainment Neighborhood (AEN). It also proposes conceptual planning and objective design standards for four large strategic Housing Elements (HE) within the TCSP area. The HE sites include Properties 16A, 16B, 20A, and 20B as delineated in the Sixth Cycle Housing Element EIR. The overall TCSP is approximately 651.42 acres, of which 341.72 acres are within the AEN, 11.04 acres are within HE Property 16A, 8.65 acres are within HE Property 16B, 7.76 acres are within Property 20A, and 9.92 acres are within Property 20B. The entire TCSP is located in the City of Santee, bordered by North Magnolia Avenue to the east, Mast Boulevard to the north, and Mission Gorge Road to the south. The western border of the TCSP runs through the San Diego River approximately 0.43-mile west of Cuyamaca Street and 0.27-mile east of Carlton Hills Boulevard.

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 records search identified 14 previously recorded cultural resources within a onequarter mile radius of the project area, including nine resources within the TCSP. One additional resource was identified within the HE during in-house research, resulting in a total of 10 resources within the TCSP and 15 within a one-quarter mile radius. Of these 15, two are significant prehistoric and ethnographic Kumeyaay village sites and one is the Edgemoor Farm Historic District.

A Sacred Lands File search returned positive results for tribal cultural resources within the project vicinity. HELIX conducted outreach in June 2022 to the tribal representatives listed and again with updated project information in October 2023. A total of five tribes responded to these outreach invitations. The San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians, the Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians, and the Campo Band of Mission 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 River valley is a known use area and has the potential for intact buried cultural deposits.

A review of historic aerial photographs and maps and additional in-house research provided insight into the TCSP project area. The Edgemoor Farm Historic District is located within HE Properties 20A and 20B.

Twenty-six of the 27 buildings within the district were demolished in 2008 for a different project. The remaining building, a National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) -listed historic Polo Barn, remains on site today and is proposed to remain under the proposed TCSP and HE developments.

The entire TCSP project area is within an alluvial setting prime for buried cultural resources. Fifteen cultural resources, including two prehistoric villages and one historic district, are located within one quarter-mile of the project area. The area is of tribal interest, as indicated by the two requests for government-to-government consultation received during Native American outreach. Thus, the TCSP, including the AEN and the four HEs, is culturally sensitive. Archaeological and Native American monitoring is recommended for any ground-disturbing construction projects proposed within the TCSP.

Cultural Resources Sensitivity Analysis for the Santee Town Center Specific Plan Project PRELIMINARY DRAFT| February 2024
ES-2
This page intentionally left blank
Cultural Resources Sensitivity Analysis for the Santee Town Center Specific Plan Project PRELIMINARY DRAFT| February 2024
1 1.0 INTRODUCTION
M.W. Steele Group, Inc. contracted HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX) to provide cultural resources services for the Santee Town Center Specific Plan (TCSP) and Housing Acceleration Program (HAP) Project (project) in the City of Santee (City), San Diego County, California. The project proposes to update the City of Santee General Plan, modify the Arts and Entertainment Neighborhood (AEN), and provide objective design standards and contextual designs for four strategic Housing Element (HE) sites within the TCSP. HELIX conducted a cultural resources study to address the TCSP at a programmatic level, as well as project-specific analysis of the four proposed HE project sites. The cultural resources study included a records and literature search, Sacred Lands File search, Native American outreach, a review of historic aerial photographs and maps, and a cultural resources sensitivity analysis. This report details the methods and results of the cultural resources study and addresses the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended.

1.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The project area is located in the City of Santee, in the eastern portion of the County of San Diego, north of State Route (SR) 52 and west of SR 67 (Figure 1, Regional Location). The project area is situated within an unsectioned portion of Township 15 South, Range 1 West on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5- minute El Cajon quadrangle topographic map (Figure 2, USGS Topography). The proposed project area is situated within over 1,000 Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs), within the TCSP Area in the central portion of the City, bounded by Mission Gorge Road to the south, Mast Boulevard to the north, and Magnolia Avenue to the east (Figure 3, Aerial Photograph). Cuyamaca Street runs north-south through the western portion of the project area, forming segments of the western project boundary, and the San Diego River runs through the central northern portion of the project area (Figure 3). The topography of the project area is bisected by the San Diego River, which originates within the Santa Ysabel Open Space Preserve East and flows west and southwest and ultimately reaches the Pacific Ocean.

The overall project area consists of 651.42 acres, which includes the proposed AEN (341.72 acres) and four HE Properties: Lot 16A is 11.04 acres, Lot 16B is 8.65 acres, Lot 20A is 7.76 acres, and Lot 20B is 9.92 acres.

1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project consists of a comprehensive update to the TCSP to modify or establish new land use designations, land uses, development standards, and conceptual guidelines that would apply to future development within the TCSP area. As part of this effort, the City of Santee would also make modifications to the AEN and provide objective design standards and conceptual designs for strategic HE sites within the TCSP. A more detailed description of each of the proposed project components is described below.

1.2.1 Town Center Specific Plan
Amendments to the TCSP would incorporate relevant updates to the plan’s vision, land use permissions, and development standards. As part of the updates, new text and graphics would be developed and organized into a series of chapters, such as: Introduction, Land Use and Urban Form, Mobility and Cultural Resources Sensitivity Analysis for the Santee Town Center Specific Plan Project PRELIMINARY DRAFT| February 2024
2 Beautification, Infrastructure and Public Facilities, Implementation, and Administration. Text and concepts that remain relevant to the vision and goals of the TCSP would be maintained and incorporated into the updated TCSP document format and structure.

The amended TCSP would incorporate updated allowable and permitted land uses and development standards tailored to the project area. The updated TCSP would include graphics that illustrate the planned land use concepts and the plan’s vision at key sites. As part of the TCSP, the circulation network exhibits of the plan would be updated, including the bicycle, pedestrian, and transit network maps, and street cross sections. The TCSP would include concepts for key improvements in the public right-of-way to enhance circulation within the project area. The TCSP would incorporate concepts to illustrate wayfinding and branding signage at important locations within the public right-of-way and public trails, such as signs tailored for pedestrian, bicyclists and transit users, signs designed to direct vehicular traffic and refer to parking areas, as well as iconic gateway structures that enhance the identity and sense of place in the project area.

The TCSP would also outline fundamental elements for the administration of the plan, such as the process for future specific plan amendments, and the development review, permit, and approval process for projects within the TCSP area. Additionally, the TCSP would address the relationship between the TCSP document and other planning documents, as well as consistency with the General Plan. The TCSP would also include a section describing how to use the document and guide reviewers and applicants through the path for review and approval of proposals within the TCSP area.

Finally, the TCSP amendment would also incorporate an adjustment to the Specific Plan boundaries to include additional sites such as the shopping center located at the northwest corner of Mission Gorge Road and Cuyamaca Road, and the shopping center located west of Cuyamaca Road, between Mission Creek Drive and River Park Drive. As a result of the boundary adjustment, the TCSP area would expand from 609.70 to 651.42 acres1, increasing by 41.72 acres.

1.2.2 Arts & Entertainment Neighborhood
The TCSP would include an amendment to the AEN. As discussed above, the City adopted the AEN in 2019, with the intent of encouraging the development of an Arts & Entertainment Neighborhood within a significant portion of the TCSP. The update would incorporate the vision, guidelines, and development standards specific to the AEN as a subsection of the Land Use and Urban Form chapter of the TCSP. This section of the TCSP would also incorporate tailored land use designations that support uses related to art and culture, entertainment, commercial recreation, visitor, and civic uses.

The update to the vision and development standards for the AEN would aim to enhance connections to the San Diego River, strengthen the sense of place by creating an attraction for residents and visitors to gather, and public space concepts that would incorporate streetscape concepts with features such as landscaping, water elements, shade, lighting, and wayfinding. The concepts would also aim to create a central destination within the TCSP area, with a strong emphasis on connecting Arts & Entertainment to the natural environment.
1 The original Town Center Specific Plan published in 1986 cited the TCSP area as 706 acres, however amendments to the plan have reduced the Specific Plan total acreage. Additionally, the original acreage was based on an estimate; due to improved geographic information software over time, the number of reported acres in the TCSP has changed as the accuracy of the data has increased.

E---3 E---3
HELIX.

Environmental Planning
! !
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
! ! ! !
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
! !
! !
!!
!
!
! !
! !
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! ! ! !
! !
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
! !
! !
!
! !
!
! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! ! !
! !
! !
!
!
! !
! ! ! !
! !
! !
! ! ! !
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
! !
!
! !
! !
! ! !
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! ! ! !
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
! !
! ! ! !
! !
! !
!
!
! ! !
!
! !
! ! ! !
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
!
! ! !
!
! !
!
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
!
! !
!
!
! !
! ! !
!
! !
!
! !
! !
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
! !
! ! ! !
! !
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
!
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
!
! ! ! !
! !
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
!
!
! !
! !
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
! !
!
! !
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
! !
!
!
! !
! !
!
! ! !
! !
! !
!
!
! !
!
! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! !
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
! !
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! !
! !
!
!
! !
! !
! !
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
! !
!!
! !
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
! !
!
!
! !
! !
! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! !
! !
WÊ
!"^$
!"^$
!"^$
!"^$
WÌ
WÌ
!"_$
!"_$
!"a$
!"a$
!"a$
?n
?p
?p
?t
?¦
?¦
?³
?¸
?¸
?¸
?¹
?¹
?Ë
?Ë
Aä
Aä
Ag
%&s(
%&s(
%&u(
POWAY

OCEANSIDE

CARLSBAD
VISTA

ESCONDIDO
OTAY

CHULA VISTA
SANTEE
SAN
MARCOS

ENCINITAS

EL CAJON

LA MESA

CORONADO NATIONAL
CITY

IMPERIAL
BEACH
LEMON
GROVE
SOLANA
BEACH

DEL MAR
SAN
DIEGO

CAMP PENDLETON
Lake
San Marcos
Lake
Hodges
Lake Wohlford
Lake Ramona
Lake Poway
Miramar Reservoir
San Vicente
Reservoir
Lake
Murray
Sweetwater
Reservoir
Lake
Jennings
Otay
Reservoir
Pacific
Ocean
San Diego Bay
Santee
Lakes
Sutherland
Reservoir
Lake Henshaw
El Capitan Reservoir
Loveland Reservoir
Vail Lake
O'Neill Lake
Barrett Lake

TIJUANA

UNITED STATES
MEXICO

DULZURA
JULIAN
RAMONA
WARNER

SPRINGS

RIVERSIDE
COUNTY
ORANGE
COUNTY

SAN DIEGO
COUNTY
!
Project Site
ALPINE
LA
JOLLA
?¹

FALLBROOK
Figure 1
Regional Location
I:\PROJECTS\M\MW_SteeleGroup_01427\00004_SanteeHAP\Map\Cultural\CulturalRpt.aprx Fig1_Regional : 01427.4.1 : 8/8/2023 - RK Source: Base Map Layers (SanGIS, 2016) K
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Amendment
0 8 Miles
C::, Proposed Santee Town Center SP (651.42 ac)
<::) Proposed Art & Entertainment Boundary (337.90 ac)
(Z Property16A (11.04 ac)
CS: Property16B (8.65 ac)
G Property 20A (7.76 ac)
Property 208 (9.92 ac)
O 2,000 Feet
E---3 E---3 I
HELIX USGS Topography Environmental Planning
Figure 2
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Amendment . .•
C> Proposed Santee Town Center SP (651.42 ac)
C:, Proposed Art & Entertainment Boundary
CZZ) Property16A
Property16B
Property 20A
Property 208
1 Source: Aerial (SanGIS, 2023) 1,500 Feet
:::E---3==:::::===:::::E---3==:::::===i 'f
HELIX Aerial Photograph Environmental Planning
Figure 3
0 Cultural Resources Sensitivity Analysis for the Santee Town Center Specific Plan Project PRELIMINARY DRAFT| February 2024
3 Additionally, the update would incorporate an adjustment to the AEN boundaries to include additional sites such as the open space designated areas along the San Diego River, areas north of the San Diego River, south of Riverwalk Drive, west of River Park Drive, east of Cuyamaca Street, and west of Magnolia Avenue. As a result of the boundary adjustments, the AEN area would expand from 172.492 to 341.72 acres, increasing by a total of 169.23 acres.

1.2.3 Four Strategic Housing Element Sites (2021-2029 Sixth Cycle) The City Council adopted the Housing Element (2021-2029 Sixth Cycle) on May 11, 2022. The HE was prepared in compliance with State housing law as determined by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on December 6, 2022. The HE included a Sites Inventory map and table (Figure C-1 and Table C-1 of the HE), that included a series of sites that are currently undeveloped or underutilized. The identified sites provide an opportunity for the City to meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) housing production goals. Four strategic undeveloped housing sites identified in the Sites Inventory are located within the boundary of the TCSP and the AEN. The sites are identified as 16A, 16B, 20A, and 20B. Sites 16A and 16B are undeveloped sites located just north of Mission Gorge Road and east of Riverview Parkway in the Santee Town Center. The area surrounding the sites is primarily developed with Santee Trolley Square immediately west of the site, the Las Colinas Detention Facility to the east, and open space associated with the San Diego River to the north. A portion of Site 16A is located within the Airport Safety Zone 4 as designated in the Gillespie Field Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). Sites 20A and 20B are undeveloped sites located just west of Magnolia Avenue, south of Riverview Parkway, and east of Edgemoor Drive. Sites 20A and 20B surround the Historic Edgemoor Polo or Dairy Barn. To the west of Site 20A is the Las Colinas Detention Facility, to the east is a gated 55+ manufactured home community. Site 20B is bordered by single-family residential homes to the south, multifamily residential to the east, and Las Colinas and Riverview Office Park to the west. A portion of the site is located within the Gillespie Field ALUCP Airport Safety Zone 4. The sites are proposed to be developed with residential uses.

The HE Implementation Program identified specific sites that would require rezoning to allow for residential uses, and/or to allow for the estimated housing capacity included in the HE. The HE proposed zoning changes for sites 16A, 16B, 20A, and 20B. As part of the realization of the Housing Element Implementation Program, the City analyzed and approved the re-zone of the four above-mentioned sites and adopted the rezoning on October 26, 2022. The zoning for sites 16A, 16B, 20A, and 20B as a result of the HE Implementation Program can be found in Table 1, Housing Element Sites Zoning.

Table 1

HOUSING ELEMENT SITES ZONING
Site Size
(acres) Current Zoning Current Density
16A 11.11 Residential (TC-R-30) Minimum of 30 du/ac, Maximum of 36 du/ac 16B 8.61 Residential (TC-R-14) Minimum of 14 du/ac, Maximum of 22 du/ac 20A 7.75 Residential (TC-R-22) Minimum of 22 du/ac, Maximum of 30 du/ac 20B 10.00 Residential (TC-R-30) Minimum of 30 du/ac, Maximum of 36 du/ac 2 The 2019 Art and Entertainment Overlay District refers to 155 acres; however, current GIS data shows 172 acres for the same area.

Cultural Resources Sensitivity Analysis for the Santee Town Center Specific Plan Project PRELIMINARY DRAFT| February 2024
4 To further advance the housing production in Santee, City staff applied for a Housing Acceleration Program (HAP) grant from the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), which was awarded.

The HAP grant provides funding for project-level analysis of HE sites 16A, 16B, 20A, and 20B. The amended TCSP will include graphics and data that illustrate site planning and development concepts for each of these sites based on the maximum allowable density allowed by zoning. The EIR will analyze these sites at a project-level of detail.

1.3 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

1.3.1 Federal
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 take into account the effects of their undertakings on “historic properties”, that is, properties (either historic or archaeological) that are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (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.

1.3.2 State
The California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code (PRC) 21084.1, and California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 14 Section 15064.5, address determining the significance of impacts to archaeological and historic resources and discuss significant cultural resources as “historical resources,” which are defined as:
• resource(s) listed or determined eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission for listing in the CRHR (14 CCR Section 15064.5[a][1])
• resource(s) either listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or in a “local register of historical resources” or identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the PRC, unless “the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant” (14 CCR Section 15064.5[a][2]) • resources determined by the Lead Agency to meet the criteria for listing on the CRHR (14 CCR Section 15064.5[a][3])
Cultural Resources Sensitivity Analysis for the Santee Town Center Specific Plan Project PRELIMINARY DRAFT| February 2024
5 For listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), a historical resource must be significant at the local, state, or national level under one or more of the following four criteria:

1. It is 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;

2. It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history;

3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values;

4. It has yielded or has the potential to yield information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.

Under 14 CCR Section 15064.5(a)(4), a resource may also be considered a “historical resource” for the purposes of CEQA at the discretion of the lead agency.

1.3.3 Integrity
Significant resources must retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historical resources and to convey the reasons for their significance. Resource integrity, which is the authenticity of a historical resource’s physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of significance, is evaluated with regard to the retention of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. In an archaeological deposit, integrity is assessed with reference to the preservation of material constituents and their culturally and historically meaningful spatial relationships. A resource must also be judged with reference to the particular CRHR/NRHP criteria under which it is proposed for eligibility.

1.3.4 City of Santee Policy
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 evidences 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.

In order to ensure their consideration and preservation where appropriate, the City has developed two policies to address cultural resources within the City limits:

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.

Cultural Resources Sensitivity Analysis for the Santee Town Center Specific Plan Project PRELIMINARY DRAFT| February 2024
6 Policy 8.2 The City should require curation of any recovered artifacts as a condition of any cultural resources mitigation program.

1.3.5 Native American Heritage Values
Federal and state laws mandate that consideration be given to the concerns of contemporary Native Americans with regard to potentially ancestral human remains, associated funerary objects, and items of cultural patrimony. Consequently, an important element in assessing the significance of the study site has been to evaluate the likelihood that these classes of items are present in areas that would be affected by the proposed project.

Potentially relevant to prehistoric archaeological sites is the category termed Traditional Cultural Properties (TCP) in discussions of cultural resource management performed under federal auspices.

According to Patricia L. Parker and Thomas F. King (1998), “Traditional” in this context refers to those beliefs, customs, and practices of a living community of people that have been passed down through the generations, usually orally or through practice. The traditional cultural significance of a historic property, then, is significance derived from the role the property plays in a community's historically rooted beliefs, customs, and practices. Cultural resources can include TCPs, such as gathering areas, landmarks, and ethnographic locations, in addition to archaeological districts. Generally, a TCP may consist of a single site, or group of associated archaeological sites (district or traditional cultural landscape), or an area of cultural/ethnographic importance.

In California, the Traditional Tribal Cultural Places Bill of 2004 requires local governments to consult with Native American Tribes during the project planning process, specifically before adopting or amending a General Plan or a Specific Plan, or when designating land as open space for the purpose of protecting Native American cultural places. The intent of this legislation is to encourage consultation and assist in the preservation of Native American places of prehistoric, archaeological, cultural, spiritual, and ceremonial importance.

California State Assembly Bill (AB) 52, effective July 1, 2015, introduced the Tribal Cultural Resource (TCR) as a class of cultural resource and additional considerations relating to Native American consultation into CEQA. Per PRC Section 21080.3, a CEQA lead agency must consult with any California Native American tribe that requests consultation and that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of a proposed project to identify resources of cultural or spiritual value to the tribe, even if such resources are already eligible as historical resources as a result of cultural resources studies.

A TCR may be considered significant if it is (i) included in a local or state register of historical resources; (ii) determined by the lead agency to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in PRC Section 5024.1; (iii) a geographically defined cultural landscape that meets one or more of these criteria; (iv) a historical resource described in PRC Section 21084.1 or a unique archaeological resource described in PRC Section 21083.2; or (v) a non-unique archaeological resource if it conforms with the above criteria.

1.4 PROJECT PERSONNEL
Mary Robbins-Wade M.A., RPA served as principal investigator and is the primary author of this technical report. Ms. Robbins-Wade meets the qualifications of the Secretary of Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for archaeology. Theodore Cooley, M.A., RPA, James Turner, M.A., RPA, Trevor Gittelhough, M.A., RPA, and Nicole Falvey, B.A. served as report contributors. Resumes for key project personnel are presented in Appendix A.

Cultural Resources Sensitivity Analysis for the Santee Town Center Specific Plan Project PRELIMINARY DRAFT| February 2024
7 2.0 PROJECT SETTING

2.1 NATURAL SETTING
The project area is situated within the San Diego River valley, and the San Diego River flows east to west through, roughly, the middle of the project area. The elevation in the project area ranges from approximately 330 to approximately 367 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). The area surrounding the project is characterized predominantly by urban development, comprised of open space, transportation infrastructure, and commercial, residential, industrial development.

The project area is underlain by Holocene alluvial flood-plain deposits within and immediately along the San Diego River channel and Late Pleistocene alluvial flood-plain deposits along the riverbanks. The adjacent hills contain granitic bedrock (Cretaceous), including granodiorite, tonalite, and gabbro, and a variety of older metasedimentary rocks (Jurassic and Cretaceous) (Tan 2002). The soils of seven soil series are mapped for the project site, including the Tujunga Series, Grangeville Series, Visalia Series, Redding Series, Salinas Series, Ramona Series, and Riverwash, with the Tujunga, Grangeville, and Riverwash soils being the most prevalent throughout the central and southern portion of the project area. Tujunga sand soils, 0 to 5 percent slopes, form on alluvial fans and floodplain; Grangeville fine sandy loam soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, form on alluvial fans and floodplains; Visalia sandy loam soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, soils are very deep sandy loams that form in granitic alluvium soils on floodplains; Salinas clay soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, are generally nearly level with a surface layer of clay and a substratum of clay to clay loam; Redding gravelly loam soils, 2 to 9 percent slopes, are generally undulating to gently rolling with a hummocky terrain; Ramona sandy loam soils, 2 to 5 percent slopes, soils are very deep sandy loams with a sandy clay subsoil that form in granitic alluvium; and Riverwash materials, which typically occur along active stream channels and consist of sand, gravel, and cobbles (Bowman 1973), are present along the San Diego River channel.

While some major drainages such as the San Diego River still contain stands of riparian communities, with plants such as sycamore (Platanus racemosa), Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii), coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), and willow (Salix sp.), prior to historic and modern activities, more extensive stands of this vegetation were present. Adjacent foothill areas contained and still contain the coastal sage scrub and chaparral communities, including plants such as California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), white sage (Salvia apiana), flat-top buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), laurel sumac (Malosma laurina), chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum), mission manzanita (Xylococcus bicolor), big berry manzanita (Arctostaphylos glauca), hairy ceanothus (Ceanothus oliganthus), and inland scrub oak (Quercus berberidifolia), possibly interspersed areas of native grasslands (Stipa, Elymus, Poa, Muhlenbergia) (Beauchamp 1986; Munz 1974). Many of the native plant species found in these vegetation communities and those found in the project vicinity are known to have been used by native populations for food, medicine, tools, and ceremonial and other uses (Christenson 1990; Hedges and Beresford 1986; Luomala 1978). Major wildlife species found in this environment prehistorically were coyote (Canis latrans); mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus); grizzly bear (Ursus arctos); mountain lion (Felis concolor); rabbit (Sylvilagus audubonii); jackrabbit (Lepus californicus); reptiles such as western pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata), southern pacific diamondback rattlesnake (Crotalus oreganus helleri), gopher snake (Pituophis melanoleucus catenifer), and several lizard species; and various rodents, the most notable of which are the valley pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae), California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi), and dusky footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes) (Head 1972). Rabbits, jackrabbits, and rodents were very important to the prehistoric diet; deer were somewhat less Cultural Resources Sensitivity Analysis for the Santee Town Center Specific Plan Project PRELIMINARY DRAFT| February 2024
8 significant for food, but were an important source of leather, bone, and antler, clothing, tools, and shelter (Christenson 1990; Gifford 1940; Kroeber 1925; Luomala 1978).

2.2 CULTURAL SETTING

2.2.1 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).

2.2.1.1 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-GameHunting 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 (Erlandson et al. 2007:62). In the western United States, most evidence for the Paleo-Indian or Big-Game-Hunting 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 (Moratto 1984:79–88). 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 (Moratto 1984:79–88), with several, mostly isolated, occurrences of fluted spear points encountered on or near the coast of California (Dillon 2002; Rondeau et al. 2007).

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 (Dillon 2002; Rondeau et al. 2007), another approximately

7.5 miles northeast of Warner Springs (Kline and Kline 2007), and the other near Ocotillo Wells in the east county area (Rondeau et al. 2007). Several others have occurred in proximity to the county, including one along the coast in adjacent Orange County to the northwest (Fitzgerald and Rondeau 2012) and two in Baja California to the south (Des Lauriers 2008; Hyland and Gutierrez 1995).

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 (Erlandson et al. 2007:57). 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 (Erlandson et al. 2007:57). 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 coastline. At this time in San Diego County, the shoreline stood two to six kilometers farther seaward than today’s coast (Masters and Aiello 2007).

Cultural Resources Sensitivity Analysis for the Santee Town Center Specific Plan Project PRELIMINARY DRAFT| February 2024
9 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 (Warren et al. 2008; Warren and Ore 2011). 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 (Carrico et al. 1993; Rogers 1966; True and Bouey 1990; Warren 1966; Warren and True 1961), as well as in the southeastern California deserts (Rogers 1939, 1966; Warren 1967), but with some evidence for it recently proposed at a site to the east in the mountains of San Diego County (Pigniolo 2005) and at a site in the coastal area to the north in Los Angeles County (Sutton and Grenda 2012). 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 (Rogers 1929, 1938, 1966; Warren 1966, 1967; Warren and True 1961) identified the “San Dieguito complex,” and which Warren later reclassified as the San Dieguito Tradition (1968). 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 (Knell and Becker 2017; Rogers 1939, 1966; Vaughan 1982; Warren 1966, 1967).

The subsistence system or emphasis of the San Dieguito Tradition, while not as yet entirely agreed upon, is suggested by Warren (1967) 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 (Warren 1967, 1968, 1987; Warren et al. 2008). 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 (e.g., Bull 1983; Ezell 1987; Gallegos 1985, 1987, 1991; Koerper et al. 1991). 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 (1967; 1968:4). Recent calibrations of these dates, however, have indicated that some are significantly earlier, i.e., circa 10,000 BP (Warren et al. 2008; Warren and Ore 2011.

2.2.1.2 Archaic Period
In the southern coastal region, the subsequent Archaic Period dates from circa 8600 BP to circa 1300 BP (Warren et al. 2008). A large number of archaeological site assemblages dating to this period have been identified at a range of coastal and near coastal inland sites (Masters and Gallegos 1997:12-13). 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 (1968) “Encinitas Tradition” and Wallace’s (1955) “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 cobblebased tools at coastal sites and increased hunting equipment and quarry-based tools at inland sites. As defined by True (1958), 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 (True Cultural Resources Sensitivity Analysis for the Santee Town Center Specific Plan Project PRELIMINARY DRAFT| February 2024
10 1980; True and Beemer 1982). During the latter half of the Archaic Period, artifacts such as dart points and 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 (2012), 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 a significant shift in the Encinitas/La Jolla/Pauma complex subsistence system in the southern coastal region (Warren et al. 2008; Warren 2012).

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 not unknown (e.g., Chace and Sutton 1990; Cooley and Barrie 2004; RavenJennings and Smith 1999; Gross and Robbins-Wade 1992, 2010; True 1980; Warren et al. 1961:10).

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 near-coastal valleys, estuaries, and/or embayments that are present along the San Diego coast south of the San Luis Rey River (e.g., Cooley et al. 2000; Cooley and Mitchell 1996; Gallegos and Kyle 1998; Pigniolo et al. 1991; Shumway et al. 1961; Smith and Moriarty 1985). 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 (Gross and RobbinsWade 2010:26; McDonald 1995:14; Warren et al. 2008).

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 (Cooley 1995). 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 (Carrico et al. 1994; McDonald et al. 1994). 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 (Cooley and Barrie 2004). 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 (Gross and Robbins-Wade 2010). 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” (Raven-Jennings and Smith 1999:3.0-5). 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 (Gross and Robbins-Wade 1992).

Cultural Resources Sensitivity Analysis for the Santee Town Center Specific Plan Project PRELIMINARY DRAFT| February 2024
11 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 (1995:14), 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 (1995:200) 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 (e.g., Chace and Hightower 1979:48; McCown 1945), a number of sites containing evidence for both Late Prehistoric Period and Archaic Period occupations have also been documented (Carrico et al. 1994; Cooley and Barrie 2004; Gross and Robbins-Wade 1992; 2010; McDonald et al. 1994; Raven-Jennings and Smith 1999; Willey and Dolan 2004). 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.

2.2.1.3 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 (e.g., Bull 1983; Ezell 1987; Gallegos 1987; Warren et al. 2008), 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 (Moriarty 1968) and then continued to migrate westward. An analysis by Moriarty (1966, 1967) 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 into 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 (1954) and True (1970), 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 Cultural Resources Sensitivity Analysis for the Santee Town Center Specific Plan Project PRELIMINARY DRAFT| February 2024
12 (1970) defined a Late Prehistoric Period complex for southern San Diego County that was distinct from Meighan’s (1954) 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 (Pigniolo 2004). 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 bow-shaped 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 (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 (True 1970; True and Waugh 1982).

The project area lies within the area currently defined for the Cuyamaca complex (True 1970:58). 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 (McDonald and Eighmey 2008).

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 (1995:200) 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 (e.g., Berryman 1981; Campbell et al. 2017; McCown 1945), including some sites containing evidence for both Late Prehistoric Period and Archaic Period occupations (Carrico et al. 1994; Chace and Hightower 1979; Cooley and Barrie 2004; Dominici and Corum 1985; Gross and Robbins-Wade 2010; McDonald et al. 1994; RavenJennings and Smith 1999; Willey and Dolan 2004).

2.2.2 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, Yumanspeaking 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 (Luomala 1978). Several sources indicate that large Kumeyaay villages or rancherias were located in river valleys and along the shoreline of coastal estuaries (Kroeber 1925; Cultural Resources Sensitivity Analysis for the Santee Town Center Specific Plan Project PRELIMINARY DRAFT| February 2024
13 Luomala 1978). 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-nut-rich mountains in the fall (Cline 1984; Kroeber 1925; Luomala 1978).

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 (Richard Carrico, personal communication 2021). Archaeological site CA-SDI-5669, located partially within the project area and extending to the east of the TCSP, has been recently suggested as the possible location of this village (Berryman 2019; Campbell et al. 2017). 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 (Brodie 2013; Carrico 2008); 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 (Carrico 1977, 2008; Winterrowd and Cardenas 1987). 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 (Carrico 1977).

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 (Harrington 1925). 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 (Zepeda-Herman and Price 2016:19). 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 (Carrico 2008; Trafzer and Carrico 1992:53).

2.2.3 Historical Background

2.2.3.1 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 in order 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 (Alter 2021). 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 Cultural Resources Sensitivity Analysis for the Santee Town Center Specific Plan Project PRELIMINARY DRAFT| February 2024
14 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 (Alter 2021; ZepedaHerman and Price 2016). 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 (Alter 2021).

2.2.3.2 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 well-connected 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.

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 (Carrico 2018; Farris 1994).

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 (Head 1952a; Lay 1989; Ogden 1862). 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 (Head 1952a).

2.2.3.3 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.

Cultural Resources Sensitivity Analysis for the Santee Town Center Specific Plan Project PRELIMINARY DRAFT| February 2024
15 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 (Carrico 2008).

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 (United States v. Sutherland 1856; Willey 1886). 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 (Birkett 1962; Head 1952b, 1952c; Hood 1981; Scott 1981).

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 (Head 1952d, 1952e; Hood 1981). 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 (Head 1952d). In return, Chase received close to 8,000 acres of land in the southern portion of the ranch, which he deemed Chase Ranch (Head 1952d; Hood 1981).

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 (Fryman 2012). 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 (Jacques and Quillen 1983). Unfortunately, the town of Stowe was short lived; the post office closed in 1905 and the schoolhouse closed in 1906 (Jordan et al. 2008).

Cultural Resources Sensitivity Analysis for the Santee Town Center Specific Plan Project PRELIMINARY DRAFT| February 2024
16 2.2.4 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 of Santee 2018).

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 2020).

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 (City of Santee 2018). 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 of Santee 2018). 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 2016). 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 (Stevens 1971). 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 1961 and for swimming in 1965 (Padre Dam Municipal Water District 2016; Stevens 1971). The Padre Dam Municipal Water District was created when the Rio San Diego Water District and the Santee County Water District merged in 1976 (Padre Dam Municipal Water District 2016).

3.0 ARCHIVAL RESEARCH AND CONTACT

PROGRAM

3.1 CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEYS FOR THE HE PROPERTIES
In 2004, RECON conducted project-specific cultural resources surveys for the four proposed HE properties (16A, 16B, 20A, and 20B); these serve as the basis for the project-specific analysis for these properties in this report (Bull and Price 2004). The 2004 study did not identify any cultural resources within HE 16A or 16B; however, it discussed the Edgemoor Polo Barn and Edgemoor Farm Historic District, located within HE 20A and 20B (see Section 3.3.1 below).

Cultural Resources Sensitivity Analysis for the Santee Town Center Specific Plan Project PRELIMINARY DRAFT| February 2024
17 3.2 RECORDS SEARCH
HELIX requested a records search from the South Coastal Information Center (SCIC) at the San Diego State University on May 3, 2022; an updated records search was conducted on August 23, 2023 to include the updated project area and slightly expanded radius. The records search covered a quartermile 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 summary and map are included as Appendix B (Confidential Appendices, bound separately).

3.2.1 Previous Surveys
The records search results identified 62 previous cultural resource studies within the record search limits, 39 of which overlap with the project area (Appendix C, Table of Previous Studies within One Quarter Mile). Of these 39 studies, seven identified resources within the search radius: a site investigation (Hector 1981), a survey addendum (Corum 1985), a specific plan amendment (Price 2005), a survey and evaluation (Campbell 2015), and three pedestrian surveys (Kyle 2003; Price and Bull 2004; Zepeda-Herman 2020).

3.2.2 Previously Recorded Resources
The SCIC has a record of 14 previously recorded cultural resources within the records search limits, nine of which are located within or immediately adjacent to the overall TCSP project area. The resources that have been documented within or immediately adjacent to the overall TCSP project area include P-37- 005669 (CA-SDI-5669), P-37-007603 (CA-SDI-7603), P-37-009245 (CA-SDI-9245), P-37-020175, P-37- 025303, P-19-028466, P-19-030482 (CA-SDI-19370), P-37-032655 (CA-SDI-20693), and P-37-032878 (CASDI-20778), which are described below. One additional resource (Edgemoor Farm Historic District) was not identified in the SCIC records search, but was identified during in-house research; thus, a total of 15 cultural resources have been previously recorded within the overall TCSP (Table 2, Previously Recorded Resources within One Quarter Mile of the Project Area).

Of the ten resources recorded within the TCSP project area, four are located within the 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 SCIC records search identified one cultural resource (P-37-020175) within the HE, specifically within HE site 20A. This resource is the former Edgemoor Senior Center that is located within the Edgemoor Farm Historic District. Additionally, the Edgemoor Farm Historic District is located within HE sites 20A and 20B (see Section 3.3.1). Table 2 below indicates which resources are located within the search radius, within the TCSP, within the AEN, and within the HE sites, respectively.

Cultural Resources Sensitivity Analysis for the Santee Town Center Specific Plan Project PRELIMINARY DRAFT| February 2024
18 Table 2

PREVIOUSLY RECORDED RESOURCES WITHIN ONE-QUARTER MILE OF THE PROJECT AREA Primary Number
(P-37-##)
Trinomial
(CA-SDI-#) Age Description Recorder, Date
*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
**009245 9245 Historic Historic refuse scatter Valois, 1982 ***020175 -- Historic Edgemoor Senior Center Unknown, 1985 **025303 -- Prehistoric Isolated lithic tool Kyle, 2001 **028466 -- Prehistoric Three secondary
metavolcanic flakes
Price, 2004
029009 -- Historic Historic single-family
residence dating to the
1950s
Wynns and Wynns, 2000
029011 -- Historic Historic single-family
residence dating to the
1930s
Hope, 2000
**030482 19370 Prehistoric Light density lithic and
ground stone artifact
scatter encountered in a
subsurface context in
monitoring
Giletti, 2009
*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
035505 -- Historic Rectangular Modern
Industrial warehouse
structure
Loftus, 2013
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
Cultural Resources Sensitivity Analysis for the Santee Town Center Specific Plan Project PRELIMINARY DRAFT| February 2024
19 Primary Number
(P-37-##)
Trinomial
(CA-SDI-#) Age Description Recorder, Date
039090 22955 MulticomponentBedrock milling features
with historic features
associated with the
Santee School
Strother and Smolik, 2019
****N/A N/A Historic The Edgemoor Farm
Historic District (see
Section 3.3.1)
Stiegler and Furlonger, 2008
* Within the TCSP
** Within the Arts and Entertainment Neighborhood
***Within HE Site 20A
****Within HE sites 20A and 20B; not included in the SCIC records search results

3.2.2.1 Resources only within the TCSP
P-37-005669 (CA-SDI-5669)
This large site has been 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) P-37-007603 (CA-SDI-7603)
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.

P-37-032655 (CA-SDI-20693)
Site P-37-032655 (CA-SDI-20693) is a historic refuse scatter recorded by Robbins-Wade et al. in 2012.

Located north of the San Diego County Women’s Detention Facility (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.

P-37-032878 (CA-SDI-20778)
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 San Diego County Women’s Detention Facility project area, it is comprised of two prehistoric features, scattered manos, metates, Cultural Resources Sensitivity Analysis for the Santee Town Center Specific Plan Project PRELIMINARY DRAFT| February 2024
20 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-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.

3.2.2.2 Resources within the Arts and Entertainment Neighborhood P-37-009245 (CA-SDI-9245)
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.

P-37-025303
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.

P-37-028466
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.

P-37-030482 (CA-SDI-19370)
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.

Cultural Resources Sensitivity Analysis for the Santee Town Center Specific Plan Project PRELIMINARY DRAFT| February 2024
21 3.2.2.3 Resources within the Housing Element
P-37-020175
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 to be ineligible due to a lack of integrity (Sorlie 1985). This resource is mismapped on the SCIC records search map as being south of HE site 20B. Examination of the site record revealed that it is actually located within HE site 20A, just south of the Polo Barn that is proposed to be protected in place.

Though not listed in the SCIC records search results, additional research identified the historically significant Edgemoor Farm Historic District within HE sites 20A and 20B, as discussed below in Section

3.3.1. 3.3 OTHER ARCHIVAL RESEARCH
Various additional archival sources were also consulted for the entire TCSP, 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 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. 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 (see section 3.3.1.) 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.

Cultural Resources Sensitivity Analysis for the Santee Town Center Specific Plan Project PRELIMINARY DRAFT| February 2024
22 The early 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 have been taken, the current Santee Town Center and the modern alignment of SR 52 had been completed.

3.3.1 Edgemoor Farm
The Edgemoor Farm property is located within two of the HE Properties (20A and 20B) and the southeastern corner of the AEN of the proposed project. This historic complex is listed on the National Register of Historic Places 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 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 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 Transitional-Modern, ProtoInternational 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 Polo Barn is the only remaining structure, which was converted into the headquarters for the Santee Historical Society and a museum commemorating the history of Edgemoor Farm. The TCSP proposes to protect to the Polo Barn in place.

3.4 NATIVE AMERICAN CONTACT PROGRAM
HELIX contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on April 22, 2022 for a Sacred Lands File search and list of Native American contacts. The NAHC responded on May 24, 2022, noting that the Cultural Resources Sensitivity Analysis for the Santee Town Center Specific Plan Project PRELIMINARY DRAFT| February 2024
23 results of the search were positive and that the Barona Group of the Capitan Grande, the Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians, and the Kumeyaay Cultural Repatriation Committee should be contacted for further information. The results also included a list of tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area. HELIX sent initial outreach letters on June 1, 2022 to the members of this list. At the time of this outreach, three responses were received, as summarized in Table 3, Native American Contact Program Responses. As of that time, the San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians requested government-to-government consultation, the Jamul Indian Village deferred to the wishes of closer tribes, and the Barona Band of Mission Indians requested to be apprised of the results of the cultural resource study, stating that while much of the project area is disturbed, some portions are intact and are likely locations for cultural resources, especially along the river side.

Updated outreach letters were sent to the recommended tribes on October 2, 2023. These letters included the updated project scope. To date, three tribes have responded. The Barona Band of Mission Indians requested a copy of the constraints analysis, and the Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians and Campo Band of Mission Indians requested government-to-government consultation. A total of five tribes responded to initial and updated outreach. Additional Native American outreach responses will be forwarded to the City. Native American correspondence is included as Appendix D (Confidential Appendices, bound separately).

Table 3

NATIVE AMERICAN CONTACT PROGRAM RESPONSES
Contact/Tribe Response
Native American Heritage
Commission
Responded on May 24, 2022; a records search of the NAHC Sacred Lands File was completed for the project area with positive results. They provided a list of 13 tribal groups that may have additional information and recommended contacting the Barona Group of the Capitan Grande and Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians.

Barona Band of Mission Indians Responded via email on June 17, 2022; requested to be kept apprised of the results of the cultural resource study, stating that while much of the project area is disturbed, some portions are intact and are likely locations for cultural resources, especially along the riverside.

Responded via email on October 10, 2023; requested to receive a copy of the constraints analysis and to be informed of significant project developments, stating that the San Diego River in a known use area and habitation of the Capitan Grande people.

Jamul Indian Village Responded in a letter dated June 27, 2022; they deferred to the wishes of a closer tribe, in particular, the Barona Band of Mission Indians.

San Pasqual Band of Mission
Indians
Responded in a letter sent via email on June 17, 2022; after consulting their maps, they determined that while the project is not within the boundaries of the recognized San Pasqual Indian Reservation, it is within the boundaries of the territory that the tribe considers its Traditional Use Area. They requested formal government-to-government consultation in order to develop mitigation measures and requested access to all cultural resource reports associated with the environmental review process.

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians Responded via email on October 10, 2023; requested government-togovernment consultation.

Campo Band of Mission Indians Responded via email on February 26, 2024; requested government-togovernment consultation Cultural Resources Sensitivity Analysis for the Santee Town Center Specific Plan Project PRELIMINARY DRAFT| February 2024
24 4.0 CULTURAL RESOURCES SENSITIVITY
The entire project area is in an alluvial setting, and cultural resources have been identified at 15 sites within one-quarter mile of the project area, including six prehistoric sites, seven historic sites or structures, and two multi-component sites. The six prehistoric sites include two prehistoric/ethnographic Kumeyaay villages; however, the entire area along the San Diego River in this portion of Santee could be described as a prehistoric village or ethnographic rancheria. In addition, the significant Edgemoor Farm Historic District is located within HE properties 20A and 20B and within the southeastern corner of the AEN. Nearby historic sites are likely associated with this district. Based on this, the entire project area of the TCSP is sensitive for prehistoric, ethnographic, and historic cultural resources, including buried resources.

4.1 ARTS AND ENTERTAINMENT NEIGHBORHOOD
Four previously recorded resources have been identified within the AEN, including one historic refuse scatter, two prehistoric lithic isolates, and one prehistoric artifact scatter. The historic and prehistoric artifact scatters extended below the ground surface. No subsurface testing was conducted at the isolates to determine if there is a subsurface component to these resources. As with the overall TCSP, the AEN is sensitive for cultural resources, including buried resources.

4.2 HOUSING ELEMENT SITES
RECON conducted field surveys of all four housing element sites in 2004 and did not identify any resources in HE 16A or 16B. However, Edgemoor Farm is a NRHP- and CRHR-listed historic district located within HE 20A and 20B. The majority of the structures within the district were previously demolished and the Polo Barn will be protected in place; however, there is great potential for encountering buried historic cultural resources associated with this district. Prehistoric resources have also been identified adjacent to the HE sites, and there is a high likelihood of encountering these cultural resources as well.

5.0 SUMMARY AND MANAGEMENT

RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the results of the current study, there is potential for known cultural resources to be impacted by future construction projects within the entire TCSP, including the AEN and the four HE sites. The entire TCSP is highly culturally sensitive. According to the record search results from the SCIC, the project-specific studies conducted for the HE properties, and additional archival research, 15 cultural resources have been previously identified within a one-quarter mile radius of the project area, two of which are significant prehistoric/ethnohistoric Kumeyaay village sites and one of which is a significant historic district. Ten of these resources are within the TCSP area; four of these are within the TCSP but outside of the AEN and the HE, four are within the AEN, and two are within the HE.

Native American outreach with the NAHC yielded positive results for tribal resources within the vicinity of the project area. HELIX conducted outreach to the 16 recommended tribal contacts in June 2022 and again in October 2023. Five contacts responded, three of which requested formal government-togovernment consultation, one of which requested to receive the cultural constraints analysis and to be Cultural Resources Sensitivity Analysis for the Santee Town Center Specific Plan Project PRELIMINARY DRAFT| February 2024
25 kept appraised of project updates, and the last of which deferred to closer tribes. One tribe noted that the San Diego River is a known use area and despite disturbances holds the potential for intact cultural deposits.

Due to the high cultural sensitivity of the TCSP, the alluvial setting along the San Diego River, the number of significant prehistoric and historic resources within and adjacent to the project area, and the concerns of local tribes, archaeological and Native American monitoring is recommended for any construction project within the TCSP, including the AEN and the four HE sites.

5.1 MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
The following mitigation measures apply to the entire TCSP, including the AEN and the HE properties.

5.1.1 Santee Town Center Specific Plan Mitigation Measures

5.1.1.1 CUL-1 Project-level Cultural Resources Study
Prior to approval of an individual project under the TCSP, a cultural resource 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.

5.1.1.2 CUL-2 Archaeological Monitoring
Prior to issuance of grading permits for any projects within the TCSP: The applicant/developer shall provide evidence to the City of Santee that a qualified professional archaeologist has been contracted to implement a Cultural Resource Monitoring Program (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 in order 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, 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 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 earth-moving 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) Cultural Resources Sensitivity Analysis for the Santee Town Center Specific Plan Project PRELIMINARY DRAFT| February 2024
26 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 - In the event that 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 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.

5.1.1.3 CUL-3 Native American Monitoring
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 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.

5.1.1.4 CUL-4 Inadvertent Discoveries of Human Remains
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) 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 NAHC, who will designate the Most Likely Descendent (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.

Cultural Resources Sensitivity Analysis for the Santee Town Center Specific Plan Project PRELIMINARY DRAFT| February 2024
27 5.1.2 Arts and Entertainment Neighborhood Mitigation Measures

5.1.2.1 CUL-1 Project-level Cultural Resources Study
Prior to approval of an individual project under the AEN, a cultural resource 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.

5.1.2.2 CUL-2 Archaeological Monitoring
Prior to issuance of grading permits for any projects within the AEN: The applicant/developer shall provide evidence to the City of Santee that a qualified professional archaeologist has been contracted to implement a 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 in order 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 AEN, 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 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 earth-moving 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 – In the event that 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 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.

Cultural Resources Sensitivity Analysis for the Santee Town Center Specific Plan Project PRELIMINARY DRAFT| February 2024
28 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.

5.1.2.3 CUL-3 Native American Monitoring
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).

5.1.2.4 CUL-4 Inadvertent Discoveries of Human Remains
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 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 NAHC who will designate the 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.

5.1.3 Housing Element 16A Mitigation Measures

5.1.3.1 CUL-2 Archaeological Monitoring
Prior to issuance of grading permits for any projects within HE 16A: The applicant/developer shall provide evidence to the City of Santee that a qualified professional archaeologist has been contracted to implement a 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 in order 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 HE 16A, 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 being monitored. This includes all grubbing, grading, and trenching on-site and for all off-site improvements. Inspections will vary based on the rate Cultural Resources Sensitivity Analysis for the Santee Town Center Specific Plan Project PRELIMINARY DRAFT| February 2024
29 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 earth-moving 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.

5.1.3.2 CUL-3 Native American Monitoring
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).

5.1.3.3 CUL-4 Inadvertent Discoveries of Human Remains
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 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 Cultural Resources Sensitivity Analysis for the Santee Town Center Specific Plan Project PRELIMINARY DRAFT| February 2024
30 NAHC, who will designate the 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.

5.1.4 Housing Element 16B Mitigation Measures

5.1.4.1 CUL-2 Archaeological Monitoring
Prior to issuance of grading permits for any projects within HE 16B: The applicant/developer shall provide evidence to the City of Santee that a qualified professional archaeologist has been contracted to implement a 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 in order 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 HE 16B, the CRMP shall contain, at a minimum, the following:

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 earth-moving 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.

Cultural Resources Sensitivity Analysis for the Santee Town Center Specific Plan Project PRELIMINARY DRAFT| February 2024
31 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.

5.1.4.2 CUL-3 Native American Monitoring
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).

5.1.4.3 CUL-4 Inadvertent Discoveries of Human Remains
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 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 NAHC, who will designate the 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.

5.1.5 Housing Element 20A Mitigation Measures

5.1.5.1 CUL-5 Edgemoor Polo Barn
Avoidance is the preferred measure to mitigate adverse effects to the Edgemoor Polo Barn. Future plans should, if possible, design around the Polo Barn. If avoidance is not possible, the preferred alternative is to preserve the Polo Barn by moving it to another location. This is in accordance with the mitigation measures published by Bull and Price (2004).

5.1.5.2 CUL-2 Archaeological Monitoring
Prior to issuance of grading permits for any projects within HE 20A: The applicant/developer shall provide evidence to the City of Santee that a qualified professional archaeologist has been contracted to implement a 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 in order 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.

Cultural Resources Sensitivity Analysis for the Santee Town Center Specific Plan Project PRELIMINARY DRAFT| February 2024
32 For each construction project within HE 20A, the CRMP shall contain, at a minimum, the following:

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 earth-moving 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.

5.1.5.3 CUL-3 Native American Monitoring
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).

Cultural Resources Sensitivity Analysis for the Santee Town Center Specific Plan Project PRELIMINARY DRAFT| February 2024
33 5.1.5.4 CUL-4 Inadvertent Discoveries of Human Remains 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 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 NAHC, who will designate the 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.

5.1.6 Housing Element 20B Mitigation Measures

5.1.6.1 CUL-2 Archaeological Monitoring
Prior to issuance of grading permits for any projects within HE 20B: The applicant/developer shall provide evidence to the City of Santee that a qualified professional archaeologist has been contracted to implement a 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 in order 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 HE 20B, the CRMP shall contain, at a minimum, the following:

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 earth-moving 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 - In the event that 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 resources. Further, before construction activities are allowed to resume in the affected area, the artifacts shall be recovered and features Cultural Resources Sensitivity Analysis for the Santee Town Center Specific Plan Project PRELIMINARY DRAFT| February 2024
34 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.

5.1.6.2 CUL-3 Native American Monitoring
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).

5.1.6.3 CUL-4 Inadvertent Discoveries of Human Remains
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 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 NAHC, who will designate the 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.

Cultural Resources Sensitivity Analysis for the Santee Town Center Specific Plan Project PRELIMINARY DRAFT| February 2024
35 6.0 REFERENCES
Alter, Ruth
2021 Early History. Mission Trails Regional Park. Electronic resource available at, https://mtrp.org/early-history/, accessed May 19, 2022.

Bean, Lowell J., and Florence Shipek
1978 Luiseño. In California, edited by R. F. Heizer, pp. 550–563. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, W. C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Beauchamp, R. Mitchell
1986 A Flora of San Diego County, California. Sweetwater River Press, National City.

Berryman, Stanley
2019 Santee Greens, One of The Best Known, Unknown Prehistoric Sites in San Diego County.

Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology 33:165–177.

Berryman, Judy
1981 Archaeological Mitigation Report of Santee Greens, SDI-5669. Report on file at the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University.

Birkett, Charles
1962 The Fiftieth Year. The Journal of San Diego History 8(4). Available at:
https://sandiegohistory.org/journal/1962/october/fiftieth/, accessed on May 19, 2022.

Brodie, Natalie
2013 The San Diego River: An Archaeological, Historical, and Applied Anthropological Perspective. Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, San Diego State University, San Diego, California.

Bowman, Roy H.
1973 Soil Survey: San Diego Area. United States Department of Agriculture. Beltsville, MD.

Bull, Charles S.
1983 Shaking the Foundations: The Evidence for San Diego Prehistory. Casual Papers: Cultural Resource Management 1(3):15-64. Cultural Resource Management Center, San Diego State University.

Bull, Charles and Harry Price
2004 Cultural Resources Survey Report for the Ryan Corporate Office Park Master Plan Santee, California. Report on file at the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University.

Cultural Resources Sensitivity Analysis for the Santee Town Center Specific Plan Project PRELIMINARY DRAFT| February 2024
36 Campbell, B., D. Douglas, S. Duncan, C. Duran, K. Hunt, A. Menchaca, and K. Smolik 2017 Data Recovery Excavations at CA-SDI-5669 Locus C: Confidential Phase III Archaeological Report, City of Santee, San Diego County, California. Rincon Consultants Project No. 16- 02614. Report on file at the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, California.

Carrico, Richard L.
1977 Portolá’s 1769 Expedition and Coastal Native Villages of San Diego County. The Journal of California Anthropology 4(1): 30–41.
2008 Ethnohistoric Period. In Prehistoric and Historic Archaeology of Metropolitan San Diego:

A Historic Properties Background Study. Prepared for the Metropolitan Wastewater Department, City of San Diego. ASM Affiliates, Encinitas, CA. 2018 Strangers in a Stolen Land: Indians of San Diego County from Prehistory to the New Deal.

Sunbelt Publications, San Diego.

Carrico, Richard L., Theodore G. Cooley, and Joyce M. Clevenger 1993 Archaeological Excavations at the Harris Site Complex, San Diego County, California.

Ogden Environmental and Energy Services, San Diego. Report on file at the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University.

Carrico, Richard L., Theodore G. Cooley, and Brian K. Glenn 1994 East Mission Gorge Pump Station and Force Main Project Cultural Resources Data Recovery Report for Site CA-SDI-9243, San Diego, California. Report on file at HELIX.

Carrico, Richard L., Joyce M. Clevenger, Danielle M. Huey, Patricia Mitchell, and Andrew Pigniolo 1991 A Cultural Resources Testing, Evaluation, and Proposed Data Recovery Program for the East Mission Gorge Pump Station and Force Main Project. Report on file at the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California.

Chace, Paul G., and Janet Hightower
1979 The Archaeology of the Nelson Site SDI-5680 Near Poway and a Test Assessment Program of the Cultural Remains of the C.B.N. Corporation Property (E.A.D. Log #78-14-

19. Report on file at the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University.

Chace, Paul G., and Mark Q. Sutton
1990 The Kelly Site Complex: An Inland Encinitas Tradition Settlement in San Diego County.

Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 26(1):42–59.

Christenson, Lynne E.
1990 The Late Prehistoric Yuman People of San Diego County, California: Their Settlement and Subsistence System. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.

Christenson, Chris and Lynne Christenson
1981 DPR Site Update form for P-37-008594/CA-SDI-8594. Form on file at the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University.

Cultural Resources Sensitivity Analysis for the Santee Town Center Specific Plan Project PRELIMINARY DRAFT| February 2024
37 City of San Diego
2001 Historical Resources Guidelines. Adopted September 28, 1999, Amended April 30, 2001 by City Manager Document No. C-10912.
2016 California Environmental Quality Act Significance Determination Thresholds. Adopted January 1991, Amended July 2016. Electronic document available at:
https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/july_2016_ceqa_thresholds_final_0.pdf. 2018 Historical Resources Regulations. Adopted December 9, 1997 (City Council Ordinance No. O-18451, effective January 1, 2000. Amendments in 1999, 2008, 2011, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2018. Electronic document on file at:
https://docs.sandiego.gov/municode/MuniCodeChapter14/Ch14Art03Division02.pdf. 2019a Mission Trails Regional Park Master Plan. Electronic document available at:
https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/mtrp_mpu_aug2019_web.pdf, accessed on October 19, 2021.
2019b Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the Mission Trails Regional Park Master Plan Update. Electronic document available at:
https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/mission_trails_regional_park_final_peir_n o._349988reduced.pdf, accessed on October 19, 2021.

City of Santee
2018 Santee: A Look at the Past. Electronic document, available at:
http://cityofsanteeca.gov/how-do-i/santee-s-history, accessed on May 19, 2022.

Cline, Lora L.
1984 Just Before Sunset. J and L Press, Jacumba, California.

Comeau, Brad
2020 Confidential Cultural Resources Records Search and Site Visit Summary for PDMWD Brine Line Alternative Assessment.

Cooley, Theodore G.
1995 Early Period Results from Data Recovery Conducted on a Portion of Stratified Prehistoric Site SDI-9243, San Diego County, California. Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology 8:227–238.

Cooley, Theodore G., and Laura J. Barrie
2004 Archaeological Excavation at the Village of Pa’Mu, Ramona Valley, California.

Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology 17:43–56.

Cooley, Theodore G., and Brian K. Glenn
1994 East Mission Gorge Pump Station and Force Main Project Pretrenching Report for Site CA-SDI-9243, San Diego, California. Appendix H to East Mission Gorge Pump Station and Force Main Project Cultural Resources Data Recovery Report for Site CA-SDI-9243, San Diego, California. Richard L. Carrico, Theodore G. Cooley, and Brian K. Glenn. Reports on file at HELIX.

Cultural Resources Sensitivity Analysis for the Santee Town Center Specific Plan Project PRELIMINARY DRAFT| February 2024
38 Cooley, Theodore G., and Patricia Mitchell
1992 DPR Site Update form for P-37-009243/CA-SDI-9243. Form on file at the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University.

Cooley, Theodore G., and Patricia T. Mitchell
1996 Limited Data Recovery Investigations at Site CA-SDI-11,767, a La Jolla Complex Site Along the Lower San Diego River Valley, Mission Valley West Light Rail Transit Project, San Diego, California. Ogden Environmental and Energy Services Company, San Diego.

Report on file at the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego.

Cooley, Theodore G., Richard L. Carrico, and Carol Serr 2000 Data Recovery Excavations Conducted at Archaeological Site CA-SDI-10,238 (SDM-W-36) Locus B, Solana Beach, San Diego County, California. Mooney & Associates, San Diego.

Prepared for the City of Solana Beach. Report on file at ICF Jones & Stokes, San Diego.

Corum, Joyce
1985 First Addendum Archaeological Survey Report for Proposed State Route 52 Santo Road to State Route 67. Report on file at the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California.

Dehoney, Betty
2008 Edgemoor Facility Demolition Draft Environmental Impact Report. HDR Engineering, Inc.

San Diego. Prepared for the County of San Diego Department of General Services. On file with the County of San Diego, San Diego.

Des Lauriers, Matthew R.
2008 A Paleoindian Fluted Point from Isla Cedros, Baja, California. Journal of Island & Coastal Archaeology 3:271–276.

Dillion, Brian D.
2002 California Paleo-Indians: Lack of Evidence, or Evidence of a Lack? In Essays in California Archaeology: A Memorial to Franklin Fenenga. Edited by William J. Wallace and Francis A. Riddell. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility, No. 60. Berkeley, California.

Dominici, Debra A., and Joyce M. Corum
1985 Data Recovery Report of Archaeological Phase III Excavation and Analysis at CA-SDI5680 (Nelson Site) 11-SD-67, PM 3.4 to 5.4, 209 – 8666. Report prepared by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), District 11, San Diego, California and on file at the South Coastal Information Center (SCIC), San Diego State University.

Duran, C., B. Campbell, and H. Haas
2015 DPR Site form for P-37-005669/CA-SDI-5669. Rincon Consultants, Inc. On file at the South Coastal Information Center (SCIC), San Diego State University Cultural Resources Sensitivity Analysis for the Santee Town Center Specific Plan Project PRELIMINARY DRAFT| February 2024
39 Erlandson, Jon M., Torben C. Rick, Terry L. Jones, and Judith F. Porcasi 2007 One If by Land, Two If by Sea: Who Were the First Californians? In California Prehistory:

Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, pp. 53–62. Altamira Press, Lanham, Maryland.

Ezell, Paul H.
1987 The Harris Site – an Atypical San Dieguito Site, or Am I Beating a Dead Horse? In San Dieguito–La Jolla: Chronology and Controversy, edited by Dennis Gallegos, pp. 15-22.

San Diego County Archaeological Society Research Paper Number 1. San Diego.

Farris, Glenn J.
1994 José Panto, Capitan of the Indian Pueblo of San Pascual, San Diego County. The Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 16(2): 149–161-41.

Fitzgerald, Richard T., and Michael F. Rondeau
2012 A Fluted Projectile Point from Crystal Cove State Park, Orange County, Alta California.

California Archaeology 4(2):247-256.

Fryman, Leslie R.
2012 Information Regarding the Stowe Trail, for the Pardee Homes Castlerock Project, Santee, San Diego County, California. ASM Affiliates, San Diego.

Gallegos, Dennis R.
1985 Batiquitos Lagoon Revisited. Casual Papers Cultural Resource Management 2(1).

Department of Anthropology, San Diego State University, California. 1987 A Review and Synthesis of Environmental and Cultural Material for the Batiquitos Lagoon Region. In San Dieguito-La Jolla: Chronology and Controversy, edited by Dennis Gallegos, pp. 23-34. San Diego County Archaeological Society, Research Paper Number

1. San Diego.
1995 A Review and Synthesis of the Archaeological Record for the Lower San Diego River Valley. Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology 8:195–206. 1991 Antiquity and Adaptation at Agua Hedionda, Carlsbad, California. In Hunter-Gatherers of Early Holocene Coastal California, edited by Jon M. Erlandson and Roger H. Colten., pp. 19–42. Perspectives in California Archaeology, Vol. 1, Jeanne E. Arnold, series editor.

Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Gallegos, Dennis R., and Carolyn Kyle
1998 Five Thousand Years of Maritime Subsistence at CA-SDI-48 on Ballast Point, San Diego County, California. Archive of California Prehistory no. 40. Coyote Press, Salinas.

Gifford, E. W.
1940 California Bone Tools. Anthropological Records 3:2, Berkeley.

Cultural Resources Sensitivity Analysis for the Santee Town Center Specific Plan Project PRELIMINARY DRAFT| February 2024
40 Gross, G. Timothy, and Mary Robbins-Wade
1992 Investigations at Sabre Springs (CA-SDi-6669, SDM-W-230): A Multicomponent Site Located near Poway, San Diego County, California. Report prepared for Pardee Construction Company, San Diego, by Affinis, El Cajon, and on file at HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc., La Mesa, California.
2010 Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation Report: Lazy A Ranch, Alpine, San Diego County, California GPA 07-010, REZ 07-011, LOG NO. 07-15-003, SP 07-002, TM 5546, P 07-016. Affinis, El Cajon, CA. Draft report submitted to County of San Diego Department of Planning and Land Use and on file at HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc., La Mesa, CA.

Hall, Clarence A., Jr.
2007 Introduction to the Geology of Southern California and its Native Plants. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Harrington, John Peabody
1925 The Papers of John Peabody Harrington in the Smithsonian. Volume 3 Reel 169; Diegueno, U. S. Fieldnotes 1925-1927. Frames 494, 496, 547, 549, 329, 562, 468, 19, 59, 571, 578, 588, 590, 597, 598, 601, 602, 632, 634, 642, 741, 766. National Anthropological Archives, Washington D. C.

Head, W.S.
1952a Valley Mission Rule Ends as Rancho Era Begins. El Cajon Valley News. Available at:
https://web.archive.org/web/20181118141729/http://elcajonhistory.org/echs_elcajons tory.html, accessed May 19, 2022.
1952b Valley Land Purchases Have Conflicting Story. El Cajon Valley News. Available at:
https://web.archive.org/web/20181118141729/http://elcajonhistory.org/echs_elcajons tory.html, accessed May 19, 2022.
1952c Sale of El Cajon Ranch for $1 Per Acre Showed Profit. El Cajon Valley News. Available at:
https://web.archive.org/web/20181118141729/http://elcajonhistory.org/echs_elcajons tory.html, accessed May 19, 2022.
1952d Chase’s Investment in Valley Termed ‘Foolish’ By Associates. El Cajon Valley News.

Available at: https://web.archive.org/web/20181118141729/ http://elcajonhistory.org/echs_elcajonstory.html, accessed May 19, 2022. 1972 The California Chaparral: an Elfin Forest. Naturegraph, Healdsburg, California.

Hector, Susan
1981 Investigations Conducted at Archaeological Site SDM-W-2409 (SDi-7603) Santee, California. RECON. Report on file at the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California.
1988 A Cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed East Elliott Community Planning Area.

Report on file at the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California.

Cultural Resources Sensitivity Analysis for the Santee Town Center Specific Plan Project PRELIMINARY DRAFT| February 2024
41 Hector, Susan (cont.)
2006 Cultural Resources Study for the Maintenance of Old Mission Dam, Mission Trails Regional Park, San Diego, California. Report on file at the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California.

Hedges, Ken, and Christina Beresford
1986 Santa Ysabel Ethnobotany. San Diego Museum of Man Ethnic Technology Notes No. 20.

Hedges, Ken, and Diane Hamann
1995 DPR Site Record form for P-37-004505/CA-SDI-4505. Form on file at the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University.

Hood, Del
1981 El Cajon Valley grew from $500 debt payment. The Daily Californian. Electronic resource, available at https://elcajonhistory.org/echsmedia/pdf/500debtpayment.pdf, accessed May 19, 2022.

Hyland, Justin R., and Maria De La Luz Gutierrez
1995 An Obsidian Fluted Point from Central Baja California. The Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 17(1): 126–128.

Jackson, Robert, Michael Boynton, William Olsen, and Richard Weaver 1988 California Archaeological Resource Identification and Data Acquisition Program: Sparse Lithic Scatters. A Program for the Identification and Management of an Archaeological Resource Class. Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento.

Jacques, Terri E., and Dennis K. Quillen
1983 Archaeological and Historical Impact Report for Sycamore Canyon State Vehicular Recreation Area. Report on file at the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University.

Jordan, Stacey C., Theodore G. Cooley, and Andrea M. Craft 2008 Cultural Resources Phase I Survey and Inventory, Sycamore Canyon and Goodan Ranch Preserves, San Diego County, California. Unpublished report prepared by ICF-Jones & Stokes, for, and on file with, the San Diego County Department of Parks and Recreation.

Kline, George E., and Victoria L. Kline
2007 Fluted Point Recovered from San Diego County Excavation. Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology 20:55–59.

Knell, Edward J., and Mark S. Becker
2017 Early Holocene San Dieguito Complex Lithic Technologies at the C.W. Harris Site, San Diego County, California. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 37(2):183- 201.

Cultural Resources Sensitivity Analysis for the Santee Town Center Specific Plan Project PRELIMINARY DRAFT| February 2024
42 Koerper, Henry C., Paul E. Langenwalter II, and Adella Schroth 1991 Early Holocene Adaptations and the Transition Phase Problem: Evidence from the Allan O. Kelly Site, Agua Hedionda Lagoon. In Hunter-Gatherers of Early Holocene Coastal California, edited by Jon M. Erlandson and Roger H. Colton, pp. 43–62. Perspectives in California Archaeology, Vol. 1, Jeanne E. Arnold, series editor. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Kroeber, Alfred
1925 Handbook of California Indians. Dover, New York. Bulletin 78 of the Bureau of American Ethnology of the Smithsonian Institution. Reprint (1976); Dover Publications, New York.

Kyle, Carolyn
2003 Cultural Resource Survey for the Town Center Park, City of Santee, California. Kyle Consulting. Report on file at the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University.

Lay, Eldonna
1989 Valley of Opportunity: The History of El Cajon. Eldonna P. Lay & Associates: El Cajon, California.

Luomala, Katherine
1978 Tipai-Ipai. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 592-608. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8. William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Masters, Patricia M., and Ivano W. Aiello
2007 Postglacial Evolution of Coastal Environments. In California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, pp. 25–51.

Altamira Press, Lanham, Maryland.

Masters, Patricia M., and Dennis R. Gallegos
1997 Environmental Change and Coastal Adaptations in San Diego during the Middle Holocene. In Archaeology of the California Coast during the Middle Holocene, edited by Jon M. Erlandson and Michael A. Glassow. pp. 11–23. Perspectives in California Archaeology, Vol. 4, Jeanne. Arnold, series editor. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.

McCown, B.E.
1945 An Archaeological Survey of the San Vicente Lake Bed, San Diego County, California.

American Antiquity 10: 255–264.

McDonald, Meg
1995 Phase II Evaluation of Six Prehistoric Sites in Ames Valley, Cleveland National Forest, San Diego, California. Report prepared by ASM Affiliates for the U.S. Forest Service, Cleveland National Forest, San Diego California. Report on file at the Cleveland National Forest, Supervisor’s Office, San Diego.

Cultural Resources Sensitivity Analysis for the Santee Town Center Specific Plan Project PRELIMINARY DRAFT| February 2024
43 McDonald, Meg, and James D. Eighmey
2008 Late Period Prehistory in San Diego. In Prehistoric and Historic Archaeology of Metropolitan San Diego: A Historic Properties Background Study. Prepared for the Metropolitan Wastewater Department, City of San Diego. ASM Affiliates, Encinitas, California.

McDonald, Meg, Carol Ser, and Daniel M. Sanders
1994 Phase III Data recovery of CA-SDI-9243, A Multicomponent Prehistoric Site in the San Diego River Valley, Santee, California. Mooney and Associates: San Diego, CA. Prepared for State of California Department of Transportation District 11. Ms. on file at South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University.

Meighan, C. W.
1954 A Late Complex in Southern California Prehistory. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 10(2):215-227.

Monserrate, Laurence
1995 Final and Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the East Mission Gorge Trunk Sewer Rehabilitation Project San Diego, California. Report on file at the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California.

Moratto, Michael J.
1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, Orlando.

Moriarty, James R., III
1966 Cultural Phase Divisions Suggested by Typological Change Coordinated with Stratigraphically Controlled Radiocarbon Dating in San Diego. The Anthropological Journal of Canada 4 (4):20-30.
1967 Transitional Pre-Desert Phase in San Diego County. Science (155):37–62. 1968 The Environmental Variations of the Yuman Area of Southern California, Parts I and II.

Anthropological Journal of Canada 6(2):1–20 and 6(3):9–23.

Munz, Philip A.
1974 A Flora of Southern California. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Natural Resource Conservation Service
1997 Antioch Series. United States Department of Agriculture. Electronic document available at: https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/A/ANTIOCH.html, accessed on April 21, 2021.
2003 Fallbrook Series. United States Department of Agriculture. Electronic document available at: https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/F/FALLBROOK.html, accessed on April 21, 2021.
2017 Diablo Series. United States Department of Agriculture. Electronic document available at: https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/D/DIABLO.html, accessed on April 21, 2021.

Cultural Resources Sensitivity Analysis for the Santee Town Center Specific Plan Project PRELIMINARY DRAFT| February 2024
44 Natural Resource Conservation Service (cont.)
2021 Web Soil Survey. United States Department of Agriculture. Electronic document, available at: https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx, accessed March 2020.

NETR Online
2022 Historic Aerials. Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC. Electronic document available at: http://www.historicaerials.com, accessed May 24, 2022.

Office of Historic Preservation
n.d. California Register of Historical Resources: Criteria for Designation. Available online at https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21238. Accessed on September 7, 2023.

Ogden, Hoffman
1862 Reports of Land Cases Determined in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Numa Hubert, San Francisco.

Padre Dam Municipal Water District (District)
2016 Strategic Plan Update: 2012-2022.
http://www.padredam.org/DocumentCenter/View/2461/Strategic-Plan-2016- Update?bidId=, accessed May 19, 2022.

Parker, Patricia L., and Thomas F. King
1998 Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties. National Park Service, Washington, D.C.

Pigniolo, Andrew R.
2004 Points, Patterns, and People: Distribution of the Desert Side-Notched Point in San Diego.

Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology 14:27–40. 2005 A Different Context: San Dieguito in the Mountains of Southern California. Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology 18:247–254.

Pigniolo, Andrew, Theodore G. Cooley, Joyce M. Clevenger, and Lynne E. Christenson 1991 The Archaeology of a La Jolla Complex Coastal Camp: Data Recovery at CA-SDI-10,945, Point Loma Naval Facilities, San Diego, California. Report on file at the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University.

Polan, K.
1978 DPR Site Form for P-37-005669/CA-SDI-5669. On file at the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University.

Price, Harry
2005 Santee Town Center Specific Plan Amendment, Appendixes to the Draft Master Environmental Impact Report. RECON. Report on file at the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University.

Pryde, Philip R.
2004 San Diego: an Introduction to the Region. Sunbelt Publications; 4th edition.

Cultural Resources Sensitivity Analysis for the Santee Town Center Specific Plan Project PRELIMINARY DRAFT| February 2024
45 Pourade, Richard F.
1969 Historic Ranchos of San Diego. A Copley Book, Union-Tribune Publishing, San Diego.

Raven-Jennings, Shelly, and Brian F. Smith
1999 Report of Excavations at CA-SDI-4608: Subsistence and Technology Transitions during the Mid-to-Late Holocene in San Diego County. Brian F. Smith and Associates. Report prepared for the City of Poway. Report on file at the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University.

Rogers, Malcolm J.
1929 The Stone Art of the San Dieguito Plateau. American Anthropologist 31:451-467. 1939 Early Lithic Industries of the Lower Basin of the Colorado River and Adjacent Desert Areas. San Diego Museum of Man Papers No. 3. San Diego Museum of Man. 1938 Archaeological and Geological Investigations of the Cultural Levels in and Old Channel of the San Dieguito Valley. Carnegie institution of Washington Yearbook, No. 37 (for 1937- 1938), pp. 344-345.
1966 Ancient Hunters of the Far West, edited by R. F. Pourade, pp. 21–108. Copley Press, La Jolla, California.

Rondeau, Michael F., James Cassidy, and Terry L. Jones
2007 Colonization Technologies: Fluted Projectile Points and the First Californians. In California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar. AltaMira Press, Lanham, Maryland.

Santee Historical Society
2020 History of Edgemoor Stock Farm. Electronic Document, available at:
http://santeehistoricalsociety.org/exhibits/our-collections/edgemoor-history. Accessed May 19, 2022.

Scott, Chloris
1981 Our valley: “You’ve come a long way”. The Daily Californian. Available at:
https://web.archive.org/web/20170108015429/http:/elcajonhistory.org/pdf/our_valley .PDF, accessed May 19, 2022.

Shumway, George, Carl L. Hubbs, and James R. Moriarty
1961 Scripps Estates Site, San Diego, California: A La Jolla Site Dated 5,460 to 7,370 Years Before the Present. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 93(3):37–132.

Smith, Brian F., and James R. Moriarty
1985 The Excavations at Site W-20, the Sierra del Mar Project. A Site Occupied by the La Jolla Complex from 7,140 B.P. (5,190 B.C.) to 2,355 B.P. (400 B.C.) on the Shores of Los Peñasquitos Lagoon near Del Mar, California. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Poway.

Prepared for Dr. Victor Fargo, Fargo Industries. Report on file at the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University.

Cultural Resources Sensitivity Analysis for the Santee Town Center Specific Plan Project PRELIMINARY DRAFT| February 2024
46 Sorlie, H.E.
1985 Historical Resources Letter Report for the Edgemoor Senior Center Expansion, Santee, San Diego County, California. County of San Diego, Department of Public Works. On file at the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University.

Stevens, Leonard A.
1971 The Town That Launders Its Water. Coward, McCann &Geoghegan, Inc. New York. Copy available at Padre Dam Municipal Water District.

Stiegler, Ione R. and Jaye Furlonger
2008 Edgemoor Farm Historical Resources Evaluation Report. IS Architecture, La Jolla.

Prepared for Heritage Architecture and Planning. Report on file at HELIX Environmental Planning, La Mesa.

Sutton, Mark Q., and Donn R. Grenda
2012 Defining Level 1 at Malaga Cove (CA-LAN-138), Alta California. California Archaeology 4(1):123–144.

Tan, Siang S.
2002 Geologic Map of the El Cajon 7.5 Minute Quadrangle, San Diego County, California.

Digital preparation by Jonathan Williams and Sybil Jorgensen. California Geological Survey, California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey.

Thesken, Jay
1984 DPR Site form for P-37-010148/CA-SDI-10148. Form on file at the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University.

Trafzer, Clifford E., and Richard L. Carrico
1992 American Indians: The County’s First Residents. Chapter 4, in San Diego: an Introduction to the Region, edited by Philip R. Pryde. Kendall/Hunt Publishing, Dubuque, Iowa.

True, D.L.
1958 An Early Complex in San Diego County, California. American Antiquity 23(3): 255–263. 1970 Investigation of a Late Prehistoric Complex in Cuyamaca Rancho State Park, San Diego County, California. Monograph 1. Archaeological Survey, University of California, Los Angeles.
1980 The Pauma Complex in Northern San Diego County: 1978. Journal of New World Archaeology 3(4): 1–30. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.

True, D.L., and Eleanor Beemer
1982 Two Milling Stone Inventories from Northern San Diego County, California. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 4(2):233–261.

True, D.L., and Paul D. Bouey
1990 Gladishill: A Probable San Dieguito Camp near Valley Center, California. Journal of New World Archaeology VII(4):1–28.

Cultural Resources Sensitivity Analysis for the Santee Town Center Specific Plan Project PRELIMINARY DRAFT| February 2024
47 True, D.L., and Georgie Waugh
1982 Proposed Settlement Shifts during San Luis Rey Times: Northern San Diego County, California. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 4(1):34–54.

USGS Online Historical Topographic Map Explorer
2020 USGS Historical Topographic Map Explorer. Electronic document available at:
http://www.historicalmaps.arcgis.com/usgs/, accessed March 2020.

United States v. Sutherland, 60 U.S. 363
1856 United States Supreme Court.

Vaughan, Sheila J.
1982 A Replicative Systems Analysis of the San Dieguito Component at the C.W. Harris Site.

Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

Wallace, William J.
1955 A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11:214-230.

Warren, Claude N.
1967 The San Dieguito Complex: A Review and Hypothesis. American Antiquity 32:168-185. 1968 Cultural Tradition and Ecological Adaptation on the Southern California Coast. In Archaic Prehistory in the Western United States, edited by C. Irwin-Williams, pp. 1–14. Eastern New Mexico Contributions in Anthropology 1(3). Portales, New Mexico. 1987 The San Dieguito and La Jolla: Some Comments. In, San Dieguito – La Jolla: Chronology and Controversy, edited by D.R. Gallegos, pp. 73–85. San Diego County Archaeological Society Research Paper No. 1.
2012 Environmental Stress and Subsistence Intensification: Late La Jolla on the San Diego Coast (3000 B.C. to A.D. 500). California Archaeology 4(1):39-54.

Warren, Claude N. (editor)
1966 The San Dieguito Type Site: M. J. Rogers’ 1938 Excavation on the San Dieguito River. San Diego Museum Paper No. 6, San Diego, California.

Warren, Claude N., and H.T. Ore
2011 Age of the San Dieguito Artifact Assemblage at the C. W. Harris Site. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 31(1): 81–97.

Warren, Claude N., and D.L. True
1961 The San Dieguito Complex and Its Place in San Diego County Prehistory. Archaeological Survey Annual Report, 1960–1961, pp. 246–291. University of California, Los Angeles.

Warren, Claude N., D.L. True, Ardith A. Eudey
1961 Early Gathering Complexes of Western San Diego County. Archaeological Survey Annual Report, 1960–1961, pp. 1–106. University of California, Los Angeles.

Cultural Resources Sensitivity Analysis for the Santee Town Center Specific Plan Project PRELIMINARY DRAFT| February 2024
48 Warren, Claude N., Gretchen Siegler, and Frank Dittmer 2008 Paleoindian and Early Archaic Periods. In Prehistoric and Historic Archaeology of Metropolitan San Diego: A Historic Properties Background Study. Draft. ASM Affiliates.

Report submitted to Metropolitan Wastewater, San Diego.

Willey, H.I.
1886 Report of the Surveyor General of the State of California from August 1, 1884 to August 1, 1886. Sacramento, California. Available at: http://www.slc.ca.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2018/08/Willey_1884_1886.pdf, accessed in July 2020.

Willey, Loraine M., and Christy Dolan
2004 Above and Below the Valley: Report on Data Recovery at San Vicente Reservoir, San Diego County, California. EDAW, San Diego. Prepared for the San Diego County Water Authority. Report on file at the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University.

Winterrowd, Cathy L., and D. Seán Cárdenas
1987 An Archaeological Indexing of a Portion of the Village of La Rinconada de Jamo SDI-5017 (SDM-W-150). RBR & Associates, Inc., San Diego. Submitted to the City of San Diego, Planning Department. Report on file at South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University.

Zepeda-Herman, Carmen, and Harry Price
2016 Mission Trails Regional Park Master Plan Update and Natural Resources Management Plan Programmatic Environmental Impact Report: Cultural Resources Report. Report prepared by RECON Environmental, Inc. for the City of San Diego Planning Department, available at: https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/ app_c_cultural_resources_report_0.pdf, accessed April 2021.

Cultural Resources Sensitivity Analysis for the Santee Town Center Specific Plan Project PRELIMINARY DRAFT| February 2024
49 This page intentionally left blank
Appendix A
Resumes
Page | 1

MARY ROBBINS-WADE, RPA
Cultural Resources Group Manager
Ms. Robbins-Wade is HELIX’s Cultural Resources Group
Manager and Principal Archaeologist. With 43 years of
experience, she manages and oversees archaeological, historic, and interpretive studies and programs, including contract management; design and implementation of survey, research, data recovery, and construction monitoring programs;
preservation plans and report preparation. Ms. Robbins-Wade has experience with a broad range of project types, including private developments and public infrastructure. She manages the preparation of cultural resources studies both as stand-alone reports and also in support of CEQA and NEPA compliance efforts. Ms. Robbins-Wade has a strong working knowledge of local, state, and federal laws addressing the protection of archaeological and historical resources. Her Native American consultation experience includes coordinating Native American tribal consultations conducted pursuant to CEQA as revised by Assembly Bill 52 (2014 Session), as well as providing support for federal agency government-to-government consultations with federally recognized tribes pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Ms. RobbinsWade is a Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA) and meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications for prehistoric and historic archaeology.

Lake Elsinore Honda (Archaeological Services). Project Manager/Principal Investigator for a cultural resources survey of a proposed auto dealership project in the City of Lake Elsinore. Oversaw background research and field survey; responsible for Native American coordination and report preparation. Work performed for David Evans Associates, with the City of Lake Elsinore as the lead agency.

Diaz Road Expansion, PW17-25. Principal Investigator/Cultural Resources Task Lead for cultural resources survey in support of an IS/MND for proposed city infrastructure improvements associated with the widening and construction of Diaz Road in the City of Temecula. The cultural resources study included tribal outreach and coordination to address the cultural sensitivity of the project area. Oversaw cultural resources study; responsible for tribal outreach and senior oversight on technical report. Work performed for David Evans and Associates, with the City of Temecula as the lead agency.

Windsong/Skylar Place Residential Project (TTM 38123). Principal Cultural Resources Specialist for a proposed residential development in the City of Moreno Valley. The project includes construction of 177 single-family residential lots, a 2.2‑acre park, water quality retention basins, open space areas, underground utilities, and internal streets/sidewalks. Responsibilities include providing senior technical oversight and quality control for cultural resources survey and technical report. Work performed for DR Horton with the City of Moreno Valley as lead agency.

Judson Potable Water Storage Tank and Transmission Pipeline IS/MND. Cultural Resources Task Lead for this project in the City of Moreno Valley. Eastern Municipal

EDUCATION
Master of Arts,
Anthropology,
San Diego State
University, 1990
Bachelor of Arts,
Anthropology, University
of California, Santa
Barbara, 1981

REGISTRATIONS/

CERTIFICATIONS
Registered Professional
Archaeologist No. 10294
Caltrans, Professionally
Qualified StaffEquivalent Principal
Investigator for
Prehistoric Archaeology
Bureau of Land
Management
Statewide Cultural
Resource Use Permit
(California), FLPMA
Permit No. CA-18-35
County of San Diego,
Approved CEQA
Consultant for
Archaeological
Resources
Orange County
Approved
Archaeologist
Riverside County
Approved Cultural
Resources Consultant

PROFESSIONAL

AFFILIATIONS
Society for American
Archaeology
Society for California
Archaeology
San Diego
Archaeological Center
San Diego History
Center
San Diego Museum of
Us
San Diego County
Archaeological Society
Page | 2
Water District is proposing the construction and operation of a steel, 2.2-million-gallon (MG) potable water storage tank, approximately 2,300 linear feet of 18-inch-diameter transmission pipeline, a paved access road, a detention basin, and other appurtenances to support tank operations. Oversaw background research and field survey. Responsible for Native American outreach for cultural resources survey and co-authored technical report. Assisted District with Native American outreach and consultation under AB 52. Work performed under an as-needed contract for Eastern Municipal Water District.

EMWD Fox Tank Replacement IS/MND. Cultural Resources Task Lead for this project in the Mead Valley community of unincorporated Riverside County. Eastern Municipal Water District proposed to construct and operate a new 1.0-million-gallon (MG) welded steel water tank and 0.15-MG detention basin, install a new 12- inch-diameter pipeline within Fox Street and Ellis Road to connect the new tank to the existing water distribution network, and demolish the existing 0.15-MG Orange Tank. Oversaw background research, field survey, and report preparation. Responsible for Native American outreach for cultural resources survey. Assisted District with Native American outreach and consultation under AB 52. Work performed under an as-needed contract for Eastern Municipal Water District.

Cactus II Feeder Transmission Pipeline IS/MND. Cultural Resources Task Lead for this project in the City of Moreno Valley. Eastern Municipal Water District proposed to construct approximately five miles of new 30-inch to 42 inch-diameter pipeline; the project would address existing system deficiencies within the City and provide supply for developing areas. Oversaw background research, field survey, and report preparation. Responsible for Native American outreach for cultural resources survey. Assisted District with Native American outreach and consultation under AB 52. Work performed under an as-needed contract for Eastern Municipal Water District.

Sky Canyon Sewer Environmental Consulting. Cultural Resources Task Lead for this project adjacent to the City of Murrieta in southwestern Riverside County. Eastern Municipal Water District (District) proposed to implement the Sky Canyon Sewer Main Extension Project to construct approximately 6,700 linear feet of new gravity-fed 36-inch-diameter sewer main to provide additional sewer capacity for planned development. The proposed 36-inch-diameter sewer main would extend the existing 36-inch-diameter French Valley Sewer at Winchester Road further downstream to Murrieta Hot Springs Road. Oversaw background research and field survey for the cultural resources study in support of the IS/MND. Responsible for Native American outreach for cultural resources survey and co-authored technical report. Assisted District with Native American outreach and consultation under AB 52. Work performed under an as-needed contract for Eastern Municipal Water District.

Dale 2199C Pressure Zone Looping Pipeline Project. Cultural Resources Task Lead for this project in Moreno Valley. Eastern Municipal Water District proposed construction of a new pipeline to connect two existing pipelines in the District’s 2199C Pressure Zone. The pipeline would consist of an 18-inch-diameter pipeline between Kitching Street and Alta Vista Drive that would connect to an existing 12-inch-diameter pipeline in the northern end of Kitching Street and to an existing 18-inch-diameter pipeline at the eastern end of Alta Vista Drive. The project will improve reliability and boost the Dale Pressure Zone’s baseline pressure and fire flow availabilities. Four potential alignments were under consideration; three of these bisect undeveloped land to varying degrees, while the other is entirely situated within developed roadways. Oversaw background research and field survey. Responsible for Native American outreach for cultural resources survey and co-authored technical report. Work performed under an as-needed contract for Eastern Municipal Water District.

Purified Water Replenishment Environmental Impact Report. Cultural Resources Task Lead for a project that would replenish the San Jacinto Upper Pressure Groundwater Management Zone aquifer with advanced treated water. New facilities are proposed to include advanced water treatment facilities and brine ponds near Eastern Municipal Water District’s (EMWD) existing San Jacinto Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility, a blending facility at the existing Alessandro Ponds, and water conveyance pipelines. Oversaw background research, field Page | 3
survey, and report preparation and was responsible for Native American outreach and coordination. Work performed for EMWD.

Warm Springs Lift Station Replacement. Cultural Resources Task Lead/Principal Investigator for a cultural resources survey of this lift station replacement project in Temecula. The project is adjacent to Murrieta Creek, in an area that is of cultural significance to the Luiseño people. Oversaw background research, field survey, and report preparation. Responsible for Native American outreach and coordination; coordinated with Pechanga Cultural Resources on Native American concerns. Work performed for Eastern Municipal Water District.

Seraphina Project. Principal Investigator/Cultural Resources Task Lead for a cultural resources study in conjunction with biological permitting for a proposed residential development and associated drainage improvements along Santa Gertrudis Creek in the City of Temecula, Riverside County. The cultural resources study includes a records search and background research, Native American coordination and contacting the Native American Heritage Commission, field survey, coordination with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and preparation of a report addressing the National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 compliance. Work was performed for Hillcrest Homes, with the City of Temecula as the lead agency.

Downtown Riverside Metrolink Station Track & Platform Project. Cultural Resources Task Lead for this project involving changes to and expansion of the Downtown Metrolink Station in Riverside. Oversaw records search and background information, archaeological survey, and report preparation; served as primary report author.

Responsible for coordination with Native American Heritage Commission, Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), and Federal Transportation Authority (FTA) on Native American outreach. Work performed for Riverside County Transportation Commission as a subconsultant to HNTB Corporation.

Eastern Municipal Water District Well 59 Wellhead Treatment Facilities IS/MND. Senior Archaeologist providing quality control and oversight for cultural resources survey and report for this project, in the City of Moreno Valley, which includes a background research, field survey, report preparation, and Native American outreach. HELIX is performing an environmental review and CEQA document preparation, including assisting EMWD with Native American consultation in accordance with Assembly Bill 52. The project consists of the evaluation and design of wellhead treatment facilities to remove perfluorinated compounds from the existing Well 59. The approximately 0.68-acre project site is located within the 1627 zone, at the intersection of Nance Street and Indian Avenue. Work performed for Kennedy Jenks Consultants with EMWD as the lead agency.

EVMWD Near Term Water Supply Program, On-call Professional Environmental Services. Cultural Resources Task Lead/Principal Investigator for an on-call services contract to provide environmental services for water supply projects. Work performed for Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District. Diamond Regional Lift Station and Pipeline Project (2016 - 2018). Cultural Resources Task Lead/Principal Investigator for a cultural resources survey of the proposed Diamond Regional Lift Station project in the City of Lake Elsinore, located at the confluence of the San Jacinto River at the eastern shoreline of Lake Elsinore. Oversaw background research, field survey, site record updates, Native American coordination, and report preparation. Coordinated with Pechanga Cultural Resources on Native American concerns and development of mitigation measures for the project. Work performed for Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD). Regional Agricultural Pipeline Conversion Project (2016 - 2018). Cultural Resources Task Lead for the cultural resources study and archaeological monitoring for the proposed Ag Pipeline Conversion project, a three-agency partnership between Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD), the City of Lake Elsinore, and the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFCWCD). In conjunction with the cultural resources study, met with Pechanga Cultural Resources staff several times to discuss Native American concerns and alternative project approaches, due to the presence of extremely sensitive cultural resources. Assisted EVMWD with AB 52 consultation. Worked closely with tribal cultural monitors from two Tribes during construction monitoring. Work performed EVMWD.

Page | 4
Rady Murrieta Project. Principal Investigator/Cultural Resources Task Lead for a medical office building project in the City of Murrieta, Riverside County. The cultural resources survey included a records search at the Eastern Information Center, Sacred Lands File search from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), tribal outreach and coordination, a field survey, and preparation of a report per CEQA and City requirements. Work was performed for Rady Children’s, with the City of Murrieta as the lead agency.

Murrieta Hot Springs Road Improvements Project. Principal Investigator/Cultural Resources Task Lead for cultural resources survey in support of an IS/MND for the widening of Murrieta Hot Springs Road in the City of Murrieta. The project would widen/restripe Murrieta Hot Springs Road between Winchester Road and Margarita Road from four to six lanes, to improve traffic flow and provide bike lanes, a raised median, light poles, signage, stormwater catch basins, retaining walls, and sidewalks. The cultural resources study included tribal outreach and coordination to address the cultural sensitivity of the project vicinity. Oversaw cultural resources study; responsible for tribal outreach and senior oversight on technical report. Work performed for SB&O, Inc., with the City of Murrieta as the lead agency.
12 Oaks Winery Resort. Project Manager/ Principal Investigator for a cultural resources survey of approximately 650 acres for a proposed project in the County of Riverside. Oversaw background research, field survey, site record updates, Native American coordination, and report preparation. Met with Pechanga Cultural Resources staff to discuss Native American concerns. Worked with applicant and Pechanga to design the project to avoid impacts to cultural resources. Work performed for Standard Portfolio Temecula, LLC, with the County of Riverside as lead agency.

Oak Valley Town Center. Principal Cultural Resources Specialist/Cultural Resources Task Lead for a mixed-use project in the City of Calimesa, Riverside County. Proposed uses would include approximately 2,250,000 square feet of warehouses and approximately 751,800 square feet of commercial retail uses. Serving as lead for the cultural resources survey and historic resources evaluation, as well as cultural resources monitoring program (upcoming). Work performed for Terra Verde Group, with the City of Calimesa as the lead agency.

EMWD Quail Valley III Regional Water Tank Environmental Consulting. Cultural Resources Task Lead for a cultural resources survey for a proposed 1.63-million-gallon potable water storage tank in the City of Menifee.

Overseeing background research, field survey, and report preparation. Responsible for Native American outreach and coordination. Work performed for Pulte Group, with Eastern Municipal Water District as the CEQA lead agency.

French Valley South Tract 30837 Project. Principal Investigator for a 153-acre residential project in the unincorporated community of French Valley, Riverside County. Oversaw background research, field survey, site record updates, Native American coordination, and preparation of a cultural resources report update in support of wetland permitting. The project proposes construction of 312 single-family residences.

Moreno Valley Tentative Tract Map 36760 Project. Principal Investigator for a cultural resources survey of a 53- acre site in the City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County. Oversaw background research, field survey, site record updates, Native American coordination, and preparation of a cultural resources report. Project proposed construction of 221 single-family residences, including the installation of necessary utilities and new connecting roadways.

Wildomar Crossings Retail Development Project. Principal Investigator for a cultural resources survey for a proposed retail development project in the City of Wildomar in Riverside County. The cultural resources survey included a records search, Sacred Lands File search and Native American outreach, review of historic maps and aerial photographs, an intensive field survey, and report preparation. Work performed for Mann Property Company, with the City of Wildomar as the lead agency.

Page | 5
Roripaugh Ranch Phase 2. Principal Investigator/Cultural Resources Task Lead for a cultural resources study in conjunction with biological permitting for roadway and drainage improvements along Santa Gertrudis Creek in the City of Temecula, Riverside County. The cultural resources study includes a records search and background research, Native American coordination and contacting the Native American Heritage Commission, field survey, coordination with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and preparation of a report addressing the National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 compliance. Work performed for Roripaugh Valley Restoration, LLC.

Lake Elsinore MEBO Resort Project. Cultural Resources Task Lead/Principal Investigator for a cultural resources survey of off-site parcels for a proposed resort development in the City of Lake Elsinore. Met with client and Pechanga to discuss the significance of cultural resources within and adjacent to the project site. Oversaw background research and field survey, responsible for Native American coordination and report preparation.

Work performed for LK Investment Group, with the City of Lake Elsinore as the lead agency.

Yum Donuts Moreno Valley Project. Cultural Resources Lead and Project Manager for a project in the City of Moreno Valley that proposed to develop a vacant lot for a 5,515-square foot Yum Donuts restaurant and convenience store with car wash and gas station. HELIX provided technical reports (cultural resources and air quality/greenhouse gas analysis) and the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. Oversaw cultural resources study and provided senior technical review. Work performed for A&S Engineering with City of Moreno Valley as the lead agency.

Ramona E-Commerce Warehouse Park EIR. Principal Cultural Resources Specialist/Cultural Resources Task Lead for a Specific Plan Amendment in the City of Perris, Riverside County to allow for 247,884 square feet of smallscale warehousing with 39 dock positions for delivery trucks, 415 parking stalls, a groundwater basin, and landscaping improvements. Led the cultural resources survey and technical report. Responsible for Native American outreach and coordination, served as primary report author, and oversaw archaeological fieldwork.

Work performed for JM Realty Group, with the City of Perris as lead agency.

Page | 1

JAMES TURNER
Staff Archaeologist
Mr. Turner is a Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA) with a Master’s degree in Anthropology and field and collegelevel teaching experience in archaeology. He has five years of experience in Section 106, the Native American Graves
Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) and writing detailed reports. Mr. Turner has archaeological research and fieldwork expertise throughout southern California. He has also received training in identifying and analyzing animal remains in archaeological contexts, historic artifact identification, and technical writing. Mr. Tuner’s experience meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology.

Coronado Strand Main Replacement. Archaeologist for a 46,300 linear-foot water main replacement in the City of Coronado, San Diego County. Prepared the cultural resource survey report. Work performed for Brown and Caldwell.

Casa de las Campanas Project. Archaeologist for a 10.1-acre expansion of the Casa de las Campanas Continuing Care Facility in San Diego, California. Conducted a field survey of the proposed project areas, as well as assisted with the production of the Archaeological Resources Report Form. Work completed for Casa de las Campanas.

Haymar Easement Protection Project. Archaeologist for an emergency easement erosion prevention project. Prepared cultural resources monitoring report. Work performed for the United States Army Corps of Engineers.

Ocean Beach Dog Beach Accessibility Improvements. Archaeologist for the implementation of Americans with Disabilities Act upgrades to an existing pathway at the Ocean Beach Dog Beach, located in the City of San Diego. Created Monitoring Work Plan. Work performed for the City of San Diego.

Southcrest Green Infrastructure Project. Staff Archaeologist for the replacement and installation of new storm drains and green infrastructure facilities in the community of Southcrest, San Diego. Prepared Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Land File search request. Work performed for the City of San Diego.

Sewer and AC Group 793. Staff Archaeologist for sewer line replacements and improvements in the City of San Diego. Prepared Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Land File Search request letter. Work performed for the City of San Diego.

Bounty & Waring Navajo Canyon Long Term Access Project. Archaeologist for the repair of erosion on a long-term access path for the sewer infrastructure in Navajo Canyon. Performed an intensive pedestrian survey of the project area. Work performed for the City of San Diego.

EDUCATION
Master of Arts,
Anthropology,
San Diego State
University, 2018
Bachelor of Arts,
Biology and
Anthropology,
San Diego State
University, 2015

REGISTRATIONS/

CERTIFICATIONS
Registered Professional
Archaeologist No. 17338

PROFESSIONAL

AFFILIATIONS
Society for Historical
Archaeology
Society for California
Archaeology
Page | 2
Stowe Trail Cultural Resources Assessment. Archaeologist for a proposed trail alignment in the Mission Trails Regional Park. Performed background research and assisted with report writing. Work performed for the City of San Diego Parks and Recreation Department.

Clairemont Community Plan Update EIR Phase 1. Archaeologist for the Clairemont Community Plan Update.

Performed background research and assisted with preparing the Community Plan Update cultural resources section. Work performed for the City of San Diego.

Aliso Creek Canyon Restoration Project. Archaeologist for an erosion repair project in Lake Forest. Conducted a field survey of the project area, performed background research, and produced a cultural resources report.

Work performed for the Orange County Department of Public Works.

Peutz Valley Preserve Cultural Surveys and Report. Archaeologist for the proposed construction of an ecological preserve located in the community of Alpine. Conducted historical and archival research regarding the area surrounding the proposed preserve. Work conducted for the County of San Diego.

Santa Ysabel Nature Center Monitoring. Archaeologist for a proposed 3-mile hiking trail in the unincorporated community of Julian. Performed background research and assisted with report writing. Work performed for the County of San Diego Department of Parks and Recreation.

Lakeside Equestrian Facility Monitoring. Archaeologist for the construction of a 13.91-acre equestrian facility in Lakeside, California. Created cultural resources monitoring plan. Work performed for the County of San Diego.

Greg Cox Bike Skills Park Construction Monitoring. Archaeologist for the construction of a 3.2-acre bike park facility in the Otay Valley Regional Park, San Diego, California. Created cultural resources monitoring plan. Work performed for the County of San Diego.

Diaz Road Expansion, PW17-25. Archaeologist for proposed city infrastructure improvements associated with the widening and/or construction of Diaz Road in the city of Temecula. Prepared cultural resources survey report. Work performed for David Evans and Associates, Inc.

San Jacinto Las Colinas DD. Archaeologist for a development project in the community of San Jacinto. Prepared a due diligence cultural assessment. Work performed for David Evans and Associates, Inc.

Downtown Riverside Metrolink Station Track & Platform Project. Archaeologist for the construction of an additional rail platform and tracks and extension of an existing pedestrian bridge at the existing RiversideDowntown Station, Riverside. Assisted with report preparation. Work performed for the Riverside County Transportation Commission.

Painted Hills. Archaeologist for a proposed bridge repair program in the Temescal Valley area in Riverside County. Prepared the Phase IV cultural resources monitoring report. Work performed for KB Home.

Temescal Canyon - TR 37153. Archaeologist for a due diligence constraints assessment related to cultural resources for an approximately 14.8-acre property located in an unincorporated area of Riverside County, California. Performed constraints assessment and produced a due diligence report. Work performed for KB Home.

Wasson Canyon Project. Archaeologist for a due diligence constraints assessment related to cultural resources for an approximately 74.6-acre property located in the City of Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California.

Performed constraints assessment and produced a due diligence report. Work performed for KB Home.

Rosetta Hills Project. Archaeologist for a due diligence constraints assessment related to cultural resources for an approximately 49.6-acre property located in the City of Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California. Performed constraints assessment and produced a due diligence report. Work performed for KB Home.

Page | 3
Lake Morena's Oak Shores Eastside Pipeline Looping Project. Archaeologist for the Lake Morena's Oak Shores Mutual Water Company Eastside Pipeline Looping and Pipeline Abandonment Project. The project consisted of improvements to the existing water distribution system. Conducted archaeological monitoring and wrote a letter report summarizing the methods and results of the monitoring program. Work performed for Lake Morena's Oak Shores Mutual Water Company.

Escondido Country Club. Archaeological monitor for the redevelopment of the Escondido Country Club.

Performed construction monitoring. Work performed for Lennar Homes.

Broadway Channel Improvements - Phase A. Archaeologist for an earthen channel improvement project in the city of El Cajon. Performed background research and prepared cultural resource survey report. Work performed for City of El Cajon.

Seawater Controls Project. Archaeologist for a proposed tank installation near the Scripps Institute of Oceanography in La Jolla. Performed monitoring of geotech borings and conducted a site survey. Work performed for University of California, San Diego.

Carmel Mountain Road Life Sciences Project. Archaeologist for a proposed commercial development project in the Torrey Hills Community Plan area. Responsibilities included performing background and archival research and producing an archaeological resources report. Work performed for Allen Matkins Leck Gabme Mallory & Natsis, LLP.

Parkway Drive and Alvarado Road Trunk Sewer Phase 3 Upgrade Project. Archaeologist for a sewer infrastructure improvement project in the city of La Mesa, San Diego County. Performed construction monitoring. Work performed for the City of La Mesa.

Diamond Sports Complex. Archaeologist for the construction of a sports complex in Lake Elsinore. Assisted with report preparation. Work performed for the City of Lake Elsinore.

City of Escondido's Trunk Sewer Main Replacement Environmental Services. Archaeologist for the replacement of the City of Escondido's trunk sewer main. Wrote a memo summarizing the methods and results for the records search and Sacred Lands File search. Work performed for Infrastructure Engineering Corporation, with the City of Escondido as the lead agency.

Mountain View Connector Pipeline Cultural Monitoring. Archaeologist for a waterline replacement project in the community of Alpine. Conducted cultural resource monitoring and prepared the final monitoring report.

Work performed for Padre Dam Municipal Water District.

Cordial Road Pipeline. Archaeologist for a pipeline replacement project in the unincorporated portion of the City of El Cajon. Performed background research and field survey. Other responsibilities included the production of a letter report detailing the methods and results of the survey, as well as the completion of a site record update to submit to the South Coastal Information Center. Work performed for the Padre Dam Municipal Water District.

The Triangle Project. Archaeologist for an approximately 40.6-acre development center consisting of restaurant, commercial/retail, theater/entertainment, hotel, and office uses in Temecula, Riverside County, California.

Prepared the cultural resources study update report and the records search update memo. Work performed for Domenigoni-Barton Properties, LLC.

Page | 1

TREVOR GITTELHOUGH, RPA
Cultural Resources Assistant Project Manager
Mx. Gittelhough is an archaeologist and assistant project manager with 11 years of experience. They specialize in underwater cultural resources, with experience in archaeology, cultural resources management, site monitoring, surveys and excavations, laboratory sorting, cataloging and analysis, and conservation. They have conducted environmental,
paleontological, and cultural resources work throughout California in support of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and Sections 106 and 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) for public and private sector clients. Mx. Gittelhough has experience in team management in the terrestrial and underwater archaeological management sectors, with expertise in implementing mitigation and monitoring projects, report production, and coordination with Indigenous groups. Their technical skills include terrestrial and submerged archaeological survey, excavation, and site testing. They have authored numerous site records and technical reports detailing the results of cultural resources work, as well as academic articles. They have also had thorough training in artifact analysis and specializes in lithic analysis and maritime conservation. Mx. Gittelhough meets the Secretary of Interior Professional Qualifications Standards in History and Archaeology.

Enchanted Hills Park Project. Cultural Resource Specialist for a 22.5-acre neighborhood park project in the City of Perris, Riverside County. Provided cultural resource monitoring during initial site work and prepared monitoring letter report.

Work performed for the City of Perris.

Dam Maintenance Program. Cultural Resource Specialist for the City of San Diego Dam Maintenance Program in San Diego County. Assisted in preparing an archaeological and historic resources assessment in compliance with state and federal regulations.

Scope included a cultural resource records search, review of historic maps and aerials, and preparation of a technical report. Work performed for the City of San Diego Public Utilities Department.

Bouquet Canyon Road Project. Cultural Resource Specialist for a private residential development project in the City of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County. Monitored all ground-disturbing activities associated with geotechnical studies, such as drilling and trenching. Provided monitoring during ground-penetrating radar studies of portions of the project area. Produced monitoring report. Work performed for Integral Communities.

Lake Morena Oak Shores/Lake Morena Views Mutual Water Company Consolidation.

Cultural Resource Specialist for a cultural resources study in support of a proposed water district consolidation project in eastern San Diego County. Assisted with the preparation of a cultural resources technical report in compliance with state and federal regulations and State Water Resources Control Board. Scope included a cultural

EDUCATION
Master of Arts,
Underwater
Archaeology, East
Carolina University, 2018
Bachelor of Arts,
Anthropology, University
of California, Santa
Barbara, 2011

REGISTRATIONS/

CERTIFICATIONS
Registered Professional
Archaeologist No. 17387
American Academy of
Underwater Sciences,
Scientific Diver
Professional Association
of Diving Instructors,
Certified Diver
No. 0110385008
Geographic Information
Systems Professional
(GISP) Certification,
HAZWOPER 40-Hour
Certification

PROFESSIONAL

AFFILIATIONS
Society of American
Archaeology
Society of Historical
Archaeology
Society of California
Archaeology (Advisory
Council of Underwater
Archaeology)
Divers Alert Network
Page | 2
resource records search, review of historic maps and aerials, and assistance with the preparation of a technical report. Work performed for Lake Morena Oak Shores Mutual Water Company and Lake Morena Views Mutual Water Company as a subconsultant to NV5.

Shady View Residential Project Environmental Impact Report. Cultural Resource Specialist for a housing development project in the City of Chino Hills in San Bernardino County. The project involves the development of 159 single-family homes, open space and recreational amenities, and associated street, utility/infrastructure, and drainage improvements. Assisted in the preparation of the technical report in compliance with state and federal regulations. Project scope included a cultural resource records search, review of historic maps and aerials, field survey, and preparation of a technical report. Work performed for the City of Chino Hills.

California Crossings. Cultural Resource Specialist for a 29-acre industrial development in Otay Mesa, San Diego County. Conducted a cultural resources study in support of biological mitigation measures (burrowing owl habitat creation). Prepared an archaeological resources assessment in compliance with state and federal regulations. Scope included a cultural resources records search, review of historic maps and aerials, and preparation of a technical report. Work performed for Sudberry Development, Inc. with County of San Diego as the lead agency.

Oceanside Mission Basin Groundwater Purification Facility Well Expansion and Brine Minimization Design.

Cultural Resource Specialist for a proposed groundwater wells and brine minimization project to improve water production at an existing groundwater purification facility in the City of Oceanside, San Diego County. Assisted with the preparation of the cultural resources technical report in compliance with state and federal regulations.

Project scope included a cultural resources records search, tribal outreach, field survey, monitoring of geotechnical borings, preparation of a constraints memo, and preparation of a technical report. Work performed for the City of Oceanside Water Utilities Department as a subconsultant to GHD, Inc. 611 Island Ave Residential Tower. Cultural Resource Specialist for a residential tower project in the downtown area of the City of San Diego. The project plans include incorporating the existing historic façade into the new 32-story building. Assisted with the preparation of an archaeological and historic resources assessment in compliance with CEQA. Scope included a cultural resource records search, review of historic maps and aerials, and preparation of a technical report with a sensitivity assessment. Work performed for Cresleigh Homes.

EMWD Quail Valley III Regional Water Tank Environmental Consulting. Cultural Resource Specialist for a new water tank and associated piping and facilities in Riverside County. Prepared the technical report to summarize a records search, Native American outreach, archaeological survey, and research into the historic land uses of the project lands. Work performed for Pulte Group, with Eastern Municipal Water District as the CEQA lead agency.

Cactus II Feeder Pipeline Biological and Cultural Construction Monitoring. Cultural Resource Specialist for construction monitoring of the installation of a sewer line and associated facilities. Work performed for Eastern Municipal Water District.

Pasadena Water & Power Sunset Reservoir Replacement Historical Resources Evaluation. Cultural Resource Specialist for a reservoir replacement project in the City of Pasadena. Prepared a cultural resources technical analysis to support an EIR and provided support to the City of Pasadena for tribal consultation. Work performed as a subconsultant to Kennedy Jenks, with the City of Pasadena as the lead agency under CEQA.

Athletic Facility Borings Cultural Resources Monitoring. Cultural Resource Specialist for a cultural resource monitoring program in support of the proposed project on the Palomar College San Marcos Campus, San Diego County. Provided monitoring of ground disturbing activities in compliance with CEQA, resulting in the completion of a cultural resources monitoring letter report.

Page | 3
Arrow 32N Residential. Senior Cultural Resource Specialist for a cultural resources study in support of the proposed Project in the City of Upland, San Bernardino County. Co-authored an archaeological technical report and assisted with a historic resources assessment report in compliance with Section 106 and CEQA. Scope included a cultural resources records search, review of historic maps and aerials, preparation of a technical report and evaluation of historic resources for inclusion to the NRHP and CRHR.

Garland Battery Energy Storage System. Senior Cultural Resource Specialist for a cultural resources study in support of the proposed Project in the County of Los Angeles. Prepared an archaeological resources assessment and provided monitoring for all ground disturbing activities a in compliance with CEQA. Scope included a cultural resources records search, review of historic maps and aerials, pedestrian survey, preparation of a technical report, monitoring, and the preparation of a monitoring report.

Page | 1

NICOLE (NIKKI) FALVEY
Cultural Resources Project Manager
Ms. Falvey is a professional archaeologist and environmental planner. She has worked on approximately 100 cultural
resource management projects and over 100 NEPA categorical exclusions in both local assistance and generalist capacities.

Ms. Falvey has served in lab, field, and office capacities, completed record searches, co-authored technical reports, and authored NEPA process documents. Projects include
commercial and residential developments, wind farms, utilities projects, and rail and road expansions. Project activities include pedestrian surveys, test excavations, data recovery programs, and construction monitoring. I am familiar with the National Historic Preservation Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the California Environmental Quality Act.

Archaeological Survey for the Alpine 21 Project (2016 - 2017). Crew Chief for this proposed residential development in the City of Alpine. Conducted records search, supervised field survey crew,and co-authored technical report.

Archaeological Monitoring for the Paseo Del Norte Project (2016 - 2016). Staff Archaeologist for this commercial development in the City of Carlsbad. Conducted cultural resources construction monitoring.

Keystone Way Archaeological Survey Project (2016 - 2016). Staff Archaeologist for this proposed commercialdevelopment in the City of Vista. Conducted records search, conducted field survey, and co-authored technical report. The City of Vista was the lead agency.

Presidio Apartments Survey Project (2016 - 2016). Staff Archaeologist for this proposed multi-family residential development in the City of Oceanside. Conducted records search, conducted field survey, and co-authored technical report. The City ofOceanside was the lead agency.

City of Oceanside As-Needed Environmental Consulting Services (2013 - 2015).

Staff Archaeologist for construction of a new facility at the Mission Basin Desalting Facility near the San Luis Rey River. Responsible for fieldmonitoring, coordination with construction crew and Native Americanmonitors, identification of artifacts and cultural features, and daily field notes.Work performed for the City of Oceanside.

Vista Grande Archaeological Testing (2015 - 2016). Crew Chief for this proposed residential development in theCity of Vista. Responsible for supervising test excavation of thearchaeological site, including placing shovel test pits (STPs), plotting in STPs using a Trimble GPS, supervision of a three-person crew in excavating STPs, completing documentation, collecting surface artifacts, andcoordination with a Native American monitor. Co-authored technical report. Work performed for the City of Vista.

EDUCATION
Bachelor of Arts,
Anthropology with a
concentration in
Archaeology, University
of California, San Diego,
2013
Associate of Arts,
Anthropology, Mira
Costa Community
College, California, 2011

CERTIFICATIONS
North County Transit
District (NCTD) Roadway
Worker ID #C00901,
2015
HAZWOPER, 24 hours

PROFESSIONAL

AFFILIATIONS
Transportation Museum
of San Diego and
Imperial Counties, Board
of Directors, Secretary
(2021-2022)
San Diego County
Archaeological Society,
Board of Directors,
Second Vice President
(2014-2015), First Vice
President (2015-2016)
Society for California
Archaeology, Member
Page | 2
City of Carlsbad Trails Master Plan Constraints Analysis (2015 - 2015). Staff Archaeologist for the constraints analysis for this proposed trails master planin the City of Carlsbad. Assisted in research for the cultural resources portionof the constraints analysis, including locating previously recordedarchaeological sites within the proposed trail system and determining theirpotential for effects. Work performed for the City of Carlsbad.

Pujols Shearwater Monitoring (2015 - 2016). Staff Archaeologist for this residential development in the City of Temecula, Riverside County. Conducted cultural resources construction monitoring, completed Department of Parks and Recreation forms, and co-authored technical report.

Ticonderoga Street and Morena Boulevard (2015 - 2015). Staff Archaeologist for this proposed residential development in the City of San Diego. Co-authored technical report.

Campo Creek Bridge Replacement Monitoring (2016 - 2017). Staff Archaeologist for this bridge replacement project in the community of Campo, San Diego County. Conducted cultural resources monitoring. Work performed for CalTrans.

Grandview Pointe IS/MND Survey and Structres Evaluation (2016 - 2018). Staff Archaeologist for this proposed residential development in the City of Oceanside. Conducted a historical evaluation and reconnaissance survey of the two historical residences on the property and co-authored technical report. Work performed for the City of Oceanside.

Archaeological Testing for the Buena Sanitation District Green Oak Sewer Replacement Project (2016 - 2017). Staff Archaeologist for this sewer main replacement project located in the City of Vista. Assisted in archaeological testing set-up and co-authored technical report. Work performed for the City of Vista.

Archaeoogical Survey for the Riverpark Project (2015 - 2017). Crew Chief for this mitigation bank project near the community of Nuevo in Riverside County. Supervised the survey of this 613-acre property with a three-person crew, including the recordation of encountered cultural resources. 964 Urania Avenue Archaeological Testing (2017 - 2018). Crew Chief for this proposed residential development in the City of Encinitas. Responsible for supervising a two-person crew in excavating shovel test pits (STPs), including the completing notes and the collecting and labeling artifacts. Completed Department of Parks and Recreation forms for archaeological sites and co-authored technical report. Work performed for the City of Encinitas.

Daisy Avenue Archaeological Testing Project (2014 - 2018). Staff Archaeologist for this proposed residential development in the City of Long Beach, Orange County. Participated in archaeological testing and co-authored technical report.

Villa Storia Archaeological Evaluation (2014 - 2015). Crew Chief for the cultural resources assessment of this property in the City of Oceanside. Responsible for supervising a four-person crew in archaeological testing by the excavation of shovel test pits (STPs).

Buena Creek Due Dilligence Study (2015 - 2015). Staff Archaeologist for this proposed residential development near the City of Vista, San Diego County. Conducted recordssearch, conducted field survey, and co-authored technical report. The County of San Diego is the lead agency.

Page | 3
312-400 South Euclid Historic Building Evaluation (2016 - 2017). Staff Archaeologist for this proposed residential development in the City of Anaheim, Orange County. Conducted records search, conducted site visit, including historical building assessment, and co-authored technical report. Work performed for KB Homes.

Lakeside 6 Survey (2016 - 2016). Staff Archaeologist for this proposed residential project in the community of Lakeside, San Diego County. Conducted cultural resources field survey, conducted historical property research, and co-authored technical report. Work performed for KB Homes.

San Elijo Joint Powers Authority Preliminary Design of Land Outfall Replacement and Permitting/CEQA Compliance Study (2015 - 2016). Staff Archaeologist for this CEQA compliance project in the City of Encinitas.

Conducted records search, conducted cultural resources field survey, and co-authored technical report. Work performed for the San Elijo Joint Powers Authority.

Palmdale Water District - Palmdale Regional Groundwater Recharge and Recovery Preliminary Design EIR, EA, FONSI. Staff Archaeologist for this water district project Environmental Impact Report in the Palmdale Water District, Los Angeles County. Co-authored the cultural section (section 5.3) of the Environmental Impact Report. Work performed for the Palmdale Water District.

Otay Crossings Commerce Park EIR Survey (2016 - 2019). Staff Archaeologist for this proposed commercial project Environmental Impact Report in the Otay Mesa area of San Diego County. Conducted records search, conducted cultural resources field survey, completed Department of Parks and Recreation site record update, and co-authored technical report in accordance with Army Corps of Engineers standards. Work performed for the County of San Diego.

Orange County Sanitation District Newhope-Placentia Trunk Sewer Replacement, No. 2-72A (2015 - 2016).

Staff Archaeologist for this trunk sewer replacement project in the Orange County Sanitation District, Orange County. Conducted historical research at the Fullerton Library, conducted a site visit to determine the presence of historically significant or potentially significant structures within the project area, and co-authored technical report.

Work performed for the Orange County Sanitation District.

Mast Park Monitoring (2015 - 2016). Project Staff Archaeologist for this wetland habitat restoration project in the City of Santee. Conducted cultural resources construction monitoring, completed Department of Parks and Recreation site records, andco-authored technical report. Work performed for HELIX Construction Group and the City of Santee.

SDG&E Solar Sites Testing (2014 - 2017). Crew Chief for solar project near Pala Indian Reservation in the County of San Diego. Supervised a three-person crew in Phase II testing; responsible for test unit placement and excavation, artifact identification, notes. Also conducted cultural resources construction monitoring for Pala solar project and solar project in the community of Ramona, San Diego County. Co-authored report for Pala solar project. Work performed for Merkel & Associates, Inc.

USD Master Plan and Conditional Use Permit (2015 - 2016). Staff Archaeologist for the cultural resources technical report for USD’s Master Plan EIR. Co-authored technical report. Work performed as a subconsultant to M.W. Steele Group, Inc., with University of San Diego as the lead agency.

Archaeological Montioring for the Old Mission San Luis Rey Cemetery Expansion Project (2016 - 2017).

Staff Archaeologist for a cultural resources monitoring program for the expansion of the cemetery at Old Mission Page | 4
San Luis Rey, an area of sensitivity in terms of archaeological, historic, and Native American cultural resources.

Conducted cultural resources construction monitoring. Worked performed for Old Mission San Luis Rey, with the City of Oceanside as the lead agency.

Interstate 8 Water Main Crossing at Viewside Lane Environmental and Cultural Resources Services (2015 - 2016). Staff Archaeologist for proposed water main crossing in the community of Alpine, San Diego County.

Conducted records search, conducted cultural resources field survey, and co-authored technical report. Work performed for the Padre Dam Municipal Water District.

Green Oak Villas Greenhouse Gas and Cultural Resources Testing (2016 - 2016). Staff Archaeologist for proposed residential development in the City of Vista. Conducted records search, conducted cultural resources field survey, acted as co-crew chief for Phase II testing, and co-authored technical report. Work performed for Providence Capital Group, Inc. with the City of Vista as the lead agency.

Archaeological Testing for the F11 Development (2015 - 2017). Staff Archaeologist for a proposed mixed-use commercial and residential tower in downtown San Diego. Participated in Phase II archaeological testing and laboratory work, including cleaning, sorting, labeling, and researching historic artifacts. Work performed for the Richman Group of Companies with the City of San Diego as the lead agency.

San Ysidro Community Plan Update (2016 - 2016). Staff Archaeologist for a Program EIR (PEIR) addressing a proposed update to the San Ysidro Community Planthat covers approximately 1,800 acres near the international border with Mexico. Co-authored PEIR Section 4.7 Historical Resources. Work performed for the City of San Diego.

Pottery Canyon Mitigation Monitoring (2014 - 2016). Staff Archaeologist for a cultural resources monitoring program in conjunction with contaminated soils remediation program at a significant historic archaeological site in Pottery Canyon Park in the City of San Diego. Responsible for monitoring of contaminated soils capping, collection and cataloging of artifacts outside the capped area, and co-authoring of a monitoring report. Work performed for the City of San Diego.

Archaeological Monitoring for 28th Street between Island Avenue and Clay Avenue (2014 - 2018). Staff Archaeologist for undergrounding utilities project in the Sherman Heights neighborhood of the City of San Diego.

Conducted field, laboratory, and office work including: cultural resources construction monitoring; cleaning, sorting, labeling, cataloging, and researching of artifacts; completing Department of Parks and Recreation site records; and co-authoring technical report. Work performed for the City of San Diego.

Surveys for the Nestor Creek Channel Maintenance - Permitting and MMP Individual Assessments (2015- 2016). Staff Archaeologist for creek channel maintenance program assessment in the City of San Diego.

Conducted cultural resources field surveys and co-authored IHA. Work performed for the City of San Diego.

Survey for the Smythe Channel Maintenance - Permitting and MMP Individual Assessments (2015-2016).

Staff Archaeologist for channel maintenance project in the City of San Diego. Conducted records search, conducted cultural resources field survey, and co-authored IHA. Work performed for the City of San Diego.

Archaeological Survey for the 12 Oaks Winery Resort and Golf Community (2015 - 2018). Staff Archaeologist for a cultural resources survey of approximately 650 acres for a proposed project in the County of Page | 5
Riverside. Participated in cultural resources field survey, completed Department of Parks and Recreation site records, and co-authored technical report. Work performed for Standard Portfolio Temecula, LLC.

Previous Experience
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Associate Environmental Planner (Archaeology) PQS Co-Principal Investigator 2020-Present.

Interstate 5 (I-5) North Coast Corridor Project. Archaeologist responsible for coordinating construction monitoring for the construction phase of the I-5 expansion from San Elijo Lagoon north to Jefferson Street in San Diego County.

State Route 163 Bridge Rail. Environmental Planner for this project proposing to upgrade the bridge rails of four bridges spanning the SR-163 in the Cabrillo Historic District in the City of San Diego.

Tennessee Department of Transportation, Environmental Studies Specialist, Advanced, 2019-2020 SR-266 Road Widening D-List Categorical Exclusion. Author for this Federal Highway Administrationapproved NEPA document in Rutherford County, Tennessee. Completed the Section 4(f) De Minimis process for multiple recreation areas and authored the report based upon archaeology,historical preservation, ecology, hazardous materials, air and noise, Native American coordination, and multimodal transportation studies.

SR-13 Road Realignment D-List Categorical Exclusion. Author for this Federal Highway Administrationapproved NEPA document in Perry County, Tennessee. Authored the report based upon archaeology, historical preservation, ecology, hazardous materials, air and noise, Native American coordination, and multimodal transportation studies.

Coachella Valley Pole Replacements. Staff archaeologist for electrical pole replacement for the County of Riverside. Conducted record search.

Juan Street Pothole Investigation. Staff archaeologist for storm drain project in the City of San Diego, Assisted in report preparation.

Southern California Edison Pole Surveys. Staff archaeologist for electrical pole replacement for the Counties of Riverside, Mono, and Inyo. Conducted record searched, pedestrian surveys and assisted in report preparation; responsible for artifact identification and field notes.

Sunset Cliffs Archaeological Monitoring. Staff archaeologist for sewer pipeline in the City of San Diego.

Conducted cultural resource monitoring; responsible for artifact identification, monitoring notes, and assisting in report preparation.

Verizon Rose Creek Data Recovery. Staff archaeologist for cell phone tower installation in the City of San Diego. Participated in Phase I data recovery; responsible for excavation of shovel test pits, field notes.

Mission Cove Archaeological Data Recovery (2014 - 2015). Project Staff archaeologist for residential development in the City of Oceanside. Participated in Phase II data recovery; responsible for excavation of shovel test units, field notes.

Page | 6
San Diego Fish and Game Wetland Rehab Survey. Staff archaeologist for wetland rehabilitation for the County of San Diego in the unincorporated community of Jamul. Conducted a pedestrian survey; responsible for artifact identification.

El Toro Recycled Water Monitoring. Staff archaeologist for recycled water pipeline in the City of El Toro.

Conducted cultural resource monitoring; responsible for artifact identification, monitoring notes.

Newland Sierra. Staff archaeologist for commercial development in the City of Escondido. Conducted laboratory analysis; responsible for artifact labeling, analysis, cataloging.

North County Transit District San Onofre Archaeological Monitoring and Testing. Staff archaeologist for the expansion of railroad tracks on Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton. Conducted cultural resource monitoring, test excavations, laboratory analysis; responsible for artifact identification, monitoring notes, artifact labeling.

Ortega Highway Interchange Monitoring. Staff archaeologist for highway improvements in the City of San Juan Capistrano. Conducted cultural resource monitoring; responsible for artifact identification, monitoring notes.

Poseidon Desalination Plant Monitoring. Staff archaeologist for water pipeline in the City of Carlsbad.

Conducted cultural resource monitoring, laboratory analysis; responsible for artifact identification, monitoring notes, artifact analysis, cataloging.

Rincon Point. Staff archaeologist for residential development in the County of Santa Barbara. Assisted in laboratory analysis; responsible for artifact identification and labeling.

Smoking Tree Survey. Staff archaeologist for the installation of wind turbines in the City of Palm Springs.

Conducted pedestrian survey; responsible for artifact identification, field notes.

Yokohl Ranch. Staff archaeologist for residential development in the County of Tulare. Conducted laboratory analysis; responsible for artifact analysis, cataloging, soil flotation, wet screening.

Cuyamaca Rancho School Camp Monitoring. Archaeological intern for landscaping in Cuyamaca Rancho State Park in the County of San Diego. Conducted cultural resource monitoring; responsible for artifact identification, monitoring notes.

Silver Strand State Beach Monitoring. Archaeological intern for underground utilities in Silver Strand State Beach in the City of San Diego. Conducted cultural resource monitoring; responsible for artifact identification, monitoring notes.

Selected Publications
"Wisdom in the Waste: Obsidian Studies and Late Prehistoric Social Systems” Presentation for the San Diego County Archaeological Society, 2013
Appendix B
Records Search Maps
(Confidential, Bound Separately)
Appendix C
Table of Previous Reports within One
Quarter Mile
Appendix C: Table of Previous Reports within One Quarter Mile for the Cultural Resources Sensitivity Analysis for the Santee Town Center Specific Plan Project | February 2024 C-1

TABLE OF PREVIOUS STUDIES WITHIN ONE QUARTER MILE
Report No. (SD-) Report Title Author, Date
137 Results of an Archaeological Field Reconnaissance of Santee Greens, Santee,California
Berryman S., 1997
341 Archaeological Mitigation Report for Santee Greens SDI-5669 Berryman J., 1981 546* An Archaeological Survey of the San Diego River Valley Cupples, 1975 618** The Archaeology of Cuyamaca Street Extension Fink, 1973 771**
Extended Phase I and Phase II Archaeological Test Excavations at Sites CA-SDI-205, 5053, 8594, 9242, and 10, 148 Santee, California 11-SD-52 P.M. 7.3/17.2 11222-047050
Corum, 1986
779**
Archaeological Test Excavation at Sites CA-SDI-5655, 5658, 9239, 9240, 9246, 9247,9913 in Shepherd Canyon, San Diego,
California 11-SD-52 P.M. 7.3/17.2 11222-047050
Corum and Crotteau,
1985
780**
First Addendum Archaeological Survey Report for Proposed State Route 52 Santo Road to State Route 67 (Portion) 11-SD-52 P.M. 7.3/17.2 11222-047050
Corum, 1985
863** Archeological Survey for the Proposed Forester Creek Drainage Channel Project
Fink, 1973
866** An Archaeological Survey of the Upper San Diego River Mosquito Abatement and Water Pollution Control Project Phase I
Fink, 1973
1269
A Cultural Survey of Portions of the Las Chollas, South Las Chollas, Los Coches Forester, and Loma Alta Stream Basins in San Diego County, California.

Pettus, 1979
1335* Cultural Resources Survey of Three Alternate Jail Facilities in San Diego County, California.

Pigniolo, et al., 1986
1829** Third Addendum Archaeological Survey for Proposed State Route 52, 11-SD-52 P.M. 7.3/17.2, 11222-047050
Corum, 1989
1909** Investigations Conducted at Archaeological
Site SDM-W-2409 (SDi-7603) Santee, California
Hector, 1981
2110 Draft Environmental Impact Report for Magnolia Meadows RECON, 1976 2196*
Draft Environmental Impact Report Proposed Removal of San Upper San Diego River, San Diego County P79-112 RP79-16 EAD LOG#79-14-261
Parra, 1980
2929*
Results of A Cultural ResourceEvaluation Study for The
PadreDam Municipal Water District Phase I Reclaimed Water System Project
Smith, 1993
3098* Results of A Cultural Resource
Study of the Padre Dam Municipal
Water District Phase 1 Reclaimed Water System Project
Smith, 1992
3720
Historical/Archaeological Survey Report for the Water
Repurification Pipeline and Advanced Water Treatment Facility, City of San Diego, California
Schroth, et al., 1996
4692** First Supplemental Historic Property Survey 11-Sd-52 P.M.

7.3/17.2
Corum, 1986
4934**
Extended Phase I And Phase II Archaeological Test Excavations at Sites CA-SDI-205, 5053, 8594, 9242, 10148, Santee, Ca 11-Sd-52 P.M. 7.3/17.2
Corum, 1986
4981** Environmental Impacts Analysis for the Santee Regional Shopping Center
RECON, 1980
5043**
First Addendum Archaeological Survey Report for Proposed State Route 52 Santo Road to State Route 67 (Portion) 11-SD-52 P.M. 7.3/17.2 11222-047050
Corum, 1985
Appendix C: Table of Previous Reports within One Quarter Mile for the Cultural Resources Sensitivity Analysis for the Santee Town Center Specific Plan Project | February 2024 C-2
Report No. (SD-) Report Title Author, Date
5138 Historic Property Survey Report for the Forester Creek Project Santee California
Pigniolo, 2001
7167 Archaeological Mitigation: TPM-20037-RPC Wade, 1994 7464** Santee Light Rail Transit Project: Cultural Resources Technical Report
ERCE, 1990
7892 Historic Property Survey Report I15-SR67 CALTRANS, 2001 8307* An Archaeological Assessment for the Edgemoor Project Smith, 2000 8816** Cultural Resource Survey for the Santee Aquatic/ Gymnastic Center, City of Santee, California
Kyle, 2001
8888** Cultural Resource Survey for the Town Center Park, City of Santee, California
Kyle, 2003
9048** Cultural Resource Assessment for Cingular Wireless Facility SD487-03, City of Santee San Diego County, California
Kyle, 2002
9964** Cultural Resources Survey Report for the Ryan Corporate Office Park Master Plan Santee, California
Price and Bull, 2004
10474 Results of a Minor Test Performed On A Milling Feature, Within Santee, California
Berryman, 1979
10799** Nomination Form for the
Edgemoor Farm Dairy Barn/ Edgemoor
Polo Barn
Brandes and Alexander
10932*
Second Addendum to the Historical Architectural Survey Report For 11-SD-52, P.M. 7.3/17.2 11222-047050. Re-Evaluation of the Edgemoor Farm Home for The Aged & Indigent
O’Conner, 1987
11120 Cultural Resource Monitoring for the Forester Creek Improvement Project City of Santee, California
Kyle, 2007
11128** Cultural Resource Survey for the San Diego River Restoration Project Edgemoor Property City of Santee, California
Kyle, 2006
11189**
Results of Archaeological Monitoring At Town Center
Community Park Mass Grading, Santee, California (CIP 2004-31) (Negative Archaeological Monitoring Report)
Pierson, 2007
11190**
Paleontological Monitoring Report, Town Center Community Park Mass Grading Project, City of Santee, San Diego County, California (CIP2004-31)
Kennedy and Shiller,
2007
11412 Historic Property Survey Report: State Route 52 Stage 4 Crafts, 2000 11747* Edgemoor Farm Historical Resources Evaluation Report San Diego, California
Heritage Architecture
and Planning, 2008
12319* Santee Town Center Specific Plan Amendment, Appendixes to the Draft Master Environmental Impact Report
Price, 2005
12612
Archaeological Survey Report: Biological Mitigation Parcel for the SR 163/Friars Road Interchange Improvements Project San Diego County, California
Robbins-Wade, 2010
12635 Historic Property Survey Report for the State Route 163 and Friars Road Interchange
Rosen, 2010
12757 Santana High School, Santee, CA. McKenna, 2010
13226 Mast Park Habitat Restoration Project, City of Santee, San Diego County, California
U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, 2011
13413
eTS #22188, Cultural Resources Monitoring for the Carl
Inspections, 1819 Poles, Carl Subarea Project, San Diego County, California (HDR #179459)
Tennesen, 2012
14043** Cultural Resources Study for the Santee Walmart Expansion Project, City of Santee, San Diego County, California
Wolf, 2011
Appendix C: Table of Previous Reports within One Quarter Mile for the Cultural Resources Sensitivity Analysis for the Santee Town Center Specific Plan Project | February 2024 C-3
Report No. (SD-) Report Title Author, Date
14084** Cultural And Historical Resource Assessment for the Mission Gorge Road Property Demolition
Ni Ghabhlain, 2009
14123
Draft Phase I Cultural Resources Survey And Assessment for the El Monte Valley Mining, Reclamation, and Groundwater
Recharge Project
Pigniolo, et al., 2011
14149** San Diego County Women’s Detention Facility – Archaeological Survey of Three Drainages (Affinis Job No. 2496)
Robbins-Wade, 2012
14150* Cultural Resources Assessment: Site LC-1, San Diego County Women's Detention Facility Santee, San Diego County, California Van Wormer, 2012
14747
Cultural Resource Records Search and Site Survey AT&T Site SD0699 52 South and Prospect 8865 Cuyamaca Street Santee, San Diego County, California 92071
Loftus, 2013
15903* San Diego County Women’s Detention Facility Phase 2, Archaeological Monitoring (HELIX Project No. BAL-01)
Robbins-Wade, 2015
16089
Evidence Of Compliance With Section 106 of National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 Walker Preserve Trail, City of Santee, Project Number RT-37-026
Hosseinion, 2014
16147 Archaeological Resources Inventory, Mast Park Wetland Habitat Restoration Project, Santee, San Diego County, California Robbins-Wade, 2011
16982
Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation for the Braverman Drive Tentative Map Project Santee, San Diego County,
California
Campbell, et al., 2015
17983
Archaeological Monitoring For MHPUUP - Santee Mobile
Estates, Santee, San Diego County (SDG&E eTS #38406, PanGIS Project #1401.109)
Willhite, 2019
18209 Santee School Development Project, Phase II Cultural Resources Testing and Evaluation Report, Santee, California
Strother, et al., 2019
18555
Data Recovery Excavations at CA-SDI-5669 Locus C: Confidential Phase III Archaeological Report, City of Santee, San Diego County, California
Campbell, et al., 2017
18919** Cultural Resources Survey Report For the County Animal Shelter, San Diego County, California
Zepeda-Herman, 2020
19277 Archaeological Monitoring For the SDG&E Walker Trails - Oh RFS, Santee, San Diego County, California (eTS #43137)
Noble and Tansey, 2020
19383**
Update To the Revised Preliminary Cultural Resource Study To Support the Padre Dam Municipal Water District Master Plan Update Peir, San Diego County, California
Daniels and Becker,
2016
19408*
Results of Archaeological Monitoring At the Walker Trails Project, City of Santee, San Diego County, California (APNS 381- 160-41, -46, and -63; Tentative Map No. 2016-01)
Smith, 2020
19596** Negative Cultural Resources Monitoring Report for the ARCC East County Operations Project, Santee, California
Zepeda-Herman and
Yerka, 2018
*Within Project Area
**Overlapping Project Area
Appendix D
Native American Correspondence
(Confidential, Bound Separately)
Appendix E
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Technical Report
This page intentionally left blank
Santee Town Center Specific
Plan Update
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report
July 2024 | 01427.00004.001
Prepared for:

M.W. Steele Group
1805 Newton Avenue, Suite A
San Diego, CA 92113
Prepared by:

HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
7578 El Cajon Boulevard
La Mesa, CA 91942
This page intentionally left blank
i
Table of Contents
Section Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................. ES-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Purpose of the Report......................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Project Location .................................................................................................................. 1

1.3 Project Description ............................................................................................................. 1

2.0 REGULATORY SETTING..................................................................................................................... 4

2.1 Climate Change Overview................................................................................................... 4

2.2 Greenhouse Gases.............................................................................................................. 4

2.3 Federal Greenhouse Gas Regulations................................................................................. 6

2.4 State Greenhouse Gas Regulations..................................................................................... 7

2.5 Local Greenhouse Gas Plans............................................................................................. 16

3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS................................................................................................................... 17

3.1 Worldwide and National Greenhouse Gas Inventory....................................................... 17

3.2 State Greenhouse Gas Inventory...................................................................................... 17

3.3 Local Greenhouse Gas Inventory ...................................................................................... 18

4.0 METHODOLOGY AND SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA.............................................................................. 18

4.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions............................................................................................... 18

4.2 Greenhouse Gas Significance Criteria............................................................................... 22

5.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................................... 23

5.1 Issue 1: Greenhouse Gas Emissions.................................................................................. 23

5.2 Issue 2: Conflict With Applicable Plans Adopted for the Purpose of Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions............................................................................................... 27

6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ........................................................................................................................ 28

7.0 REFERENCES................................................................................................................................... 29 ii
Table of Contents (cont.)

LIST OF APPENDICES
A CalEEMod Output
B Sustainable Santee Plan Checklist

LIST OF TABLES
No. Title Page
1 Housing Element Sites Zoning.......................................................................................................... 3 2 Global Warming Potentials and Atmospheric Lifetimes.................................................................. 6 3 California Greenhouse Gas Emissions By Sector ........................................................................... 18 4 2013 City of Santee Greenhouse Gas Inventory............................................................................ 18 5 Housing Element Sites Anticipated Construction Schedule........................................................... 19 6 Housing Element Sites Construction Equipment Assumptions ..................................................... 20 7 Land Use Profile – First Year of Construction ................................................................................ 21 8 Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions...................................................................................... 23 9 Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions........................................................................................ 24 10 Project Consistency With Sustainable Santee Plan Measures....................................................... 25 iii
Acronyms and Abbreviations
AB Assembly Bill
AEN Arts and Entertainment Neighborhood
ALUCP Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
AR4 United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report
AR5 United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report
CAA Clean Air Act (Federal)
CAFE Corporate Average Fuel Economy
CalEEMod California Emission Estimator Model
CALGreen CCR Title 24 Part 11, California Green Building Standards code CalRecycle California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CARB California Air Resources Board
CBSC California Building Standards Commission
CCR California Code of Regulations
CEC California Energy Commission
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFC chlorofluorocarbons
CH4 methane
City City of Santee
CNRA California Natural Resources Agency
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e CO2-equivalent
EO Executive Order
EU-27 European Union
EV electric vehicle
°F degrees Fahrenheit
GHG greenhouse gases
GWP Global Warming Potential
HAP Housing Acceleration Program
HCD California Department of Housing and Community Development HE Housing Element
HFCs hydrofluorocarbons
IPCC United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change LCFS Low Carbon Fuel Standard
iv
Acronyms and Abbreviations (cont.)
MMT million metric tons
MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization
MT metric ton
N2O nitrous oxide
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
PFCs perfluorocarbons
ppm parts per million
RHNA Regional Housing Needs Allocation
RPS Renewable Portfolio Standard
RTP regional transportation plan
SANDAG San Diego Association of Governments
SAR United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Second Assessment Report
SARA Solar Access Roof Area
SB Senate Bill
SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy
SDAPCD San Diego County Air Pollution Control District
SDG&E San Diego Gas and Electric
SF6 sulfur hexafluoride
SMAQMD Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District SR State Route
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TCSP Town Center Specific Plan
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Amendment | July 2024
ES-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents an assessment of potential greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts associated with the City of Santee (City) Town Center Specific Plan (TCSP) Amendment Project (project). The report evaluates the potential for GHG emission impacts during the construction and operation of the project. The project proposes updates to the existing TCSP and to the Santee Arts and Entertainment Neighborhood (AEN). It also proposes conceptual planning and objective design standards for four large strategic Housing Elements (HE) within the TCSP area. The HE sites include Properties 16A, 16B, 20A, and 20B as delineated in the Sixth Cycle Housing Element EIR. The overall TCSP is approximately 651.42 acres, of which 341.72 acres are within the AEN, 11.04 acres are within HE Property 16A, 8.65 acres are within HE Property 16B, 7.76 acres are within Property 20A, and 9.92 acres are within Property 20B. The entire TCSP is located in the City of Santee, bordered by North Magnolia Avenue to the east, Mast Boulevard to the north, and Mission Gorge Road to the south. The western border of the TCSP runs through the San Diego River approximately 0.43 mile west of Cuyamaca Street and 0.27 mile east of Carlton Hills Boulevard.

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. 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. the project would not increase emissions that are not already accounted for in the Sustainable Santee Plan.

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 consistent with Sustainable Santee Plan Goal 6, Measures 6.1 and 6.2, and Goal 8, Measure 8.1. The majority of the TCSP area, including the AEN, is located within a designated Transit Priority Area (TPA).

By placing these uses within a TPA, the project would implement the Sustainable Santee Plan strategies by focusing projected future growth into mixed-use and multiple-use activity centers that are pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly and linked to transit. Increasing residential and commercial density in transit corridors and within a TPA would support the City in achieving the GHG emissions reduction targets of the Sustainable Santee Plan, and thus, TCSP area and AEN impacts associated with GHG emissions would be less than significant.

The Sustainable Santee Plan Project Consistency Checklist (Checklist) was completed for the development of HE sites 16A, 16B, 20A, and 20B. These sites are designated for residential land uses in the existing TCSP and zoned for residential development in the City’s Housing Element. When compared to the existing zoning and land use designations, the project would not increase the development potential allowed at the four Housing Element sites. Therefore, under Step 1 of the Checklist, development of the HE sites would be consistent with the land use assumptions used in the Sustainable Santee Plan. Implementation of mitigation measures GHG-1 through GHG-5 related to energy efficiency, tree planting, electric vehicle charging, solid waste reduction, and clean energy, would be required to ensure the four HE sites would be consistent with the applicable strategies and actions for reducing GHG emissions included in Step 2 of the Checklist.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Amendment | July 2024
ES-2
The development of the HE sites would be consistent with the Sustainable Santee Plan, a qualified GHG reduction plan consistent with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines Section 15183.5, with implementation of mitigation measures GHG-1 through GHG-5. Development projects consistent with an applicable local qualified GHG reduction plan are eligible for streamlined GHG analysis.

Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of a GHG reduction plan or policy, the project would be consistent with statewide GHG reduction goals, and the project’s GHG emissions would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Amendment | July 2024
1 1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE OF THE REPORT
This report analyzes potential greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts associated with the City of Santee (City) Town Center Specific Plan (TCSP) Amendment Project (project) and includes an assessment of potential impacts associated with project construction and project operation. The project proposes to update the City of Santee General Plan, modify the Arts and Entertainment Neighborhood (AEN), and provide objective design standards and contextual designs for four strategic Housing Element (HE) sites within the TCSP. Analysis within this report was prepared to support impact analysis pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.), CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, Section 15000 et seq. of the California Code of Regulations).

1.2 PROJECT LOCATION
The project area is located in the City of Santee, in the eastern portion of the County of San Diego, north of State Route (SR) 52 and west of SR 67 (Figure 1, Regional Location). The proposed project area extends across over 1,000 Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs), within the TCSP Area in the central portion of the City, bounded by Mission Gorge Road to the south, Mast Boulevard to the north, and Magnolia Avenue to the east (Figure 2, Aerial Photograph). Cuyamaca Street runs north-south through the western portion of the project area, forming segments of the western project boundary, and the San Diego River runs through the central northern portion of the project area (Figure 2). The topography of the project area is bisected by the San Diego River, which originates within the Santa Ysabel Open Space Preserve East and flows west and southwest and ultimately reaches the Pacific Ocean.

9.92 acres.

1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project consists of a comprehensive update to the TCSP to modify or establish new land use designations, land uses, development standards, and conceptual guidelines that would apply to future development within the TCSP area. As part of this effort, the City would also make modifications to the AEN and provide objective design standards and conceptual designs for strategic HE sites within the TCSP. A more detailed description of each of the proposed project components is described below.

1.3.1 Town Center Specific Plan
Amendments to the TCSP would incorporate relevant updates to the plan’s vision, land use permissions, and development standards. As part of the updates, new text and graphics would be developed and organized into a series of chapters, such as Introduction, Land Use and Urban Form, Mobility and Beautification, Infrastructure and Public Facilities, Implementation, and Administration. Text and concepts that remain relevant to the vision and goals of the TCSP would be maintained and incorporated into the updated TCSP document format and structure.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Amendment | July 2024
2 The amended TCSP would incorporate updated allowable and permitted land uses and development standards tailored to the project area. The updated TCSP would include graphics that illustrate the planned land use concepts and the plan’s vision at key sites. As part of the TCSP, the circulation network exhibits of the plan would be updated, including the bicycle, pedestrian, and transit network maps, and street cross sections. The TCSP would include concepts for key improvements in the public right-of-way to enhance circulation within the project area. The TCSP would incorporate concepts to illustrate wayfinding and branding signage at important locations within the public right-of-way and public trails, such as signs tailored for pedestrian, bicyclists, and transit users, signs designed to direct vehicular traffic and refer to parking areas, as well as iconic gateway structures that enhance the identity and sense of place in the project area.

1.3.2 Arts and Entertainment Neighborhood
The TCSP would include an amendment to the AEN. The City adopted the AEN in 2019 with the intent of encouraging the development of an Arts & Entertainment Neighborhood within a significant portion of the TCSP. The update would incorporate the vision, guidelines, and development standards specific to the AEN as a subsection of the Land Use and Urban Form chapter of the TCSP. This section of the TCSP would also incorporate tailored land use designations that support uses related to art and culture, entertainment, commercial recreation, visitor, and civic uses.

Pacific
ocean
8 Miles t Source; Base Map Layers (SanGIS, 2016)
I
• al Location HEEnvironL m!!anning Region Figure 1
____ ____
Proposed Santee Town Center Specific Plan
Proposed Arts and Entertainment Neighborhood
Site 16A
Site 16B
Site 20A
Site 20B
o 850 Feet _E---3 E---3 1
HELIX Aerial Photograph Environmental Planning ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------=----=--- Figure 2
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Amendment | July 2024
3 Additionally, the update would incorporate an adjustment to the AEN boundaries to include additional sites such as the open space designated areas along the San Diego River, areas north of the San Diego River, south of Riverwalk Drive, west of River Park Drive, east of Cuyamaca Street, and west of Magnolia Avenue. As a result of the boundary adjustments, the AEN area would expand from 172.492 to 341.72 acres, increasing by a total of 169.23 acres.

1.3.3 Four Strategic Housing Element Sites (2021-2029 Sixth Cycle) The City Council adopted the Housing Element (2021-2029 Sixth Cycle) on May 11, 2022. The HE was prepared in compliance with State housing law as determined by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on December 6, 2022. The HE included a Sites Inventory map and table (Figure C-1 and Table C-1 of the HE), that included a series of sites that are currently undeveloped or underutilized. The identified sites provide an opportunity for the City to meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) housing production goals. Four strategic undeveloped housing sites identified in the Sites Inventory are located within the boundary of the TCSP and the AEN. The sites are identified as 16A, 16B, 20A, and 20B. Sites 16A and 16B are undeveloped sites located just north of Mission Gorge Road and east of Riverview Parkway in the Santee Town Center. The area surrounding the sites is primarily developed with Santee Trolley Square immediately west of the site, the Las Colinas Detention Facility to the east, and open space associated with the San Diego River to the north. A portion of Site 16A is located within the Airport Safety Zone 4 as designated in the Gillespie Field Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). Sites 20A and 20B are undeveloped sites located just west of Magnolia Avenue, south of Riverview Parkway, and east of Edgemoor Drive. Sites 20A and 20B surround the Historic Edgemoor Polo or Dairy Barn. To the west of Site 20A is the Las Colinas Detention Facility, to the east is a gated 55+ manufactured home community. Site 20B is bordered by single-family residential homes to the south, multifamily residential to the east, and Las Colinas and Riverview Office Park to the west. A portion of the site is located within the Gillespie Field ALUCP Airport Safety Zone 4. The sites are proposed to be developed with residential uses.

Table 1

HOUSING ELEMENT SITES ZONING
Site Size
(acres) Current Zoning Current Density (dwelling units per acre) 16A 11.11 Residential (TC-R-30) 30 to 36
16B 8.61 Residential (TC-R-14) 14 to 22
20A 7.75 Residential (TC-R-22) 22 to 30
20B 10.00 Residential (TC-R-30) 30 to 36
2 The 2019 Art and Entertainment Overlay District refers to 155 acres; however, current GIS data shows 172 acres for the same area.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Amendment | July 2024
4 To further advance the housing production in Santee, City staff applied for a Housing Acceleration Program (HAP) grant from the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), which was awarded.

2.0 REGULATORY SETTING

2.1 CLIMATE CHANGE OVERVIEW
Global climate change refers to changes in average climatic conditions on Earth as a whole, including temperature, wind patterns, precipitation, and storms. Global temperatures are moderated by naturally occurring atmospheric gases. These gases are commonly referred to as GHGs because they function like a greenhouse by letting light in but preventing heat from escaping, thus warming the Earth’s atmosphere. These gases allow solar radiation (sunlight) into the Earth’s atmosphere but prevent radiative heat from escaping, thus warming the Earth’s atmosphere. GHGs are emitted by natural processes and human (anthropogenic) activities. Anthropogenic GHG emissions are primarily associated with (1) the burning of fossil fuels during motorized transport, electricity generation, natural gas consumption, industrial activity, manufacturing, and other activities; (2) deforestation; (3) agricultural activity; and (4) solid waste decomposition.

The temperature record shows a decades-long trend of warming, with the most recent ten-year period marking the warmest years on record since 1880 (National Aeronautics and Space Administration [NASA] 2024). The newest release in long-term warming trends announced 2023 ranked as the warmest year on record with an increase of 2.11 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) compared to the late 19th-century (1850-1900) preindustrial average (NASA 2024). GHG emissions from human activities are the most significant driver of observed climate change since the mid-20th century (United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] 2013). The IPCC constructed several emission trajectories of GHGs needed to stabilize global temperatures and climate change impacts. The statistical models show a “high confidence” that temperature increase caused by anthropogenic GHG emissions could be kept to less than two degrees Celsius relative to pre-industrial levels if atmospheric concentrations are stabilized at about 450 parts per million (ppm) carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) by the year 2100 (IPCC 2014).

2.2 GREENHOUSE GASES
The GHGs, as defined under California’s Assembly Bill (AB) 32, include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Although water vapor is the most abundant and variable GHG in the atmosphere, it is not considered a pollutant; it maintains a climate necessary for life.

Carbon Dioxide. CO2 is the most important and common anthropogenic GHG. CO2 is an odorless, colorless GHG. Natural sources include the decomposition of dead organic matter; respiration of bacteria, plants, animals, and fungi; evaporation from oceans; and volcanic outgassing. Anthropogenic sources of CO2 include burning fuels, such as coal, oil, natural gas, and wood. Data from ice cores indicate that CO2 concentrations remained steady before the current period for approximately 10,000 years. The atmospheric CO2 concentration in 2010 was 390 ppm, 39 percent above the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Amendment | July 2024
5 concentration at the start of the Industrial Revolution (approximately 280 ppm in 1750). As of January 2024, the CO2 concentration was 423 ppm, a 51 percent increase since 1750 (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2024).

Methane. CH4 is a gas and is the main component of natural gas used in homes. A natural source of methane is from the decay of organic matter. Geological deposits known as natural gas fields contain methane, which is extracted for fuel. Other sources are from decay of organic material in landfills, fermentation of manure, and cattle digestion.

Nitrous Oxide. N2O is produced by both natural and human-related sources. N2O is emitted during agricultural and industrial activities, as well as during the combustion of fossil fuels and solid waste.

Primary human-related sources of N2O are agricultural soil management, animal manure management, sewage treatment, mobile and stationary combustion of fossil fuel, adipic (fatty) acid production, and nitric acid production.

Fluorocarbons. Fluorocarbons are gases formed synthetically by replacing all hydrogen atoms in methane or ethane with chlorine and/or fluorine atoms. Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are nontoxic, nonflammable, insoluble, and chemically nonreactive in the troposphere (the level of air at Earth’s surface). CFCs were first synthesized in 1928 for use as refrigerants, aerosol propellants, and cleaning solvents. They destroy stratospheric ozone; therefore, their production was stopped as required by the Montreal Protocol.

Sulfur Hexafluoride. SF6 is an inorganic, odorless, colorless, nontoxic, nonflammable gas. SF6 is used for insulation in electric power transmission and distribution equipment, in the magnesium industry, in semiconductor manufacturing, and as a tracer gas for leak detection.

GHGs have long atmospheric lifetimes that range from one year to several thousand years. Long atmospheric lifetimes allow for GHG emissions to disperse around the globe. Because GHG emissions vary widely in the power of their climatic effects, climate scientists have established a unit called global warming potential (GWP). The GWP of a gas is a measure of both potency and lifespan in the atmosphere as compared to CO2. For example, a gas with a GWP of 10 is 10 times more potent than CO2 over 100 years. CO2e is a quantity that enables all GHG emissions to be considered as a group despite their varying GWP. The GWP of each GHG is multiplied by the prevalence of that gas to produce CO2e.

Historically, GHG emission inventories have been calculated using the GWPs from the IPCC’s Second Assessment Report (SAR). In 2007, IPCC updated the GWP values based on the latest science at the time in its Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). The updated GWPs in the IPCC AR4 have begun to be used in recent GHG emissions inventories. In 2013, IPCC again updated the GWP values based on the latest science in its Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) (IPCC 2013). However, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) reporting guidelines for national inventories require the use of GWP values from the AR4. To comply with international reporting standards under the UNFCCC, official emission estimates for California and the U.S. are reported using AR4 GWP values, and statewide and national GHG inventories have not yet updated their GWP values to the AR5 values. GHG emissions in this analysis are reported using the AR4 GWP values.

By applying the GWP ratios, CO2e emissions can be tabulated in metric tons per year. Typically, the GWP ratio corresponding to the warming potential of CO2 over a 100-year period is used as a baseline. The atmospheric lifetime and GWP of selected GHGs are summarized in Table 2, Global Warming Potentials and Atmospheric Lifetimes.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Amendment | July 2024
6 Table 2

GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIALS AND ATMOSPHERIC LIFETIMES
Greenhouse Gas Atmospheric Lifetime
(years)
Global Warming Potential
(100-year time horizon)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 50-200 1
Methane (CH4) 12 25
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 114 298
HFC-134a 14 1,430
PFC: Tetrafluoromethane (CF4) 50,000 7,390
PFC: Hexafluoroethane (C2F6) 10,000 12,200
Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) 3,200 22,800
Source: IPCC 2007
HFC: hydrofluorocarbon; PFC: perfluorocarbon

2.3 FEDERAL GREENHOUSE GAS REGULATIONS

2.3.1 Federal Clean Air Act
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on April 2, 2007, in Massachusetts v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) that CO2 is an air pollutant, as defined under the Clean Air Act (CAA), and that the USEPA has the authority to regulate emissions of GHGs. The USEPA announced that GHGs (including CO2, CH4, N2O, HFC, PFC, and SF6) threaten the public health and welfare of the American people (USEPA 2024a). This action was a prerequisite to finalizing the USEPA’s GHG emissions standards for light-duty vehicles, which were jointly proposed by the USEPA and the U.S. Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

On June 30, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court decision published in West Virginia v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency overturned the USEPA’s Clean Power Plan rule which cited Section 111(d) of the CAA for authority to set limits on CO2 emissions from existing coal- and natural-gas-fired power plants. The June 30, 2022 decision does not overturn the April 2, 2007 decision; however, it may limit the USEPA’s authority to develop rules limiting GHG emissions without clear congressional authorization.

2.3.2 Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards
The USEPA and the NHTSA worked together on developing a national program of regulations to reduce GHG emissions and improve the fuel economy of light-duty vehicles. The USEPA established the firstever national GHG emissions standards under the CAA, and the NHTSA established Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. On April 1, 2010, the USEPA and NHTSA announced a joint Final Rulemaking that established standards for 2012 through 2016 model year vehicles. This was followed up on October 15, 2012, when the agencies issued a Final Rulemaking with standards for model years 2017 through 2025.

In December 2021, USEPA issued a new rule formally adopting standards previously proposed in August 2021 for model years 2023 and 2024 and finalizing more stringent standards than previously proposed for model years 2025 and 2026. The rule assumes a 17 percent electric vehicle (EV) market penetration by 2026. Although this is a departure from the NHTSA CAFE standards, USEPA did coordinate with NHTSA during the development of the new standards. On April 12, 2023, USEPA announced new, more Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Amendment | July 2024
7 ambitious proposed standards to further reduce harmful air pollutant emissions from light-duty and medium-duty vehicles starting with model year 2027. The proposal builds upon USEPA’s final standards for federal GHG emissions standards for passenger cars and light trucks for model years 2023 through 2026 and leverages advances in clean car technology to result in benefits to Americans ranging from reducing climate pollution to improving public health, to saving drivers money through reduced fuel and maintenance costs. The proposed standards would phase in over model years 2027 through 2032.

2.4 STATE GREENHOUSE GAS REGULATIONS
The statewide GHG emissions regulatory framework is summarized below by category: state climate change targets, renewable energy and energy procurement, building energy, mobile sources, solid waste, water, and other state regulations and goals. The following text describes executive orders (EOs), legislation, regulations, and other plans and policies that would directly or indirectly reduce GHG emissions and/or address climate change issues.

2.4.1 State Climate Change Targets

2.4.1.1 Executive Order S-3-05
On June 1, 2005, EO S-3-05 proclaimed that California is vulnerable to climate change impacts. It declared that increased temperatures could reduce snowpack in the Sierra Nevada, further exacerbate California’s air quality problems, and potentially cause a rise in sea levels. To avoid or reduce climate change impacts, EO S-3-05 calls for a reduction in GHG emissions to the year 2000 level by 2010, to year 1990 levels by 2020, and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. EOs are not laws and can only provide the governor’s direction to state agencies to act within their authority. Legislation is required to enact the goals of EO S-3-05 and establish a framework for statewide implementation. AB 32, described below, mandates the 2020 GHG emissions reduction goals of EO S-3-05. The 2050 GHG emissions reduction goal of EO S-3-05 has not been enacted by any legislation and remains only a goal of the EO.

2.4.1.2 Assembly Bill 32 – Global Warming Solution Act of 2006 The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 32 and Health and Safety Code Sections 38500, 38501, 28510, 38530, 38550, 38560, 38561–38565, 38570, 38571, 38574, 38580, 38590, 38592–38599), widely known as AB 32, requires that the California Air Resources Board (CARB) develop and enforce regulations for the reporting and verification of statewide GHG emissions. CARB is directed to set a GHG emission limit, based on 1990 levels, to be achieved by 2020. The bill requires CARB to adopt rules and regulations in an open public process to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG emission reductions. AB 32 enacts the goals of EO S-3-05.

2.4.1.3 Executive Order B-30-15
On April 29, 2015, EO B-30-15 established a California GHG emission reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. The EO aligns California’s GHG emission reduction targets with those of leading international governments, including the 28-nation European Union. The emission reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 will make it possible to reach the goal established by EO S-3-05 of reducing emissions 80 percent under 1990 levels by 2050. Senate Bill (SB) 32, described below, mandates the 2030 GHG emission reduction goals of EO B-30-15.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Amendment | July 2024
8 2.4.1.4 Senate Bill 32
SB 32 (Amendments to the California Global Warming Solutions Action of 2006) extends California’s GHG reduction programs beyond 2020. SB 32 amended the Health and Safety Code 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 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 B-30-15 of 80 percent below 1990 emissions levels by 2050.

2.4.1.5 Assembly Bill 1279
Approved by Governor Newsom on September 16, 2022, AB 1279, The California Climate Crisis Act, declares the policy of the state to achieve net zero GHG emissions as soon as possible, but no later than 2045, and achieve and maintain net negative GHG emissions thereafter, and to ensure that by 2045, statewide anthropogenic GHG emissions are reduced to at least 85 percent below the 1990 levels.

AB 1279 anticipates achieving these policies through direct GHG emissions reductions, removal of CO2 from the atmosphere (carbon capture), and almost complete transition away from fossil fuels.

2.4.1.6 Senate Bill 905
Approved by Governor Newsom on September 16, 2022, SB 905, Carbon sequestration: Carbon Capture, Removal, Utilization, and Storage Program, requires CARB to establish a Carbon Capture, Removal, Utilization, and Storage Program to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and viability of carbon capture, utilization, or storage technologies and CO2 removal technologies and facilitate the capture and sequestration of CO2 from those technologies, where appropriate. SB 905 is an integral part of achieving the state policies mandated in AB 1279.

2.4.1.7 California Air Resources Board Scoping Plan
The Scoping Plan is a strategy CARB develops and updates at least once every five years, as required by AB 32. It lays out the transformations needed across our society and economy to reduce emissions and reach our climate targets. The current 2022 Scoping Plan is the third update to the original plan that was adopted in 2008. The initial 2008 Scoping Plan laid out a path to achieve the AB 32 mandate of returning to 1990 levels of GHG emissions by 2020, a reduction of approximately 15 percent below business as usual. The 2008 Scoping Plan included a mix of incentives, regulations, and carbon pricing, laying out the portfolio approach to addressing climate change and making the case for using multiple tools to meet California’s GHG emissions targets. The 2013 Scoping Plan assessed progress toward achieving the 2020 mandate and made the case for addressing short-lived climate pollutants. The 2017 Scoping Plan also assessed the progress toward achieving the 2020 limit and provided a technologically feasible and costeffective path to achieving the SB 32 mandate of reducing GHGs by at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.

On December 15, 2022, CARB approved the 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan). The 2022 Scoping Plan lays out a path to achieve targets for carbon neutrality and reduce anthropogenic GHG emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels no later than 2045, as directed by Assembly Bill 1279. The actions and outcomes in the plan will achieve significant reductions in fossil fuel combustion by deploying clean technologies and fuels; further reductions in short-lived climate Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Amendment | July 2024
9 pollutants; support for sustainable development; increased action on natural and working lands to reduce emissions and sequester carbon; and the capture and storage of carbon (CARB 2022).

2.4.2 Renewable Energy and Energy Procurement

2.4.2.1 Senate Bill 1078
SB 1078 (Sher) (September 2002) established the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) program, which required an annual increase in renewable generation by the utilities equivalent to at least 1 percent of sales, with an aggregate goal of 20 percent by 2017. This goal was subsequently revised as described below.

2.4.2.2 Senate Bill 1368
SB 1368 (September 2006) required the California Energy Commission (CEC) to develop and adopt regulations for GHG emission performance standards for the long-term procurement of electricity by local publicly owned utilities. These standards must be consistent with the standards adopted by the California Public Utilities Commission.

2.4.2.3 Assembly Bill 1109
Enacted in 2007, AB 1109 required the CEC to adopt minimum energy efficiency standards for generalpurpose lighting, to reduce electricity consumption 50 percent for indoor residential lighting and 25 percent for indoor commercial lighting.

2.4.2.4 Executive Order S-14-08
EO S-14-08 (November 2008) focused on the contribution of renewable energy sources to meet the electrical needs of California while reducing the GHG emissions from the electrical sector. This EO required that all retail suppliers of electricity in California serve 33 percent of their load with renewable energy by 2020. Furthermore, the EO directed state agencies to take appropriate actions to facilitate reaching this target. The California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA), through collaboration with the CEC and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (formerly the California Department of Fish and Game), was directed to lead this effort.

2.4.2.5 Executive Order S-21-09 and Senate Bill X1-2
EO S-21-09 (September 2009) directed CARB to adopt a regulation consistent with the goal of EO S-14-08 by July 31, 2010. CARB was further directed to work with the California Public Utilities Commission and CEC to ensure that the regulation builds upon the RPS program and was applicable to investor-owned utilities, publicly owned utilities, direct access providers, and community choice providers. Under this order, CARB was to give the highest priority to those renewable resources that provide the greatest environmental benefits with the least environmental costs and impacts on public health and can be developed the most quickly in support of reliable, efficient, cost-effective electricity system operations. On September 23, 2010, CARB initially approved regulations to implement a Renewable Electricity Standard. However, this regulation was not finalized because of subsequent legislation (SB X1-2, Simitian, statutes of 2011) signed by Governor Brown in April 2011.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Amendment | July 2024
10 SB X1-2 expanded the RPS by establishing a renewable energy target of 20 percent of the total electricity sold to retail customers in California per year by December 31, 2013, and 33 percent by December 31, 2020, and in subsequent years. Under the bill, a renewable electrical generation facility uses biomass, solar thermal, photovoltaic, wind, geothermal, fuel cells using renewable fuels, small hydroelectric generation (30 megawatts or less), digester gas, municipal solid waste conversion, landfill gas, ocean wave, ocean thermal, or tidal current, and that meets other specified requirements with respect to its location.

SB X1-2 applies to all electricity retailers in the state including publicly owned utilities, investor-owned utilities, electricity service providers, and community choice aggregators. All of these entities must meet the renewable energy goals previously listed.

2.4.2.6 Senate Bill 350
SB 350 (October 2015, Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act) further expanded the RPS by establishing a goal of 50 percent of the total electricity sold to retail customers in California per year by December 31, 2030. In addition, SB 350 included the goal to double the energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas final end uses (e.g., heating, cooling, lighting, or class of energy uses on which an energy-efficiency program is focused) of retail customers through energy conservation and efficiency.

The bill also requires the California Public Utilities Commission, in consultation with the CEC, to establish efficiency targets for electrical and gas corporations consistent with this goal. Regarding mobile sources, as one of its elements, SB 350 establishes a statewide policy for widespread electrification of the transportation sector, recognizing that such electrification is required for the achievement of the state’s 2030 and 2050 reduction targets (see California Public Utilities Code Section 740.12).

2.4.2.7 Senate Bill 100
SB 100 (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 achievement not be achieved through resource shuffling.

2.4.2.8 Senate Bill 1020
SB 1020 (September 2022) revises the standards from SB 100, requiring the following percentage of retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers to 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.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Amendment | July 2024
11 2.4.3 Building Energy

2.4.3.1 California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6 California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24 Part 6: California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings were first established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. Energy-efficient buildings require less electricity, natural gas, and other fuels. Electricity production from fossil fuels and on-site fuel combustion (typically for water heating) results in GHG emissions.

The Title 24 standards are updated approximately every three years to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. The latest update to the Title 24 standards occurred in 2022 and went into effect on January 1, 2023. The Building Energy Efficiency Standards focus on several key areas to improve the energy efficiency of newly constructed buildings and additions and alterations to existing buildings. While all energy codes are moving toward a goal of net zero energy consumption buildings, California is aiming for the more aggressive target date of 2030 for commercial projects. Specifically, the Title 24 code’s goal is for all new commercial construction, and 50 percent of commercial buildings retrofits, to achieve net zero energy consumption by 2030 (the state building target is 2025). To achieve incremental movement toward this goal, changes in the 2022 code are numerous and aggressive. For example, new buildings must comply with the new Solar Access Roof Area (SARA) requirements and all buildings required to have a photovoltaic system must also have a properly sized battery system. The standards are divided into three basic sets. First, there is a basic set of mandatory requirements that apply to all buildings. Second, there is a set of performance standards– the energy budgets–that vary by climate zone (of which there are 16 in California) and building type; thus, the standards are tailored to local conditions. Finally, the third set constitutes an alternative to the performance standards, which is a set of prescriptive packages that are a recipe or a checklist compliance approach (CEC 2022).

2.4.3.2 California Green Building Standards Code
The California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen; CCR Title 24, Part 11) is a code with mandatory requirements for new residential and nonresidential buildings (including industrial buildings) throughout California. The code is Part 11 of the California Building Standards Code in Title 24 of the CCR. The current 2022 Standards for new construction of, and additions and alterations to, residential and nonresidential buildings went into effect on January 1, 2023 (California Building Standards Commission [CBSC] 2022).

The development of CALGreen is intended to (1) cause a reduction in GHG emissions from buildings; (2) promote environmentally responsible, cost-effective, healthier places to live and work; (3) reduce energy and water consumption; and (4) respond to the directives by the Governor. In short, the code is established to reduce construction waste; make buildings more efficient in the use of materials and energy; and reduce environmental impact during and after construction.

CALGreen contains requirements for storm water control during construction; construction waste reduction; indoor water use reduction; material selection; natural resource conservation; site irrigation conservation; and more. The code provides for design options allowing the designer to determine how best to achieve compliance for a given site or building condition. The code also requires building Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Amendment | July 2024
12 commissioning, which is a process for the verification that all building systems, like heating and cooling equipment and lighting systems, are functioning at their maximum efficiency.

2.4.4 Mobile Sources

2.4.4.1 Assembly Bill 1493 and Advanced Clean Cars
AB 1493 (Pavley) requires that CARB develop and adopt regulations that achieve “the maximum feasible reduction of GHGs emitted by passenger vehicles and light-duty truck and other vehicles determined by CARB to be vehicles whose primary use is noncommercial personal transportation in the State.” On September 24, 2009, CARB adopted amendments to the Pavley regulations that intend to reduce GHG emissions in new passenger vehicles from 2009 through 2016. The amendments bind California’s enforcement of AB 1493 (starting in 2009), while providing vehicle manufacturers with new compliance flexibility. The amendments also prepared California to merge its rules with the federal CAFE rules for passenger vehicles (CARB 2024a).

In January 2012, CARB approved Advanced Clean Cars I, a new emissions-control program for model years 2017 through 2025 including low emissions vehicle and zero-emissions vehicle criteria. The Advanced Clean Cars II regulations were adopted in 2022, imposing the next level of low-emission and zero-emission vehicle standards for model years 2026 through 2035 that contribute to meeting federal ambient air quality ozone standards and California’s carbon neutrality targets.

By 2035 all new passenger cars, trucks, and SUVs sold in California will have zero emissions. The Advanced Clean Cars II regulations take the state’s already growing zero-emission vehicle market and robust motor vehicle emission control rules and augment them to meet more aggressive tailpipe emissions standards and ramp up to 100 percent zero-emission vehicles.

2.4.4.2 Executive Order S-01-07
This EO, signed by Governor Schwarzenegger on January 18, 2007, directs that a statewide goal be established to reduce the carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels by at least 10 percent by the year 2020. It orders that a Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) for transportation fuels be established for California and directs the CARB to determine whether an LCFS can be adopted as a discrete early action measure pursuant to AB 32. CARB approved the LCFS as a discrete early action item with a regulation adopted and implemented in April 2010. Although challenged in 2011, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s opinion and rejected arguments that implementing LCFS violates the interstate commerce clause in September 2013. CARB, therefore, is continuing to implement the LCFS statewide.

2.4.4.3 Senate Bill 375
SB 375 aligns regional transportation planning efforts, regional GHG reduction targets, and affordable housing allocations. Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) are required to adopt a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), which allocates land uses in the MPOs’ Regional Transportation Plan (RTP).

Qualified projects consistent with an approved SCS or Alternative Planning Strategy categorized as “transit priority projects” would receive incentives to streamline CEQA processing.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Amendment | July 2024
13 2.4.4.4 Executive Order N-79-20
EO N-79-20, signed by Governor Newsom on September 23, 2020, establishes three goals for the implementation of zero-emissions vehicles in California: first, 100 percent of in-state sales of new passenger cars and trucks will be zero-emissions by 2035; second, 100 percent of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles in the state will be zero-emissions vehicles by 2045 for all operations where feasible, and by 2035 for drayage trucks; and third, 100 percent of off-road vehicles and equipment will be zero emissions by 2035 where feasible.

2.4.5 Solid Waste

2.4.5.1 Assembly Bill 939
In 1989, AB 939, known as the Integrated Waste Management Act (California Public Resources Code, Sections 40000 et seq.), was passed because of the increase in waste stream and the decrease in landfill capacity. The statute established the California Integrated Waste Management Board to oversee a disposal reporting system. AB 939 mandated a reduction of waste being disposed where jurisdictions were required to meet diversion goals of all solid waste through source reduction, recycling, and composting activities of 25 percent by 1995 and 50 percent by the year 2000.

2.4.5.2 Assembly Bill 341
The state legislature enacted AB 341 (California Public Resource Code Section 42649.2), amending the Integrated Waste Management Act to include a provision declaring that it is the policy goal of the state that not less than 75 percent of solid waste generated be source-reduced, recycled, or composted by the year 2020, and annually thereafter. In addition, AB 341 required the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) to develop strategies to achieve the state’s policy goal.

CalRecycle conducted several general stakeholder workshops and several focused workshops and in August 2015 published a discussion document titled AB 341 Report to the Legislature, which identifies five priority strategies that CalRecycle believes would assist the state in reaching the 75 percent goal by 2020, legislative and regulatory recommendations, and an evaluation of program effectiveness (CalRecycle 2019).

2.4.5.3 Assembly Bill 1826
AB 1826 (Chapter 727, Statutes of 2014, effective 2016) requires businesses to recycle their organic waste (i.e., food waste, green waste, landscape, and pruning waste, nonhazardous wood waste, and food-soiled paper waste that is mixed in with food waste) depending on the amount of waste they generate per week. This law also requires local jurisdictions across the state to implement an organic waste recycling program to divert organic waste generated by businesses, including multifamily residential dwellings that consist of five or more units. The minimum threshold of organic waste generation by businesses decreases over time, which means an increasingly greater proportion of the commercial sector will be required to comply.

2.4.5.4 Senate Bill 1383
SB 1383 (Chapter 395, Statutes of 2016) establishes targets to achieve a 50 percent reduction in the level of the statewide disposal of organic waste from the 2014 level by 2020 and a 75 percent reduction by 2025. CalRecycle was granted the regulatory authority required to achieve the organic waste disposal Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Amendment | July 2024
14 reduction targets and establish an additional target that not less than 20 percent of currently disposed edible food is recovered for human consumption by 2025 (CalRecycle 2019).

2.4.6 Water

2.4.6.1 Executive Order B-29-15
In response to the ongoing drought in California, EO B-29-15 (April 2015) set a goal of achieving a statewide reduction in potable urban water usage of 25 percent relative to water use in 2013. The term of the EO extended through February 28, 2016, although many of the directives have become permanent water-efficiency standards and requirements. The EO includes specific directives that set strict limits on water usage in the state. In response to EO B-29-15, the California Department of Water Resources modified and adopted a revised version of the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance that, among other changes, significantly increases the requirements for landscape water use efficiency and broadens its applicability to include new development projects with smaller landscape areas.

2.4.6.2 Executive Order B-37-16
Issued May 2016, EO B-37-16 directed the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to adjust emergency water conservation regulations through the end of January 2017 to reflect differing water supply conditions across the state. The SWRCB also developed a proposal to achieve a mandatory reduction of potable urban water usage that builds off the mandatory 25 percent reduction called for in EO B-29-15. The SWRCB and Department of Water Resources were required to develop new, permanent water use targets that build upon the existing state law requirements that the state achieve 20 percent reduction in urban water usage by 2020. EO B-37-16 also specifies that the SWRCB permanently prohibits water-wasting practices such as hosing off sidewalks, driveways, and other hardscapes; washing automobiles with hoses not equipped with a shut-off nozzle; using non-recirculated water in a fountain or other decorative water feature; watering lawns in a manner that causes runoff, or within 48 hours after measurable precipitation; and irrigating ornamental turf on public street medians.

2.4.6.3 Executive Order N-10-21
In response to a state of emergency due to severe drought conditions, EO N-10-21 (July 2021) called on all Californians to voluntarily reduce their water use by 15 percent from their 2020 levels. Actions suggested in EO N-10-21 include reducing landscape irrigation, running dishwashers and washing machines only when full, finding and fixing leaks, installing water-efficient showerheads, taking shorter showers, using a shut-off nozzle on hoses, and taking cars to commercial car washes that use recycled water.

2.4.7 Other State Actions

2.4.7.1 Senate Bill 97
SB 97 (Dutton) (August 2007) directed the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research to develop guidelines under CEQA for the mitigation of GHG emissions. In 2008, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research issued a technical advisory as interim guidance regarding the analysis of GHG emissions in CEQA documents. The advisory indicated that the lead agency should identify and estimate a project’s GHG emissions, including those associated with vehicular traffic, energy consumption, water usage, and construction activities (Governor’s Office of Planning and Research 2008). The advisory further Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Amendment | July 2024
15 recommended that the lead agency determine the significance of the impacts and impose all mitigation measures necessary to reduce GHG emissions to a level that is less than significant. The CNRA adopted the CEQA Guidelines amendments in December 2009, which became effective in March 2010.

Under the amended Guidelines, a lead agency has the discretion to determine whether to use a quantitative or qualitative analysis or apply performance standards to determine the significance of GHG emissions resulting from a particular project (14 CCR 15064.4(a)). The Guidelines require a lead agency to consider the extent to which the Project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions (14 CCR 15064.4(b)). The Guidelines also allow a lead agency to consider feasible means of mitigating the significant effects of GHG emissions, including reductions in emissions through the implementation of project features or off-site measures. The adopted amendments do not establish a GHG emission threshold, instead allowing a lead agency to develop, adopt, and apply its thresholds of significance or those developed by other agencies or experts. The CNRA also acknowledges that a lead agency may consider compliance with regulations or requirements implementing AB 32 in determining the significance of a project’s GHG emissions (CNRA 2009).

With respect to GHG emissions, the CEQA Guidelines state in Section 15064.4(a) that lead agencies should “make a good faith effort, to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate” GHG emissions. The CEQA Guidelines note that an agency may identify emissions by either selecting a “model or methodology” to quantify the emissions or by relying on “qualitative analysis or other performance-based standards” (14 CCR 15064.4(a)). Section 15064.4(b) states that the lead agency should consider the following when assessing the significance of impacts from GHG emissions on the environment: (1) the extent a project may increase or reduce GHG emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting; (2) whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project; and (3) the extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions (14 CCR 15064.4(b)).

2.4.7.2 Executive Order S-13-08
EO S-13-08 (November 2008) is intended to hasten California’s response to the impacts of global climate change, particularly sea-level rise. Therefore, the EO directs state agencies to take specified actions to assess and plan for such impacts. The final 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy report was issued in December 2009, and an update, Safeguarding California: Reducing Climate Risk, followed in July 2014. To assess the state’s vulnerability, the report summarizes key climate change impacts to the state for the following areas: Agriculture, Biodiversity and Habitat, Emergency Management, Energy, Forestry, Ocean and Coastal Ecosystems and Resources, Public Health, Transportation, and Water.

Issuance of the Safeguarding California: Implementation Action Plans followed in March 2016. In January 2018, the CNRA released the Safeguarding California Plan: 2018 Update, which communicates current and needed actions that state government should take to build climate change resiliency.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Amendment | July 2024
16 2.5 LOCAL GREENHOUSE GAS PLANS

2.5.1 San Diego Association of Governments San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan
SANDAG’s 2021 Regional Plan (Regional Plan) is a long-range planning document developed to address the region’s housing, economic, transportation, environmental, and overall quality-of-life needs. The underlying purpose is to provide direction and guidance on future regional growth (i.e., the location of new residential and non-residential land uses) and transportation patterns throughout the region. The 2021 Regional Plan is a 30-year plan that considers how the community will grow, where residents will live, and how residents and visitors will move around the region. It combines the RTP, SCS, and Regional Comprehensive Plan. As such, the 2021 Regional Plan must comply with specific state and federal mandates. These include an SCS, per SB 375, that achieves GHG emissions reduction targets set by the CARB; compliance with federal civil rights requirements (Title VI); environmental justice considerations; air quality conformity; and public participation (SANDAG 2021).

2.5.2 Santee General Plan
The City’s General Plan includes various goals, objectives, and policies related to GHG emissions, including the following:

Land Use Element Objective 3.0: Provide and maintain the highest level of service possible for all community public services and facilities.

Policy 3.2: The City should encourage the development and use of recycled water for appropriate land uses to encourage the conservation of, and reduce demand for, potable water.

Policy 4.3: The City should locate new neighborhood commercial uses along major roadways in consolidated centers that utilize common access and parking for commercial uses, discourage the introduction of strip commercial uses and require adequate pedestrian links to residential areas.

Mobility Element: The Mobility Element includes policies that enhance smart growth development, improve traffic flow, increase the use of public transit, encourage bicycling and walking, and increase use of alternative modes of travel, which would help to reduce GHG emissions from on-road transportation.

2.5.3 Sustainable Santee Plan
The City adopted the Sustainable Santee Plan on January 8, 2020, which, as a qualified GHG emissions reduction plan in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5, provides guidance for the reduction of GHG emissions within the City. The Sustainable Santee Plan provides policy direction and identifies actions the City and community will take to reduce GHG emissions consistent with State goals and targets including achieving 1990 emission levels by 2020 (which the state has achieved); 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030; and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The Sustainable Santee Plan would also work to achieve a per-capita GHG emission level by 2030 in conformance with SB 32 and the CARB Scoping Plan.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Amendment | July 2024
17 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
In an effort to evaluate and reduce the potential adverse impact of global climate change, international, state, and local organizations have conducted GHG inventories to estimate their levels of GHG emissions and removals. The following summarizes the results of these global, national, state, and local GHG inventories.

3.1 WORLDWIDE AND NATIONAL GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY
In 2022, total anthropogenic GHG emissions worldwide were estimated at 49,400 million metric tons (MMT) of CO2e emissions (Climate Watch 2024). The five largest emitting countries and the European Union (EU-27), together account for about 63 percent of total global GHG emissions: China (29 percent), the United States (13 percent), the European Union (about 7 percent), India (7 percent), the Russian Federation (4.1 percent) and Japan (2.4 percent). These countries also have the highest CO2 emission levels (Climate Watch 2024).

Per USEPA Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2022, total United States GHG emissions were approximately 6,341 MMT CO2e in 2022 (USEPA 2024b). The primary GHG emitted by human activities in the United States was CO2, which represented approximately 79.8 percent of total GHG emissions (5,057 MMT CO2e). The largest source of CO2, and of overall GHG emissions, was fossil fuel combustion, which accounted for approximately 92.7 percent of CO2 emissions in 2022 (4,690 MMT CO2e). Relative to 1990, gross United States GHG emissions in 2022 were lower by 3.1 percent, down from a high of 15.2 percent above 1990 levels in 2007. Gross emissions increased from 2021 to 2022 by

0.3 percent (16.4 MMT CO2e). Net emissions (i.e., including sinks) were 5,487 MMT CO2e in 2022.

Overall, net emissions increased by 1.3 percent from 2021 to 2022 and decreased by 16.6 percent from 2005 levels. Between 2021 and 2022, the increase in total greenhouse gas emissions was driven largely by an increase in CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion across most end-use sectors due in part to increased energy use from the continued rebound of economic activity after the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. (USEPA 2024b).

3.2 STATE GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY
CARB performed statewide inventories for the years 2000 to 2020, as shown in Table 3, California Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector. The inventory is divided into five broad sectors of economic activity: agriculture, commercial and residential, electricity generation, industrial, and transportation.

Emissions are quantified in MMT CO2e
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Amendment | July 2024
18 Table 3

CALIFORNIA GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS BY SECTOR
Emissions (MMT CO2e)
Sector 1990 2000 2010 2020
Agriculture and Forestry 18.9 (4%) 30.8 (7%) 33.6 (8%) 31.6 (8%) Commercial and Residential 44.1 (10%) 44.2 (10%) 46.0 (10%) 38.7 (11%) Electricity Generation 110.5 (26%) 104.7 (23%) 90.3 (20%) 59.5 (16%) Industrial 105.3 (24%) 93.0 (20%) 87.8 (20%) 73.3 (20%) Transportation 150.6 (35%) 175.7 (38%) 162.9 (37%) 135.8 (37%) Unspecified Remaining 1.3 (<1%) 13.4 (3%) 21.6 (5%) 30.2 (8%) Total 430.7 461.8 442.2 369.1
Source: CARB 2007 and CARB 2024b
MMT = million metric tons; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent As shown in Table 3, statewide GHG source emissions totaled 430.7 MMT CO2e in 1990, 461.8 MMT CO2e in 2000, 442.2 MMT CO2e in 2010, and 369.1 MMT CO2e in 2020. Transportation-related emissions consistently contribute the most GHG emissions, followed by electricity generation and industrial emissions (CARB 2007 and CARB 2024b).

3.3 LOCAL GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY
As part of its Sustainable Santee Plan, the City compiled a GHG inventory. The inventory is presented in Table 4, 2013 City of Santee Greenhouse Gas Inventory. As shown in Table 4, the on-road transportation sector contributed the most to GHG emissions in the City in 2013.

Table 4
2013 CITY OF SANTEE GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY
Sector Emissions (MT CO2e)
On-Road Transportation 242,499 (60%)
Residential Energy 78,651 (20%)
Commercial Energy 48,025 (12%)
Solid Waste 11,151 (3%)
Water 6,578 (2%)
Off-Road Sources 14,699 (4%)
Wastewater 971 (<1%)
Total 402,574
Source: City 2019
MT = metric tons; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent

4.0 METHODOLOGY AND SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA

4.1 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
GHG emissions were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2022.1. CalEEMod is a computer model used to estimate emissions resulting from land development projects throughout the state of California. CalEEMod was developed by the California Air Pollution Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Amendment | July 2024
19 Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) in collaboration with the California air quality management and pollution control districts (CAPCOA 2022).

In brief, CalEEMod is a computer model that estimates criteria air pollutant and GHG emissions from mobile (i.e., vehicular) sources, area sources (fireplaces, wood stoves, 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, solid waste disposal, and refrigerant leaks. 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 adjusted as described below. The CalEEMod output files are included in Appendix A of this report.

4.1.1 Construction Emissions
The quantity, duration, and intensity of construction activity influence the amount of construction emissions and related emissions 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).

4.1.1.1 Housing Element Sites
Construction emissions for HE sites 16A, 16B, 20A, and 20B were estimated based on the timeline provided by the project applicant, which assumes construction would begin in January 2025 and last approximately 18 months. 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 5, Housing Element Sites Anticipated Construction Schedule.

Table 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
Construction would require the use of heavy off-road equipment. Construction equipment estimates are based on default values in CalEEMod, Version 2022.1. Table 6, Housing Element Sites Construction Equipment Assumptions, presents a summary of the assumed equipment that would be involved in each stage of construction.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Amendment | July 2024
20 Table 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.

4.1.1.2 Remaining Town Center Specific Plan Land Uses
Construction-related activities are temporary, short-term sources of emissions. Sources of constructionrelated emissions include construction equipment exhaust and construction-related trips by workers, delivery, and hauling trucks. The quantity of emissions generated by the construction of projects within the proposed TCSP would vary depending on the number of projects occurring simultaneously and the size of each project. Since the proposed TCSP is a land use plan that guides physical development through 2035, 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.

While neither San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (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 2020). This conservative assumption was used to evaluate the potential construction-related Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Amendment | July 2024
21 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 7, 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 7
LAND USE PROFILE – FIRST YEAR OF CONSTRUCTION
Lande 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: HE Sites excluded, as they are provided in the analysis described in Section 4.1.1.1.

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 delivery of the HE Sites. Additional details are available in Appendix A. 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.

4.1.2 Operational Emissions
Operational emissions were estimated using CalEEMod. Operational sources of emissions include area, energy, mobile (on-road vehicles), water and wastewater, solid waste, and refrigerants.

4.1.2.1 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.

4.1.2.2 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.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Amendment | July 2024
22 4.1.2.3 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 HE 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.

4.1.2.4 Water and Wastewater Sources
Water-related GHG emissions are from the energy use for the conveyance and treatment of water and wastewater. CalEEMod uses the Maximum Applied Water Allowance method established under the California Department of Water Resources’ 2015 Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and indoor residential water consumption based on per capita daily water use rates from the Residential End Uses of Water published by the Water Research Foundation to establish default water use (CAPCOA 2022). Modeling was conducted using these defaults.

4.1.2.5 Solid Waste Sources
The disposal of solid waste produces GHG emissions from anaerobic decomposition in landfills, incineration, and transportation of waste. Portions of these emissions are biogenic. CalEEMod methods for quantifying GHG emissions from solid waste are based on the IPCC method using the degradable organic content of waste. The default waste generation rate for by land use type was used in modeling.

4.1.2.6 Refrigerants
CalEEMod calculates GHG emissions associated with refrigerants (typically HFCs or blends of gases containing HFCs) which are emitted through leakage or maintenance from project refrigeration systems, freezers, and air conditioning systems. Refrigerant emissions were calculated using CalEEMod defaults.

4.2 GREENHOUSE GAS SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
Given the relatively small levels of emissions generated by a typical development in relationship to the total amount of GHG emissions generated on a national or global basis, individual development projects are not expected to result in significant, direct impacts concerning climate change. However, given the magnitude of the impact of GHG emissions on the global climate, GHG emissions from new development could result in significant, cumulative impacts to climate change. Therefore, the potential for a significant GHG impact is limited to cumulative impacts.

Thresholds used to evaluate potential GHG impacts are based on applicable criteria in the State’s CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. A project would have a significant GHG impact if it would:

1. Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; or

2. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Amendment | July 2024
23 As described in Section 2.5.2, the Sustainable Santee Plan is a qualified GHG reduction plan consistent with CEQA guidelines Section 15183.5. Development projects consistent with an applicable local qualified GHG reduction plan are eligible for streamlined GHG analysis. Development project within the City that are consistent with the Sustainable Santee Plan would be consistent with statewide GHG reduction goals for 2030 (per SB 32), thereby demonstrating progress towards the 2045 GHG reduction goal established by AB 1279 (City 2019).

5.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS

5.1 ISSUE 1: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
The project would generate GHG emissions during construction and operation. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4(a) states that a lead agency shall make a good-faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate, or estimate the amount of GHG emissions resulting from a project. Therefore, GHG emissions are estimated using the methods described in Section 4.1, above, and are provided below for informational purposes.

5.1.1 Construction Emissions
Project construction GHG emissions were estimated using the CalEEMod model as described in Section 4.1.1 with emissions estimated separately for the four strategic HE sites and the rest of the TCSP. Project-specific input was based on project-specific information described in Sections 1.0 and

4.1.1 and default model settings to estimate reasonably conservative conditions. Additional details of construction activities, selection of construction equipment, and other input parameters, including CalEEMod data, are included in Appendix A.

Emissions of GHGs related to the construction of the project would be temporary. As shown in Table 8, Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions, peak annual GHG emissions associated with the construction of the project are estimated at 3,130 MT CO2e.

Table 8

CONSTRUCTION GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Year/Activity Emissions
(MT CO2e)
2025 Four Strategic HE Sites 2,090
2026 Four Strategic HE Sites 1,135
2027 Town Center Specific Plan – Year 1 3,130
Source: CalEEMod (output data is provided in Appendix A) MT = metric tons; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent

5.1.2 Operation Emissions
Project operational GHG emissions were estimated using the CalEEMod model as described in Section 4.1.2 with emissions estimated separately for the four strategic HE sites and the rest of the TCSP. The calculated HE Site operational emissions for the first anticipated full year of operation (2027) and the TCSP for the horizon year (2035) are shown in Table 9, Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Amendment | July 2024
24 Table 9

OPERATIONAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Emission Sources MT CO2e
Four Strategic HE Sites
Vehicular (Mobile) 8,466
Area 18
Energy 909
Water/Wastewater 79
Solid Waste 342
Refrigerants 2
Total Annual HE Site Emissions1 9,815
Town Center Specific Plan
Vehicular (Mobile) 52,808
Area 54
Energy 5,032
Water/Wastewater 449
Solid Waste 1,332
Refrigerants 5
Total Annual TCSP Emissions1 59,680
Source: CalEEMod (output data is provided in Appendix A) 1 Totals may not sum due to rounding.

MT = metric tons; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent

5.1.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact
The Sustainable Santee Plan, a qualified GHG emissions reduction plan in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5, provides policy direction and identifies actions the City and community will take to reduce GHG emissions consistent with State goals and targets including: achieving 1990 emission levels by 2020 (which the state has achieved); 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030; and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The Sustainable Santee Plan would also work to achieve a per-capita GHG emission level by 2030 in conformance with SB 32 and the CARB Scoping Plan. Development projects within the City that are consistent with the Sustainable Santee Plan would be consistent with statewide GHG reduction goals for 2030 (per SB 32), thereby demonstrating progress towards the 2045 GHG reduction goal established by AB 1279 (City 2019). For the purposes of determining the significance of GHG emissions, the project is analyzed for consistency with the Sustainable Santee Plan.

5.1.3.1 Town Center Specific Plan and Arts and Entertainment Neighborhood 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. 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.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Amendment | July 2024
25 The Sustainable Santee Plan includes 10 goals across 5 categories. The proposed project consists of a comprehensive update to the TCSP to modify or establish new land use designations, land uses, development standards, and conceptual guidelines that would apply to future development within the TCSP area. The project is not proposing specific development that could be demonstrated as incorporating measures related to building space, energy use, or utilities; however, the project would not inhibit the City from implementing these measures or achieving these goals. The project includes several transportation projects which would be consistent with Goals 6 and 8 within the Transportation category, as detailed in Table 10, Project Consistency with Sustainable Santee Plan Measures.

Table 10

PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH SUSTAINABLE SANTEE PLAN MEASURES Measure Project Compliance
Goal 6 – Reduction in VMT
Measure 6.1 – Multimodal
Infrastructure
The proposed TCSP includes multi-use paths and pedestrian connections.

Multi-use pathways provide safe, convenient, and comfortable pedestrian access between the different land uses and neighborhoods and 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.

Measure 6.1 – Bike
Paths/Transit
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.

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).

Goal 8 – Traffic Flow
Measure 8.1 – Traffic Flow
Improvement Program
The TCSP identifies improvements along portions of existing Cuyamaca Street and Riverview Parkway, and identifies new roadways roadway connections including Riverview Parkway, Cottonwood Avenue, Main Street, and Park Center Drive. the proposed roadway connections along Riverview Parkway, Cottonwood Avenue, Main Street, and Park Center 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.

Source: City 2019
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 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.

The majority of the TCSP area, including the AEN, is located within a designated Transit Priority Area (TPA). By placing these uses within a TPA, the project would implement the Sustainable Santee Plan strategies by focusing projected future growth into mixed-use and multiple-use activity centers that are pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly and linked to transit. Increasing residential and commercial density in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Amendment | July 2024
26 transit corridors and within a TPA would support the City in achieving the GHG emissions reduction targets of the Sustainable Santee Plan, and thus, impacts associated with GHG emissions would be less than significant.

5.1.3.2 Housing Element Sites
The Sustainable Santee Plan Project Consistency Checklist (Checklist) is intended to be a tool for development projects to demonstrate consistency with the Sustainable Santee Plan. The Checklist has been developed as part of the Sustainable Santee Plan implementation and monitoring process and supports the achievement of individual GHG reduction measures as well as the City’s overall GHG reduction goals. Additionally, the Checklist supports the City’s sustainability goals and policies that encourage sustainable development and aim to conserve and reduce the consumption of resources, such as energy and water, among others. Projects that meet the requirements of the Checklist are considered consistent with the Sustainable Santee Plan and would have a less than significant contribution to cumulative GHG impacts (i.e., the project’s incremental contribution to cumulative GHG effects is not cumulatively considerable), pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(h)(3), 15130(d), and 15183(b).

The Checklist includes a two-step process to determine if a project would result in a GHG impact. Step 1 consists of an evaluation to determine the project’s consistency with existing General Plan land use and zoning designations for the site. Step 2 consists of an evaluation of the project’s design features and compliance with the Sustainable Santee Plan’s GHG emission reduction measures.

A Checklist was completed for the development of HE sites 16A, 16B, 20A, and 20B (see Appendix B).

These sites are designated as residential land uses in the existing TCSP and zoned for residential development in the City’s Housing Element. When compared to the existing zoning and land use designations, the project would not increase the development potential allowed at the four Housing Element sites. Therefore, under Step 1 of the Checklist, the project is consistent with the land use assumptions used in the Sustainable Santee Plan.

Consistency with Step 2 of the Checklist would require the 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 project; however, because there are no uniformly applicable development codes that would require these measures be implemented, the impact would be potentially significant.

5.1.4 Mitigation Framework
The following mitigation measures would be required to demonstrate consistency of the HE Sites with the Sustainable Santee Plan, and reduce impacts to less than significant:

GHG-1 Increase Energy Efficiency in New Residential Units. New residential construction shall meet or exceed California Green Building Standards Tier 2 Voluntary Measures, such as obtaining green building ratings including LEED, Build it Green, or Energy Star Certified building certification in scoring development and explain the measures implemented.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Amendment | July 2024
27 GHG-2 Shade Trees. The project shall utilize tree planting for shade and energy efficiency such as tree planting in parking lots and streetscapes.

GHG-3 Increased Use of Electric Vehicles. The project shall install electric vehicle chargers for 13 percent of total parking provided.

GHG-4 Reducing Solid Waste Generation. The project shall provide exterior recycling storage space in accordance with California Green Building Standards and the Santee Municipal Code.

GHG-5 Increased Clean Energy Use. The project shall install at least 1 kilowatt per unit of photovoltaic solar systems, unless the installation is infeasible due to poor solar resources established in a solar feasibility study prepared by a qualified consultant submitted with an applicant’s formal project submittal to City.

5.1.5 Significance After Mitigation
With implementation of mitigation measures GHG-1 through GHG-5 the development of the four HE sites would be consistent with the Sustainable Santee Plan, and the project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. The impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

5.2 ISSUE 2: CONFLICT WITH APPLICABLE PLANS ADOPTED FOR THE

PURPOSE OF REDUCING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

5.2.1 Impacts
There are numerous State plans, policies, and regulations adopted to reduce GHG emissions. The principal overall State plan and policy is AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. The quantitative goal of AB 32 is to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, which the State achieved.

SB 32 and AB 1279 require further reductions of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045, respectively. Statewide plans and regulations such as GHG emissions standards for vehicles (AB 1493), the LCFS, and regulations requiring an increasing fraction of electricity to be generated from renewable sources are being implemented at the statewide level; as such, compliance at the project level is not addressed. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with those plans and regulations.

The project must also be constructed in accordance with the energy-efficiency standards, water reduction goals, and other standards contained in the applicable Title 24 Part 6 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and Part 11 CALGreen Building Standards. As discussed in Issue 1, the project would be consistent with the Sustainable Santee Plan with the implementation of mitigation measures GHG-1 through GHG-5. The Sustainable Santee Plan was developed to ensure community-wide GHG emissions in Santee would meet the state’s 2030 GHG reduction goal mandated by SB 32, thereby demonstrating progress towards achieving the 2045 reduction goal established by AB 1279. Therefore, because the project would be consistent with the Sustainable Santee Plan, as discussed in Section 5.1.3, the project would not conflict with state GHG reduction plans developed to achieve the goals, including the CARB Scoping Plan.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Amendment | July 2024
28 5.2.2 Significance of Impacts
Because there are no uniformly applicable development codes that would enforce the applicable Sustainable Santee Plan GHG reduction measures, development of the four HE sites may not be consistent with the plan and the impact would be potentially significant.

5.2.3 Mitigation Framework
Mitigation measures GHG-1 through GHG-5, described above, would ensure the project would be consistent with the Sustainable Santee Plan.

5.2.4 Significance After Mitigation
The project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs, and the impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
7578 El Cajon Boulevard
La Mesa, CA 91942
Victor Ortiz Senior Air Quality Specialist
Yara Fisher, AICP Project Manager
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Amendment | July 2024
29 7.0 REFERENCES
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2022. User’s Guide for CalEEMod Version 2022.1. Available at: http://www.caleemod.com/.

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2024a. Clean Car Standards – Pavley, Assembly Bill 1493.

Accessed December. Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ccms/ccms.htm. Accessed January 29.
2024b. Current California GHG Emission Inventory Data. 2000-2020 GHG Inventory (2023 Edition). Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-inventory-data. Accessed January 29. 2022. 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality. November 16. Available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/ab-32-climate-change-scoping-plan/2022-scopingplan-documents. 2007. 1990-2004 Greenhouse Gas Inventory – By Economic Sector. November 19. Available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/ghg_inventory_sector_all_90-04_AR4.pdf.

California Building Standards Commission (CBSC). 2022. CALGreen (CCR Title 24, Part 11). Available at:
https://www.dgs.ca.gov/en/BSC/CALGreen.

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

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

California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA). 2009. Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action:

Amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines Addressing Analysis and Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Pursuant to SB 97. December 2009.

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

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

Intersecting Metrics. 2024. Santee Town Center Specific Plan Proposed Project Trip Generation. March Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2014. Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg3/.
2013. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Available at:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/WG1AR5_SummaryVolume_FINAL.pdf.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the
Santee Town Center Specific Plan Amendment | July 2024
30 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (cont.) 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policy Makers (Working Group Fourth Assessment Report). February. Available at: http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Goddard Institute for Space Studies (NASA). 2024.

Global Temperature. Available at: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/globaltemperature/#:~:text=Earth’s%20global%20average%20surface%20temperature,average%20fro m%201951%20to%201980. Accessed March 3.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2024. Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide.

Available at: https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends. Accessed March 3.

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

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

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

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

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 430-D-24-001. February 14. Available at:
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/draft-inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks1990-2022.

Appendix A
CalEEMod Output
Santee TCSP HE Sites Detailed Report, 2/29/2024
Santee TCSP HE Sites Detailed Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Site Preparation (2025) - Unmitigated

3.3. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated

3.5. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated

3.7. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
1 / 51
Santee TCSP HE Sites Detailed Report, 2/29/2024

3.9. Paving (2026) - Unmitigated

3.11. Architectural Coating (2026) - Unmitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
2 / 51
Santee TCSP HE Sites Detailed Report, 2/29/2024

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
3 / 51
Santee TCSP HE Sites Detailed Report, 2/29/2024

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
4 / 51
Santee TCSP HE Sites Detailed Report, 2/29/2024

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
5 / 51
Santee TCSP HE Sites Detailed Report, 2/29/2024

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data
6 / 51
Santee TCSP HE Sites Detailed Report, 2/29/2024

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Santee TCSP HE Sites
Construction Start Date 1/1/2025
Operational Year 2026
Lead Agency City of Santee
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.60
Precipitation (days) 7.60
Location 32.84193077423488, -116.9764861508951
County San Diego
City Santee
Air District San Diego County APCD
Air Basin San Diego
TAZ 6529
EDFZ 12
Electric Utility San Diego Gas & Electric
Gas Utility San Diego Gas & Electric
App Version 2022.1.1.21

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
7 / 51
-------------------
Santee TCSP HE Sites Detailed Report, 2/29/2024
Apartments Mid Rise 988 Dwelling Unit 13.8 948,480 94,848 — 2,757 Sites 16A and 20B Apartments Low
Rise
303 Dwelling Unit 5.04 321,180 32,118 — 845 Site 20A
Condo/Townhouse 189 Dwelling Unit 5.57 200,340 20,034 — 527 Site 16B Other Asphalt
Surfaces
571 1000sqft 13.1 0.00 0.00 — — Paved area for all 4
site

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 7.43 64.0 21.7 75.0 0.06 0.59 11.8 12.4 0.55 2.81 3.32 — 18,902 18,902 0.84 1.01 51.1 19,275 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 7.06 63.9 31.7 68.5 0.06 1.37 11.8 12.4 1.26 3.98 5.23 — 18,244 18,244 0.87 1.04 1.33 18,575 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 5.16 28.0 20.4 47.8 0.05 0.63 7.66 8.29 0.58 2.01 2.60 — 12,398 12,398 0.58 0.66 14.2 12,624 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.94 5.11 3.72 8.72 0.01 0.11 1.40 1.51 0.11 0.37 0.47 — 2,053 2,053 0.10 0.11 2.35 2,090 8 / 51
Santee TCSP HE Sites Detailed Report, 2/29/2024

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 6.69 5.87 21.6 68.1 0.06 0.59 10.0 10.6 0.55 2.39 2.94 — 17,067 17,067 0.77 0.94 48.2 17,413 2026 7.43 64.0 21.7 75.0 0.06 0.55 11.8 12.4 0.51 2.81 3.32 — 18,902 18,902 0.84 1.01 51.1 19,275 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 6.62 5.79 31.7 62.0 0.06 1.37 10.0 10.6 1.26 3.98 5.23 — 16,506 16,506 0.81 0.96 1.25 16,813 2026 7.06 63.9 22.4 68.5 0.06 0.55 11.8 12.4 0.51 2.81 3.32 — 18,244 18,244 0.87 1.04 1.33 18,575 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 5.16 4.49 20.4 47.8 0.05 0.63 7.66 8.29 0.58 2.01 2.60 — 12,398 12,398 0.58 0.66 14.2 12,624 2026 2.62 28.0 8.59 25.9 0.02 0.22 4.28 4.50 0.21 1.02 1.22 — 6,732 6,732 0.32 0.37 7.98 6,858 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.94 0.82 3.72 8.72 0.01 0.11 1.40 1.51 0.11 0.37 0.47 — 2,053 2,053 0.10 0.11 2.35 2,090 2026 0.48 5.11 1.57 4.72 < 0.005 0.04 0.78 0.82 0.04 0.19 0.22 — 1,115 1,115 0.05 0.06 1.32 1,135

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e -------------------
-------------------
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Unmit. 44.1 74.8 25.9 305 0.54 0.75 44.5 45.2 0.71 11.3 12.0 689 58,024 58,713 72.7 2.38 185 61,424 9 / 51
-------------------
Santee TCSP HE Sites Detailed Report, 2/29/2024
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 35.5 66.7 27.2 211 0.51 0.71 44.5 45.2 0.68 11.3 12.0 689 55,488 56,177 72.9 2.50 15.1 58,760 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 39.0 69.9 27.3 252 0.52 0.73 44.3 45.0 0.70 11.2 11.9 689 55,947 56,636 72.8 2.48 85.9 59,282 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 7.12 12.8 4.99 46.0 0.09 0.13 8.08 8.21 0.13 2.05 2.18 114 9,263 9,377 12.1 0.41 14.2 9,815

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 10 / 51
Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 35.8 33.1 21.3 220 0.51 0.40 44.5 44.9 0.37 11.3 11.7 — 52,308 52,308 2.59 2.06 175 53,163 Area 7.86 41.5 0.81 83.9 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.03 — 0.03 0.00 224 224 0.01 < 0.005 — 225 Energy 0.44 0.22 3.78 1.61 0.02 0.31 — 0.31 0.31 — 0.31 — 5,445 5,445 0.89 0.07 — 5,487 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 99.6 45.5 145 10.3 0.25 — 475 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 590 0.00 590 58.9 0.00 — 2,063 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 10.5 10.5
Total 44.1 74.8 25.9 305 0.54 0.75 44.5 45.2 0.71 11.3 12.0 689 58,024 58,713 72.7 2.38 185 61,424 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 35.1 32.4 23.5 210 0.49 0.40 44.5 44.9 0.37 11.3 11.7 — 49,997 49,997 2.78 2.19 4.53 50,724 Area 0.00 34.1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Santee TCSP HE Sites Detailed Report, 2/29/2024
Energy 0.44 0.22 3.78 1.61 0.02 0.31 — 0.31 0.31 — 0.31 — 5,445 5,445 0.89 0.07 — 5,487 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 99.6 45.5 145 10.3 0.25 — 475 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 590 0.00 590 58.9 0.00 — 2,063 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 10.5 10.5
Total 35.5 66.7 27.2 211 0.51 0.71 44.5 45.2 0.68 11.3 12.0 689 55,488 56,177 72.9 2.50 15.1 58,760 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 34.7 32.0 23.1 209 0.49 0.40 44.3 44.7 0.37 11.2 11.6 — 50,345 50,345 2.72 2.17 75.4 51,135 Area 3.87 37.7 0.40 41.4 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 0.00 111 111 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 111 Energy 0.44 0.22 3.78 1.61 0.02 0.31 — 0.31 0.31 — 0.31 — 5,445 5,445 0.89 0.07 — 5,487 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 99.6 45.5 145 10.3 0.25 — 475 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 590 0.00 590 58.9 0.00 — 2,063 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 10.5 10.5
Total 39.0 69.9 27.3 252 0.52 0.73 44.3 45.0 0.70 11.2 11.9 689 55,947 56,636 72.8 2.48 85.9 59,282 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 6.33 5.83 4.22 38.1 0.09 0.07 8.08 8.15 0.07 2.05 2.12 — 8,335 8,335 0.45 0.36 12.5 8,466 Area 0.71 6.89 0.07 7.55 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 18.3 18.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 18.4 Energy 0.08 0.04 0.69 0.29 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 902 902 0.15 0.01 — 909 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 16.5 7.53 24.0 1.70 0.04 — 78.6 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 97.6 0.00 97.6 9.76 0.00 — 342 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.74 1.74
Total 7.12 12.8 4.99 46.0 0.09 0.13 8.08 8.21 0.13 2.05 2.18 114 9,263 9,377 12.1 0.41 14.2 9,815

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Site Preparation (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 11 / 51
-------------------
Santee TCSP HE Sites Detailed Report, 2/29/2024
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

3.94 3.31 31.6 30.2 0.05 1.37 — 1.37 1.26 — 1.26 — 5,295 5,295 0.21 0.04 — 5,314 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 7.67 7.67 — 3.94 3.94 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.22 0.18 1.73 1.65 < 0.005 0.07 — 0.07 0.07 — 0.07 — 290 290 0.01 < 0.005 — 291 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.42 0.42 — 0.22 0.22 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.04 0.03 0.32 0.30 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 48.0 48.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 48.2 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.08 0.08 — 0.04 0.04 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12 / 51
-------------------
Santee TCSP HE Sites Detailed Report, 2/29/2024
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.71 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 157 157 0.01 0.01 0.02 159 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 25.0 25.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 26.1 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.67 8.67 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 8.79 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.37 1.37 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.43 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.44 1.44 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.46 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.23 0.23 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.24 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.3. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
13 / 51
Santee TCSP HE Sites Detailed Report, 2/29/2024
Off-Road
Equipment

3.80 3.20 29.7 28.3 0.06 1.23 — 1.23 1.14 — 1.14 — 6,599 6,599 0.27 0.05 — 6,622 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 3.59 3.59 — 1.42 1.42 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.47 0.39 3.66 3.49 0.01 0.15 — 0.15 0.14 — 0.14 — 814 814 0.03 0.01 — 816 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.44 0.44 — 0.18 0.18 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.09 0.07 0.67 0.64 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 135 135 0.01 < 0.005 — 135 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.08 0.08 — 0.03 0.03 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 179 179 0.01 0.01 0.02 182 14 / 51
-------------------
Santee TCSP HE Sites Detailed Report, 2/29/2024
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 25.0 25.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 26.1 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 22.3 22.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 22.6 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.09 3.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.22 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.69 3.69 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 3.74 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.51 0.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.53 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.5. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.68 1.41 13.1 16.3 0.03 0.54 — 0.54 0.50 — 0.50 — 2,997 2,997 0.12 0.02 — 3,007 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.68 1.41 13.1 16.3 0.03 0.54 — 0.54 0.50 — 0.50 — 2,997 2,997 0.12 0.02 — 3,007 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15 / 51
Santee TCSP HE Sites Detailed Report, 2/29/2024
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.14 0.96 8.86 11.1 0.02 0.37 — 0.37 0.34 — 0.34 — 2,034 2,034 0.08 0.02 — 2,041 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.21 0.17 1.62 2.02 < 0.005 0.07 — 0.07 0.06 — 0.06 — 337 337 0.01 < 0.005 — 338 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 4.67 4.30 3.26 49.3 0.00 0.00 9.01 9.01 0.00 2.11 2.11 — 10,110 10,110 0.47 0.35 37.9 10,265 Vendor 0.34 0.16 5.27 2.45 0.03 0.05 1.01 1.07 0.05 0.28 0.33 — 3,960 3,960 0.17 0.56 10.3 4,141 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 4.60 4.23 3.63 43.2 0.00 0.00 9.01 9.01 0.00 2.11 2.11 — 9,547 9,547 0.52 0.38 0.99 9,673 Vendor 0.33 0.15 5.47 2.52 0.03 0.05 1.01 1.07 0.05 0.28 0.33 — 3,962 3,962 0.17 0.56 0.27 4,133 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 3.09 2.84 2.45 29.8 0.00 0.00 6.09 6.09 0.00 1.43 1.43 — 6,537 6,537 0.33 0.25 11.1 6,633 Vendor 0.23 0.11 3.68 1.68 0.02 0.04 0.68 0.72 0.04 0.19 0.23 — 2,688 2,688 0.12 0.38 3.02 2,807 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.56 0.52 0.45 5.43 0.00 0.00 1.11 1.11 0.00 0.26 0.26 — 1,082 1,082 0.06 0.04 1.84 1,098 16 / 51
-------------------
Santee TCSP HE Sites Detailed Report, 2/29/2024
Vendor 0.04 0.02 0.67 0.31 < 0.005 0.01 0.12 0.13 0.01 0.03 0.04 — 445 445 0.02 0.06 0.50 465 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.7. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.60 1.34 12.3 16.2 0.03 0.47 — 0.47 0.44 — 0.44 — 2,997 2,997 0.12 0.02 — 3,007 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.60 1.34 12.3 16.2 0.03 0.47 — 0.47 0.44 — 0.44 — 2,997 2,997 0.12 0.02 — 3,007 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.56 0.47 4.28 5.63 0.01 0.16 — 0.16 0.15 — 0.15 — 1,041 1,041 0.04 0.01 — 1,045 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.10 0.08 0.78 1.03 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 172 172 0.01 < 0.005 — 173 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 17 / 51
-------------------
Santee TCSP HE Sites Detailed Report, 2/29/2024
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 4.48 3.85 2.95 46.1 0.00 0.00 9.01 9.01 0.00 2.11 2.11 — 9,905 9,905 0.47 0.35 34.7 10,056 Vendor 0.31 0.13 5.01 2.36 0.03 0.05 1.01 1.07 0.05 0.28 0.33 — 3,886 3,886 0.15 0.56 9.48 4,067 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 4.18 3.80 3.33 40.6 0.00 0.00 9.01 9.01 0.00 2.11 2.11 — 9,354 9,354 0.49 0.38 0.90 9,479 Vendor 0.30 0.13 5.21 2.40 0.03 0.05 1.01 1.07 0.05 0.28 0.33 — 3,889 3,889 0.15 0.56 0.25 4,060 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 1.44 1.31 1.15 14.3 0.00 0.00 3.12 3.12 0.00 0.73 0.73 — 3,280 3,280 0.17 0.13 5.20 3,328 Vendor 0.11 0.05 1.80 0.82 0.01 0.02 0.35 0.37 0.02 0.10 0.12 — 1,351 1,351 0.05 0.19 1.43 1,412 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.26 0.24 0.21 2.60 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.57 0.00 0.13 0.13 — 543 543 0.03 0.02 0.86 551 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.33 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 224 224 0.01 0.03 0.24 234 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.9. Paving (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
18 / 51
Santee TCSP HE Sites Detailed Report, 2/29/2024
19 / 51
Off-Road
Equipment

0.91 0.76 7.12 9.94 0.01 0.32 — 0.32 0.29 — 0.29 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,516 Paving — 0.98 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.09 0.07 0.68 0.95 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 145 145 0.01 < 0.005 — 145 Paving — 0.09 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.01 0.12 0.17 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 24.0 24.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 24.1 Paving — 0.02 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 139 139 0.01 < 0.005 0.49 142 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 49.1 49.1 < 0.005 0.01 0.12 51.4 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
-------------------
Santee TCSP HE Sites Detailed Report, 2/29/2024
Worker 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 12.7 12.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 12.9 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.71 4.71 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.92 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.11 2.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.14 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.78 0.78 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.82 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.11. Architectural Coating (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 20 / 51
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipmen

0.15 t

0.12 0.86 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 57.8 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.15 0.12 0.86 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 57.8 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Santee TCSP HE Sites Detailed Report, 2/29/2024
21 / 51
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.06 0.05 0.38 0.50 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 59.3 59.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 59.5 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 25.6 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.01 0.07 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 9.81 9.81 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.84 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 4.68 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.90 0.77 0.59 9.21 0.00 0.00 1.80 1.80 0.00 0.42 0.42 — 1,981 1,981 0.09 0.07 6.93 2,011 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.84 0.76 0.67 8.13 0.00 0.00 1.80 1.80 0.00 0.42 0.42 — 1,871 1,871 0.10 0.08 0.18 1,896 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.37 0.33 0.29 3.64 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.80 0.00 0.19 0.19 — 838 838 0.04 0.03 1.33 850 Santee TCSP HE Sites Detailed Report, 2/29/2024
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.66 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 139 139 0.01 0.01 0.22 141 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 22 / 51
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise

21.8 20.2 13.0 134 0.31 0.24 27.1 27.3 0.23 6.87 7.10 — 31,857 31,857 1.58 1.26 106 32,377 Apartme
nts
Low Rise

7.63 7.07 4.56 46.9 0.11 0.09 9.49 9.58 0.08 2.41 2.49 — 11,165 11,165 0.55 0.44 37.3 11,348 Condo/T
ownhous
e

6.35 5.88 3.79 39.0 0.09 0.07 7.89 7.97 0.07 2.00 2.07 — 9,286 9,286 0.46 0.37 31.0 9,438 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 35.8 33.1 21.3 220 0.51 0.40 44.5 44.9 0.37 11.3 11.7 — 52,308 52,308 2.59 2.06 175 53,163 Santee TCSP HE Sites Detailed Report, 2/29/2024
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise

21.4 19.7 14.3 128 0.30 0.24 27.1 27.3 0.23 6.87 7.10 — 30,449 30,449 1.69 1.34 2.76 30,892 Apartme
nts
Low Rise

7.49 6.91 5.01 44.8 0.10 0.09 9.49 9.58 0.08 2.41 2.49 — 10,672 10,672 0.59 0.47 0.97 10,827 Condo/T
ownhous
e

6.23 5.75 4.16 37.3 0.09 0.07 7.89 7.97 0.07 2.00 2.07 — 8,876 8,876 0.49 0.39 0.80 9,005 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 35.1 32.4 23.5 210 0.49 0.40 44.5 44.9 0.37 11.3 11.7 — 49,997 49,997 2.78 2.19 4.53 50,724 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise

3.85 3.55 2.57 23.2 0.05 0.04 4.92 4.96 0.04 1.25 1.29 — 5,076 5,076 0.27 0.22 7.60 5,156 Apartme
nts
Low Rise

1.35 1.25 0.90 8.14 0.02 0.02 1.72 1.74 0.01 0.44 0.45 — 1,779 1,779 0.10 0.08 2.66 1,807 Condo/T
ownhous
e

1.12 1.04 0.75 6.77 0.02 0.01 1.43 1.45 0.01 0.36 0.38 — 1,480 1,480 0.08 0.06 2.22 1,503 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 6.33 5.83 4.22 38.1 0.09 0.07 8.08 8.15 0.07 2.05 2.12 — 8,335 8,335 0.45 0.36 12.5 8,466

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
23 / 51
Santee TCSP HE Sites Detailed Report, 2/29/2024
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 24 / 51
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 414 414 0.30 0.04 — 432
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 131 131 0.10 0.01 — 137
Condo/T
ownhous
e
— — — — — — — — — — — — 96.4 96.4 0.07 0.01 — 101
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 641 641 0.47 0.06 — 670
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 414 414 0.30 0.04 — 432
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 131 131 0.10 0.01 — 137
Condo/T
ownhous
e
— — — — — — — — — — — — 96.4 96.4 0.07 0.01 — 101
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 641 641 0.47 0.06 — 670
Santee TCSP HE Sites Detailed Report, 2/29/2024
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 68.5 68.5 0.05 0.01 — 71.6
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 21.7 21.7 0.02 < 0.005 — 22.6
Condo/T
ownhous
e
— — — — — — — — — — — — 16.0 16.0 0.01 < 0.005 — 16.7
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 106 106 0.08 0.01 — 111

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 25 / 51
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise

0.21 0.10 1.77 0.75 0.01 0.14 — 0.14 0.14 — 0.14 — 2,241 2,241 0.20 < 0.005 — 2,248 Apartme
nts
Low Rise

0.12 0.06 1.04 0.44 0.01 0.08 — 0.08 0.08 — 0.08 — 1,317 1,317 0.12 < 0.005 — 1,321 Condo/T
ownhous
e

0.11 0.06 0.98 0.42 0.01 0.08 — 0.08 0.08 — 0.08 — 1,246 1,246 0.11 < 0.005 — 1,249 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Santee TCSP HE Sites Detailed Report, 2/29/2024
Total 0.44 0.22 3.78 1.61 0.02 0.31 — 0.31 0.31 — 0.31 — 4,804 4,804 0.43 0.01 — 4,818 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise

0.21 0.10 1.77 0.75 0.01 0.14 — 0.14 0.14 — 0.14 — 2,241 2,241 0.20 < 0.005 — 2,248 Apartme
nts
Low Rise

0.12 0.06 1.04 0.44 0.01 0.08 — 0.08 0.08 — 0.08 — 1,317 1,317 0.12 < 0.005 — 1,321 Condo/T
ownhous
e

0.11 0.06 0.98 0.42 0.01 0.08 — 0.08 0.08 — 0.08 — 1,246 1,246 0.11 < 0.005 — 1,249 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.44 0.22 3.78 1.61 0.02 0.31 — 0.31 0.31 — 0.31 — 4,804 4,804 0.43 0.01 — 4,818 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise

0.04 0.02 0.32 0.14 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 371 371 0.03 < 0.005 — 372 Apartme
nts
Low Rise

0.02 0.01 0.19 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 218 218 0.02 < 0.005 — 219 Condo/T
ownhous
e

0.02 0.01 0.18 0.08 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 206 206 0.02 < 0.005 — 207 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.08 0.04 0.69 0.29 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 795 795 0.07 < 0.005 — 798

4.3. Area Emissions by Source
26 / 51
-------------------
Santee TCSP HE Sites Detailed Report, 2/29/2024

4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum — 31.5 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
er
Products
Architect — 2.56 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ural
Coatings
Landsca 7.86 7.44 0.81 83.9 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.03 — 0.03 — 224 224 0.01 < 0.005 — 225 pe
Equipme
nt
Total 7.86 41.5 0.81 83.9 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.03 — 0.03 0.00 224 224 0.01 < 0.005 — 225 Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum — 31.5 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
er
Products
Architect — 2.56 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ural
Coatings
Total 0.00 34.1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 27 / 51
Santee TCSP HE Sites Detailed Report, 2/29/2024
Consum
er
Products
— 5.75 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.47 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

0.71 0.67 0.07 7.55 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 18.3 18.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 18.4 Total 0.71 6.89 0.07 7.55 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 18.3 18.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 18.4

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 28 / 51
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 66.5 30.3 96.8 6.84 0.16 — 317
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 20.4 9.34 29.7 2.10 0.05 — 97.3
Condo/T
ownhous
e
— — — — — — — — — — — 12.7 5.83 18.5 1.31 0.03 — 60.7
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 99.6 45.5 145 10.3 0.25 — 475 Santee TCSP HE Sites Detailed Report, 2/29/2024
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 66.5 30.3 96.8 6.84 0.16 — 317
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 20.4 9.34 29.7 2.10 0.05 — 97.3
Condo/T
ownhous
e
— — — — — — — — — — — 12.7 5.83 18.5 1.31 0.03 — 60.7
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 99.6 45.5 145 10.3 0.25 — 475 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 11.0 5.02 16.0 1.13 0.03 — 52.5
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 3.38 1.55 4.92 0.35 0.01 — 16.1
Condo/T
ownhous
e
— — — — — — — — — — — 2.11 0.96 3.07 0.22 0.01 — 10.0
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 16.5 7.53 24.0 1.70 0.04 — 78.6

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated
29 / 51
Santee TCSP HE Sites Detailed Report, 2/29/2024
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 30 / 51
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 394 0.00 394 39.4 0.00 — 1,378
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 121 0.00 121 12.1 0.00 — 422
Condo/T
ownhous
e
— — — — — — — — — — — 75.3 0.00 75.3 7.52 0.00 — 263
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 590 0.00 590 58.9 0.00 — 2,063 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 394 0.00 394 39.4 0.00 — 1,378
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 121 0.00 121 12.1 0.00 — 422
Condo/T
ownhous
e
— — — — — — — — — — — 75.3 0.00 75.3 7.52 0.00 — 263
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 590 0.00 590 58.9 0.00 — 2,063 Santee TCSP HE Sites Detailed Report, 2/29/2024
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 65.2 0.00 65.2 6.52 0.00 — 228
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 20.0 0.00 20.0 2.00 0.00 — 69.9
Condo/T
ownhous
e
— — — — — — — — — — — 12.5 0.00 12.5 1.25 0.00 — 43.6
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 97.6 0.00 97.6 9.76 0.00 — 342

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 31 / 51
Land TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Use
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Apartme — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 6.79 6.79
nts
Mid Rise
Apartme — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.30 2.30
nts
Low Rise
Condo/T — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.43 1.43
ownhous
e
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 10.5 10.5
Santee TCSP HE Sites Detailed Report, 2/29/2024
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 6.79 6.79
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.30 2.30
Condo/T
ownhous
e
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.43 1.43
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 10.5 10.5
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.12 1.12
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.38 0.38
Condo/T
ownhous
e
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.24 0.24
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.74 1.74

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e 32 / 51
Santee TCSP HE Sites Detailed Report, 2/29/2024
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
33 / 51
Santee TCSP HE Sites Detailed Report, 2/29/2024

4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 34 / 51
Vegetatio TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e n
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
-------------------
Santee TCSP HE Sites Detailed Report, 2/29/2024
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Use
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ered
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
d
35 / 51
Santee TCSP HE Sites Detailed Report, 2/29/2024
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description 36 / 51
Santee TCSP HE Sites Detailed Report, 2/29/2024
Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/1/2025 1/23/2025 6.00 20.0 — Grading Grading 1/24/2025 3/17/2025 6.00 45.0 —
Building Construction Building Construction 3/18/2025 5/28/2026 6.00 375 — Paving Paving 5/29/2026 7/8/2026 6.00 35.0 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/1/2026 7/8/2026 6.00 162 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Scrapers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 423 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 2.00 4.38 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 4.00 7.50 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 2.00 5.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 4.00 6.56 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 2.00 5.00 46.0 0.45 Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
37 / 51
Santee TCSP HE Sites Detailed Report, 2/29/2024
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 17.5 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor 1.00 7.63 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck 0.00 — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 20.0 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor 1.00 7.63 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 1,066 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 158 7.63 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 15.0 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor 2.00 7.63 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
38 / 51
Santee TCSP HE Sites Detailed Report, 2/29/2024
Architectural Coating Worker 213 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 7.63 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 2,976,750 992,250 0.00 0.00 34,258

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (cy) Material Exported (cy) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres) Site Preparation — — 30.0 0.00 —
Grading — — 135 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.1

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day) PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water Exposed Area 2 61% 61%
39 / 51
Santee TCSP HE Sites Detailed Report, 2/29/2024

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Apartments Mid Rise — 0%
Apartments Low Rise — 0%
Condo/Townhouse — 0%
Other Asphalt Surfaces 13.1 100%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2025 0.00 540 0.03 < 0.005
2026 0.00 45.1 0.03 < 0.005

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Apartments Mid Rise 5,187 5,187 5,187 1,893,255 38,359 38,359 38,359 14,000,900 Apartments Low
Rise
1,818 1,818 1,818 663,570 13,444 13,444 13,444 4,907,198 Condo/Townhouse 1,512 1,512 1,512 551,880 11,181 11,181 11,181 4,081,234 Other Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths
40 / 51
Santee TCSP HE Sites Detailed Report, 2/29/2024

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Apartments Mid Rise —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 0
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 988
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Pellet Wood Stoves 0
Apartments Low Rise —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 0
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 303
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Pellet Wood Stoves 0
Condo/Townhouse —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 0
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
41 / 51
Santee TCSP HE Sites Detailed Report, 2/29/2024
No Fireplaces 189
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Pellet Wood Stoves 0

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
2976750 992,250 0.00 0.00 34,258

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Apartments Mid Rise 3,350,179 45.1 0.0330 0.0040 6,993,495 Apartments Low Rise 1,058,452 45.1 0.0330 0.0040 4,110,320 Condo/Townhouse 780,448 45.1 0.0330 0.0040 3,886,734
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 45.1 0.0330 0.0040 0.00

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
42 / 51
Santee TCSP HE Sites Detailed Report, 2/29/2024

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Apartments Mid Rise 34,711,478 1,732,407
Apartments Low Rise 10,645,322 586,638
Condo/Townhouse 6,640,151 365,923
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Apartments Mid Rise 731 —
Apartments Low Rise 224 —
Condo/Townhouse 140 —
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 —

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Apartments Mid Rise Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Apartments Mid Rise Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
Apartments Low Rise Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
43 / 51
Santee TCSP HE Sites Detailed Report, 2/29/2024
Apartments Low Rise Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
Condo/Townhouse Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Condo/Townhouse Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor

5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)

5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change
44 / 51
Santee TCSP HE Sites Detailed Report, 2/29/2024

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.

Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 12.4 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 3.90 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 7.98 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi. 45 / 51
Santee TCSP HE Sites Detailed Report, 2/29/2024
Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events.

Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
46 / 51
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Santee TCSP HE Sites Detailed Report, 2/29/2024
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 64.7
AQ-PM 45.1
AQ-DPM 25.7
Drinking Water 10.9
Lead Risk Housing 17.5
Pesticides 0.00
Toxic Releases 25.6
Traffic 48.6
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 37.8
Groundwater 40.8
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 84.7
Impaired Water Bodies 77.3
47 / 51
Santee TCSP HE Sites Detailed Report, 2/29/2024
Solid Waste 9.67
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 35.6
Cardio-vascular 30.2
Low Birth Weights 18.6
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 43.4
Housing 19.8
Linguistic 10.4
Poverty 16.6
Unemployment 28.2

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 66.11061209
Employed 1.296034903
Median HI 58.75785962
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 47.36301809
High school enrollment 17.87501604
Preschool enrollment 14.26921596
Transportation —
Auto Access 76.73553189
Active commuting 33.56858719
Social —
48 / 51
Santee TCSP HE Sites Detailed Report, 2/29/2024
2-parent households 27.65302194
Voting 75.72180162
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 42.80764789
Park access 24.26536635
Retail density 59.4636212
Supermarket access 60.82381625
Tree canopy 8.135506224
Housing —
Homeownership 43.19260875
Housing habitability 69.11330681
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 75.55498524 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 83.49801104
Uncrowded housing 47.26036186
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 74.51559091
Arthritis 0.0
Asthma ER Admissions 59.9
High Blood Pressure 0.0
Cancer (excluding skin) 0.0
Asthma 0.0
Coronary Heart Disease 0.0
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 0.0
Diagnosed Diabetes 0.0
Life Expectancy at Birth 1.7
Cognitively Disabled 36.6
Physically Disabled 78.7
49 / 51
Santee TCSP HE Sites Detailed Report, 2/29/2024
Heart Attack ER Admissions 49.6
Mental Health Not Good 0.0
Chronic Kidney Disease 0.0
Obesity 0.0
Pedestrian Injuries 19.6
Physical Health Not Good 0.0
Stroke 0.0
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 0.0
Current Smoker 0.0
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 0.0
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 48.8
Elderly 83.1
English Speaking 76.6
Foreign-born 6.0
Outdoor Workers 58.3
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 55.9
Traffic Density 49.3
Traffic Access 51.5
Other Indices —
Hardship 31.7
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 76.0
50 / 51
Santee TCSP HE Sites Detailed Report, 2/29/2024

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 18.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 34.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Land Use Based on acreage and total dwelling units provided in Town Center Specific Plan Buildout Summary (9-7-2023 Draft)
Construction: Construction Phases Sites are vacant, no demo required. Building Construction phase working days reduced by 25% to achieve target buildout in 2026. Architectural coating phase adjusted to overlap second half of Building Construction and Paving.

Construction: Off-Road Equipment Building construction equipment/hours increased by 25% due to shortened schedule.

Operations: Vehicle Data Trip generation provided by Intersecting Metrics.

Operations: Hearths No hearths installed.
51 / 51
Santee TCSP Program Construction Detailed Report, 2/29/2024 Santee TCSP Program Construction Detailed Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2027) - Unmitigated

3.3. Site Preparation (2027) - Unmitigated

3.5. Grading (2027) - Unmitigated

3.7. Building Construction (2027) - Unmitigated

3.9. Paving (2027) - Unmitigated

3.11. Architectural Coating (2027) - Unmitigated
1 / 32
Santee TCSP Program Construction Detailed Report, 2/29/2024

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
2 / 32
Santee TCSP Program Construction Detailed Report, 2/29/2024

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
3 / 32
Santee TCSP Program Construction Detailed Report, 2/29/2024

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data
4 / 32
Santee TCSP Program Construction Detailed Report, 2/29/2024

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Santee TCSP Program Construction
Construction Start Date 1/1/2027
Lead Agency City of Santee
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.60
Precipitation (days) 7.60
Location 32.84514001277044, -116.97668753144887
County San Diego
City Santee
Air District San Diego County APCD
Air Basin San Diego
TAZ 6529
EDFZ 12
Electric Utility San Diego Gas & Electric
Gas Utility San Diego Gas & Electric
App Version 2022.1.1.21

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Strip Mall 148 1000sqft 33.2 148,060 0.00 — — —
5 / 32
-------------------
Santee TCSP Program Construction Detailed Report, 2/29/2024 Regional Shopping
Center

6.16 1000sqft 2.20 6,160 0.00 — — —
Government (Civic
Center)

46.8 1000sqft 11.4 46,810 0.00 — — —
Office Park 60.0 1000sqft 6.19 60,050 0.00 — — —
City Park 14.8 Acre 14.8 0.00 0.00 0.00 — —
Condo/Townhouse 198 Dwelling Unit 10.6 209,880 0.00 — 552 — Apartments Low
Rise
217 Dwelling Unit 5.90 230,020 0.00 — 605 —

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Unmit. 14.2 12.0 94.8 121 0.20 3.70 16.3 20.0 3.40 6.57 9.98 — 26,438 26,438 1.09 0.65 20.6 26,679 Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Unmit. 14.2 12.0 95.2 119 0.20 3.70 16.3 20.0 3.40 6.57 9.98 — 26,172 26,172 1.12 0.66 0.53 26,397 Average — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily
(Max)
Unmit. 10.1 8.56 68.1 84.9 0.14 2.64 11.6 14.3 2.43 4.70 7.13 — 18,743 18,743 0.79 0.46 6.38 18,907 6 / 32
-------------------
-------------------
Santee TCSP Program Construction Detailed Report, 2/29/2024 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.85 1.56 12.4 15.5 0.03 0.48 2.13 2.61 0.44 0.86 1.30 — 3,103 3,103 0.13 0.08 1.06 3,130

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 14.2 12.0 94.8 121 0.20 3.70 16.3 20.0 3.40 6.57 9.98 — 26,438 26,438 1.09 0.65 20.6 26,679 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 14.2 12.0 95.2 119 0.20 3.70 16.3 20.0 3.40 6.57 9.98 — 26,172 26,172 1.12 0.66 0.53 26,397 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 10.1 8.56 68.1 84.9 0.14 2.64 11.6 14.3 2.43 4.70 7.13 — 18,743 18,743 0.79 0.46 6.38 18,907 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 1.85 1.56 12.4 15.5 0.03 0.48 2.13 2.61 0.44 0.86 1.30 — 3,103 3,103 0.13 0.08 1.06 3,130

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 7 / 32
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Santee TCSP Program Construction Detailed Report, 2/29/2024 Off-Road
Equipment

2.64 2.21 19.9 18.6 0.03 0.80 — 0.80 0.73 — 0.73 — 3,427 3,427 0.14 0.03 — 3,439 Demolitio
n
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

2.64 2.21 19.9 18.6 0.03 0.80 — 0.80 0.73 — 0.73 — 3,427 3,427 0.14 0.03 — 3,439 Demolitio
n
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.89 1.58 14.2 13.3 0.02 0.57 — 0.57 0.52 — 0.52 — 2,450 2,450 0.10 0.02 — 2,459 Demolitio
n
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.34 0.29 2.60 2.43 < 0.005 0.10 — 0.10 0.10 — 0.10 — 406 406 0.02 < 0.005 — 407 Demolitio
n
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
8 / 32
-------------------
Santee TCSP Program Construction Detailed Report, 2/29/2024 Worker 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 137 137 0.01 < 0.005 0.44 139 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 48.1 48.1 < 0.005 0.01 0.11 50.2 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 129 129 0.01 0.01 0.01 131 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 48.1 48.1 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 50.2 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 93.4 93.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.14 94.7 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 34.4 34.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 35.9 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.5 15.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 15.7 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.69 5.69 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.94 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.3. Site Preparation (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

3.63 3.05 28.0 28.3 0.05 1.17 — 1.17 1.08 — 1.08 — 5,298 5,298 0.21 0.04 — 5,316 9 / 32
Santee TCSP Program Construction Detailed Report, 2/29/2024 10 / 32
Dust
From
Material
Movement
—————— 7.67 7.67— 3.94 3.94———————
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

3.63 3.05 28.0 28.3 0.05 1.17 — 1.17 1.08 — 1.08 — 5,298 5,298 0.21 0.04 — 5,316 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 7.67 7.67 — 3.94 3.94 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

2.60 2.18 20.0 20.2 0.03 0.84 — 0.84 0.77 — 0.77 — 3,788 3,788 0.15 0.03 — 3,801 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 5.48 5.48 — 2.82 2.82 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.47 0.40 3.65 3.69 0.01 0.15 — 0.15 0.14 — 0.14 — 627 627 0.03 0.01 — 629 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 1.00 1.00 — 0.51 0.51 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -------------------
Santee TCSP Program Construction Detailed Report, 2/29/2024 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.06 0.04 0.72 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 160 160 0.01 0.01 0.52 162 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.63 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 151 151 0.01 0.01 0.01 153 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 109 109 0.01 < 0.005 0.16 110 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 18.0 18.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 18.3 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.5. Grading (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
11 / 32
Santee TCSP Program Construction Detailed Report, 2/29/2024 12 / 32
Off-Road
Equipment

3.51 2.95 25.6 27.3 0.06 1.04 — 1.04 0.96 — 0.96 — 6,598 6,598 0.27 0.05 — 6,621 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 3.59 3.59 — 1.42 1.42 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

2.51 2.11 18.3 19.5 0.04 0.75 — 0.75 0.69 — 0.69 — 4,718 4,718 0.19 0.04 — 4,734 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 2.57 2.57 — 1.02 1.02 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.46 0.38 3.34 3.56 0.01 0.14 — 0.14 0.13 — 0.13 — 781 781 0.03 0.01 — 784 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.47 0.47 — 0.19 0.19 — — — — — — —
-------------------
Santee TCSP Program Construction Detailed Report, 2/29/2024 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.05 0.82 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 183 183 0.01 0.01 0.59 186 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.09 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 72.1 72.1 < 0.005 0.01 0.16 75.4 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.72 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 173 173 0.01 0.01 0.02 175 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.09 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 72.2 72.2 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 75.3 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 125 125 0.01 < 0.005 0.18 126 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 51.6 51.6 < 0.005 0.01 0.05 53.8 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 20.6 20.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 20.9 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.54 8.54 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 8.91 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.7. Building Construction (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
13 / 32
Santee TCSP Program Construction Detailed Report, 2/29/2024 Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.23 1.03 9.39 12.9 0.02 0.34 — 0.34 0.31 — 0.31 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.23 1.03 9.39 12.9 0.02 0.34 — 0.34 0.31 — 0.31 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.88 0.74 6.72 9.25 0.02 0.24 — 0.24 0.22 — 0.22 — 1,714 1,714 0.07 0.01 — 1,720 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.16 0.13 1.23 1.69 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 284 284 0.01 < 0.005 — 285 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 1.47 1.35 0.94 15.7 0.00 0.00 3.23 3.23 0.00 0.76 0.76 — 3,494 3,494 0.16 0.13 11.3 3,547 Vendor 0.16 0.07 2.64 1.25 0.01 0.03 0.56 0.59 0.03 0.15 0.18 — 2,095 2,095 0.08 0.29 4.68 2,190 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14 / 32
-------------------
Santee TCSP Program Construction Detailed Report, 2/29/2024 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 1.45 1.31 1.18 13.8 0.00 0.00 3.23 3.23 0.00 0.76 0.76 — 3,300 3,300 0.18 0.13 0.29 3,344 Vendor 0.15 0.07 2.74 1.27 0.01 0.03 0.56 0.59 0.03 0.15 0.18 — 2,097 2,097 0.08 0.29 0.12 2,187 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 1.03 0.93 0.84 9.96 0.00 0.00 2.30 2.30 0.00 0.54 0.54 — 2,381 2,381 0.12 0.09 3.50 2,414 Vendor 0.11 0.05 1.94 0.90 0.01 0.02 0.40 0.42 0.02 0.11 0.13 — 1,499 1,499 0.06 0.21 1.45 1,564 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.19 0.17 0.15 1.82 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.42 0.00 0.10 0.10 — 394 394 0.02 0.01 0.58 400 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.35 0.17 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 248 248 0.01 0.03 0.24 259 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.9. Paving (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.88 0.74 6.94 9.95 0.01 0.30 — 0.30 0.27 — 0.27 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,516 Paving — 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15 / 32
Santee TCSP Program Construction Detailed Report, 2/29/2024 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.88 0.74 6.94 9.95 0.01 0.30 — 0.30 0.27 — 0.27 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,516 Paving — 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.63 0.53 4.97 7.12 0.01 0.21 — 0.21 0.20 — 0.20 — 1,081 1,081 0.04 0.01 — 1,084 Paving — 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.11 0.10 0.91 1.30 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 179 179 0.01 < 0.005 — 180 Paving — 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 137 137 0.01 < 0.005 0.44 139 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 48.1 48.1 < 0.005 0.01 0.11 50.2 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 129 129 0.01 0.01 0.01 131 16 / 32
-------------------
Santee TCSP Program Construction Detailed Report, 2/29/2024 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 48.1 48.1 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 50.2 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 93.4 93.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.14 94.7 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 34.4 34.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 35.9 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.5 15.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 15.7 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.69 5.69 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.94 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.11. Architectural Coating (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.14 0.11 0.83 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.14 0.11 0.83 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 17 / 32
Santee TCSP Program Construction Detailed Report, 2/29/2024 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.10 0.08 0.59 0.80 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 95.5 95.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 95.8 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.01 0.11 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 15.8 15.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.9 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.29 0.27 0.19 3.13 0.00 0.00 0.65 0.65 0.00 0.15 0.15 — 699 699 0.03 0.03 2.27 709 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.29 0.26 0.24 2.75 0.00 0.00 0.65 0.65 0.00 0.15 0.15 — 660 660 0.04 0.03 0.06 669 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.21 0.19 0.17 1.99 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.46 0.00 0.11 0.11 — 476 476 0.02 0.02 0.70 483 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 78.8 78.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.12 79.9 18 / 32
Santee TCSP Program Construction Detailed Report, 2/29/2024 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio
n
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Use
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
19 / 32
-------------------
Santee TCSP Program Construction Detailed Report, 2/29/2024 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
20 / 32
Santee TCSP Program Construction Detailed Report, 2/29/2024 Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Demolition Demolition 1/1/2027 12/31/2027 5.00 261 —
Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/1/2027 12/31/2027 5.00 261 — Grading Grading 1/1/2027 12/31/2027 5.00 261 —
Building Construction Building Construction 1/1/2027 12/31/2027 5.00 261 — Paving Paving 1/1/2027 12/31/2027 5.00 261 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/1/2027 12/31/2027 5.00 261 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment
21 / 32
Santee TCSP Program Construction Detailed Report, 2/29/2024

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Demolition Excavators Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Scrapers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 423 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48

5.3. Construction Vehicles
22 / 32
Santee TCSP Program Construction Detailed Report, 2/29/2024

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition — — — —
Demolition Worker 15.0 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor 2.00 7.63 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 17.5 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor 0.00 7.63 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 20.0 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor 3.00 7.63 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 382 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 87.2 7.63 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 15.0 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor 2.00 7.63 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
23 / 32
Santee TCSP Program Construction Detailed Report, 2/29/2024 Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 76.5 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 7.63 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (cy) Material Exported (cy) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres) Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 — —
Site Preparation — — 392 0.00 —
Grading — — 783 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day) PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water Exposed Area 2 61% 61%
Water Demolished Area 2 36% 36%
24 / 32
Santee TCSP Program Construction Detailed Report, 2/29/2024

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Strip Mall 0.00 0%
Regional Shopping Center 0.00 0%
Government (Civic Center) 0.00 0%
Office Park 0.00 0%
City Park 0.00 0%
Condo/Townhouse — 0%
Apartments Low Rise — 0%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2027 0.00 589 0.03 < 0.005

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
25 / 32
Santee TCSP Program Construction Detailed Report, 2/29/2024

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events.

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
26 / 32
Santee TCSP Program Construction Detailed Report, 2/29/2024 Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
27 / 32
Santee TCSP Program Construction Detailed Report, 2/29/2024

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 64.7
AQ-PM 45.1
AQ-DPM 25.7
Drinking Water 10.9
Lead Risk Housing 17.5
Pesticides 0.00
Toxic Releases 25.6
Traffic 48.6
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 37.8
Groundwater 40.8
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 84.7
Impaired Water Bodies 77.3
Solid Waste 9.67
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 35.6
Cardio-vascular 30.2
Low Birth Weights 18.6
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 43.4
Housing 19.8
28 / 32
Santee TCSP Program Construction Detailed Report, 2/29/2024 Linguistic 10.4
Poverty 16.6
Unemployment 28.2

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 66.11061209
Employed 1.296034903
Median HI 58.75785962
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 47.36301809
High school enrollment 17.87501604
Preschool enrollment 14.26921596
Transportation —
Auto Access 76.73553189
Active commuting 33.56858719
Social —
2-parent households 27.65302194
Voting 75.72180162
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 42.80764789
Park access 24.26536635
Retail density 59.4636212
Supermarket access 60.82381625
Tree canopy 8.135506224
29 / 32
Santee TCSP Program Construction Detailed Report, 2/29/2024 Housing —
Homeownership 43.19260875
Housing habitability 69.11330681
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 75.55498524 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 83.49801104
Uncrowded housing 47.26036186
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 74.51559091
Arthritis 0.0
Asthma ER Admissions 59.9
High Blood Pressure 0.0
Cancer (excluding skin) 0.0
Asthma 0.0
Coronary Heart Disease 0.0
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 0.0
Diagnosed Diabetes 0.0
Life Expectancy at Birth 1.7
Cognitively Disabled 36.6
Physically Disabled 78.7
Heart Attack ER Admissions 49.6
Mental Health Not Good 0.0
Chronic Kidney Disease 0.0
Obesity 0.0
Pedestrian Injuries 19.6
Physical Health Not Good 0.0
Stroke 0.0
Health Risk Behaviors —
30 / 32
Santee TCSP Program Construction Detailed Report, 2/29/2024 Binge Drinking 0.0
Current Smoker 0.0
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 0.0
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 48.8
Elderly 83.1
English Speaking 76.6
Foreign-born 6.0
Outdoor Workers 58.3
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 55.9
Traffic Density 49.3
Traffic Access 51.5
Other Indices —
Hardship 31.7
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 76.0

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 18.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 34.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No 31 / 32
Santee TCSP Program Construction Detailed Report, 2/29/2024 a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Land Use Assuming 25% of SP construction occurs in one year. Residences in Sites 16A, 16B, 20A, and 20B not included.

Construction: Construction Phases Default construction activities assumed to occur over one year. 32 / 32
Santee TCSP Program 2035 Operations Detailed Report, 3/1/2024 Santee TCSP Program 2035 Operations Detailed Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.1.2. Mitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
1 / 67
Santee TCSP Program 2035 Operations Detailed Report, 3/1/2024

4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated

4.3.2. Mitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.4.2. Mitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.5.2. Mitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.6.2. Mitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated
2 / 67
Santee TCSP Program 2035 Operations Detailed Report, 3/1/2024

4.7.2. Mitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.8.2. Mitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.9.2. Mitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated

4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated

5. Activity Data

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
3 / 67
Santee TCSP Program 2035 Operations Detailed Report, 3/1/2024

5.9.2. Mitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.1.2. Mitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.11.2. Mitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.12.2. Mitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.13.2. Mitigated
4 / 67
Santee TCSP Program 2035 Operations Detailed Report, 3/1/2024

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.14.2. Mitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.15.2. Mitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
5 / 67
Santee TCSP Program 2035 Operations Detailed Report, 3/1/2024

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2.2. Mitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data
6 / 67
Santee TCSP Program 2035 Operations Detailed Report, 3/1/2024

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Santee TCSP Program 2035 Operations
Operational Year 2035
Lead Agency City of Santee
Land Use Scale Plan/community
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.60
Precipitation (days) 7.60
Location 32.845263451000434, -116.97647155078744
County San Diego
City Santee
Air District San Diego County APCD
Air Basin San Diego
TAZ 6529
EDFZ 12
Electric Utility San Diego Gas & Electric
Gas Utility San Diego Gas & Electric
App Version 2022.1.1.21

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Strip Mall 592 1000sqft 133 592,258 59,225 — — —
7 / 67
-------------------
Santee TCSP Program 2035 Operations Detailed Report, 3/1/2024 Regional Shopping
Center

24.6 1000sqft 8.81 24,625 2,462 — — —
Government (Civic
Center)
187 1000sqft 45.7 187,223 18,722 — — —
Office Park 240 1000sqft 24.8 240,206 24,020 — — —
City Park 59.4 Acre 59.4 0.00 59.4 59.4 — —
Condo/Townhouse 982 Dwelling Unit 50.9 1,040,920 104,092 — 2,740 — Apartments Low
Rise
1,170 Dwelling Unit 31.3 1,240,200 124,020 — 3,264 —
Apartments Mid Rise 988 Dwelling Unit 21.1 948,480 94,848 — 2,757 —

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector Sector # Measure Title
Area Sources LL-1 Replace Gas Powered Landscape Equipment with Zero-Emission Landscape Equipment

2. Emissions Summary

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 207 282 113 1,430 3.36 3.15 330 333 3.00 83.7 86.7 2,751 363,224 365,975 294 13.5 399 377,736 Mit. 183 259 111 1,206 3.35 2.99 330 333 2.88 83.7 86.6 2,751 362,615 365,366 294 13.5 399 377,125 %
Reduced
12% 8% 2% 16% < 0.5% 5% — < 0.5% 4% — < 0.5% — < 0.5% < 0.5% < 0.5% < 0.5% — < 0.5% 8 / 67
-------------------
Santee TCSP Program 2035 Operations Detailed Report, 3/1/2024 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 181 258 121 1,135 3.21 2.99 330 333 2.88 83.7 86.6 2,751 347,713 350,464 294 14.2 37.6 362,092 Mit. 181 258 121 1,135 3.21 2.99 330 333 2.88 83.7 86.6 2,751 347,713 350,464 294 14.2 37.6 362,092 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 189 265 119 1,232 3.19 3.05 324 327 2.91 82.2 85.1 2,751 346,040 348,791 294 13.9 186 360,470 Mit. 177 254 118 1,121 3.19 2.97 324 327 2.86 82.2 85.1 2,751 345,739 348,490 294 13.9 186 360,169 %
Reduced
6% 4% 1% 9% < 0.5% 3% — < 0.5% 2% — < 0.5% — < 0.5% < 0.5% < 0.5% < 0.5% — < 0.5% Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 34.5 48.3 21.7 225 0.58 0.56 59.2 59.7 0.53 15.0 15.5 455 57,291 57,746 48.7 2.30 30.8 59,680 Mit. 32.3 46.3 21.5 205 0.58 0.54 59.2 59.7 0.52 15.0 15.5 455 57,241 57,697 48.7 2.30 30.8 59,630 %
Reduced
6% 4% 1% 9% < 0.5% 3% — < 0.5% 2% — < 0.5% — < 0.5% < 0.5% < 0.5% < 0.5% — < 0.5%

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 9 / 67
Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Mobile 181 167 95.9 1,197 3.26 1.78 330 332 1.66 83.7 85.4 — 331,590 331,590 13.4 12.1 371 335,895 Area 24.4 114 2.03 224 0.01 0.16 — 0.16 0.12 — 0.12 0.00 663 663 0.03 0.01 — 665 Energy 1.76 0.88 15.3 8.32 0.10 1.21 — 1.21 1.21 — 1.21 — 30,207 30,207 3.86 0.30 — 30,392 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 452 765 1,217 46.5 1.12 — 2,713 Santee TCSP Program 2035 Operations Detailed Report, 3/1/2024 10 / 67
Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 2,299 0.00 2,299 230 0.00 — 8,043 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 28.0 28.0
Total 207 282 113 1,430 3.36 3.15 330 333 3.00 83.7 86.7 2,751 363,224 365,975 294 13.5 399 377,736 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 180 165 106 1,127 3.11 1.78 330 332 1.66 83.7 85.4 — 316,742 316,742 14.2 12.8 9.62 320,916 Area 0.00 91.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 1.76 0.88 15.3 8.32 0.10 1.21 — 1.21 1.21 — 1.21 — 30,207 30,207 3.86 0.30 — 30,392 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 452 765 1,217 46.5 1.12 — 2,713 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 2,299 0.00 2,299 230 0.00 — 8,043 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 28.0 28.0
Total 181 258 121 1,135 3.21 2.99 330 333 2.88 83.7 86.6 2,751 347,713 350,464 294 14.2 37.6 362,092 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 175 161 103 1,113 3.09 1.76 324 326 1.64 82.2 83.9 — 314,741 314,741 13.8 12.5 158 318,966 Area 12.0 103 1.00 111 0.01 0.08 — 0.08 0.06 — 0.06 0.00 327 327 0.01 < 0.005 — 328 Energy 1.76 0.88 15.3 8.32 0.10 1.21 — 1.21 1.21 — 1.21 — 30,207 30,207 3.86 0.30 — 30,392 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 452 765 1,217 46.5 1.12 — 2,713 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 2,299 0.00 2,299 230 0.00 — 8,043 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 28.0 28.0
Total 189 265 119 1,232 3.19 3.05 324 327 2.91 82.2 85.1 2,751 346,040 348,791 294 13.9 186 360,470 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 32.0 29.4 18.7 203 0.56 0.32 59.2 59.5 0.30 15.0 15.3 — 52,109 52,109 2.28 2.07 26.2 52,808 Area 2.19 18.8 0.18 20.2 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.00 54.1 54.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 54.3 Energy 0.32 0.16 2.79 1.52 0.02 0.22 — 0.22 0.22 — 0.22 — 5,001 5,001 0.64 0.05 — 5,032 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 74.8 127 201 7.70 0.19 — 449 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 381 0.00 381 38.0 0.00 — 1,332 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 4.63 4.63
-------------------
Santee TCSP Program 2035 Operations Detailed Report, 3/1/2024 Total 34.5 48.3 21.7 225 0.58 0.56 59.2 59.7 0.53 15.0 15.5 455 57,291 57,746 48.7 2.30 30.8 59,680

2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 11 / 67
Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 181 167 95.9 1,197 3.26 1.78 330 332 1.66 83.7 85.4 — 331,590 331,590 13.4 12.1 371 335,895 Area 0.00 91.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 1.76 0.88 15.3 8.32 0.10 1.21 — 1.21 1.21 — 1.21 — 30,260 30,260 3.87 0.30 — 30,447 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 452 765 1,217 46.5 1.12 — 2,713 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 2,299 0.00 2,299 230 0.00 — 8,043 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 28.0 28.0
Total 183 259 111 1,206 3.35 2.99 330 333 2.88 83.7 86.6 2,751 362,615 365,366 294 13.5 399 377,125 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 180 165 106 1,127 3.11 1.78 330 332 1.66 83.7 85.4 — 316,742 316,742 14.2 12.8 9.62 320,916 Area 0.00 91.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 1.76 0.88 15.3 8.32 0.10 1.21 — 1.21 1.21 — 1.21 — 30,207 30,207 3.86 0.30 — 30,392 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 452 765 1,217 46.5 1.12 — 2,713 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 2,299 0.00 2,299 230 0.00 — 8,043 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 28.0 28.0
Total 181 258 121 1,135 3.21 2.99 330 333 2.88 83.7 86.6 2,751 347,713 350,464 294 14.2 37.6 362,092 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 175 161 103 1,113 3.09 1.76 324 326 1.64 82.2 83.9 — 314,741 314,741 13.8 12.5 158 318,966 Area 0.00 91.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Santee TCSP Program 2035 Operations Detailed Report, 3/1/2024 Energy 1.76 0.88 15.3 8.32 0.10 1.21 — 1.21 1.21 — 1.21 — 30,233 30,233 3.86 0.30 — 30,419 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 452 765 1,217 46.5 1.12 — 2,713 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 2,299 0.00 2,299 230 0.00 — 8,043 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 28.0 28.0
Total 177 254 118 1,121 3.19 2.97 324 327 2.86 82.2 85.1 2,751 345,739 348,490 294 13.9 186 360,169 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 32.0 29.4 18.7 203 0.56 0.32 59.2 59.5 0.30 15.0 15.3 — 52,109 52,109 2.28 2.07 26.2 52,808 Area 0.00 16.7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 0.32 0.16 2.79 1.52 0.02 0.22 — 0.22 0.22 — 0.22 — 5,005 5,005 0.64 0.05 — 5,036 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 74.8 127 201 7.70 0.19 — 449 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 381 0.00 381 38.0 0.00 — 1,332 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 4.63 4.63
Total 32.3 46.3 21.5 205 0.58 0.54 59.2 59.7 0.52 15.0 15.5 455 57,241 57,697 48.7 2.30 30.8 59,630

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 12 / 67
Land TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Use
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Strip Mall 90.9 83.6 49.4 621 1.71 0.93 173 174 0.87 44.0 44.9 — 173,908 173,908 6.88 6.24 195 176,133 Regional 7.77 7.35 3.25 37.0 0.09 0.05 8.73 8.78 0.05 2.21 2.26 — 8,965 8,965 0.48 0.40 9.80 9,104 Shopping
Center
Santee TCSP Program 2035 Operations Detailed Report, 3/1/2024 Governm
(Civic
Center)

6.90 6.35 3.74 47.1 0.13 0.07 13.2 13.2 0.07 3.34 3.40 — 13,194 13,194 0.52 0.47 14.8 13,363 Office
Park

14.7 13.6 8.01 101 0.28 0.15 28.1 28.3 0.14 7.14 7.28 — 28,213 28,213 1.12 1.01 31.6 28,574 City Park 1.05 0.97 0.57 7.17 0.02 0.01 2.00 2.01 0.01 0.51 0.52 — 2,008 2,008 0.08 0.07 2.25 2,034 Condo/T
ownhous
e

23.4 21.6 12.1 150 0.40 0.22 41.0 41.2 0.21 10.4 10.6 — 41,233 41,233 1.70 1.52 46.0 41,775 Apartme
nts
Low Rise

20.9 19.3 10.8 134 0.36 0.20 36.6 36.8 0.19 9.29 9.48 — 36,845 36,845 1.52 1.36 41.1 37,329 Apartme
nts
Mid Rise

15.4 14.3 8.00 99.2 0.27 0.15 27.1 27.2 0.14 6.86 7.00 — 27,224 27,224 1.12 1.00 30.4 27,582 Total 181 167 95.9 1,197 3.26 1.78 330 332 1.66 83.7 85.4 — 331,590 331,590 13.4 12.1 371 335,895 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall 90.2 82.8 54.3 582 1.63 0.93 173 174 0.87 44.0 44.9 — 166,103 166,103 7.25 6.60 5.05 168,257 Regional
Shopping
Center

7.72 7.28 3.59 36.7 0.08 0.05 8.73 8.78 0.05 2.21 2.26 — 8,576 8,576 0.52 0.42 0.25 8,714 Governm
ent
(Civic
Center)

6.84 6.29 4.12 44.2 0.12 0.07 13.2 13.2 0.07 3.34 3.40 — 12,602 12,602 0.55 0.50 0.38 12,765 Office
Park

14.6 13.4 8.81 94.5 0.26 0.15 28.1 28.3 0.14 7.14 7.28 — 26,947 26,947 1.18 1.07 0.82 27,296 City Park 1.04 0.96 0.63 6.72 0.02 0.01 2.00 2.01 0.01 0.51 0.52 — 1,918 1,918 0.08 0.08 0.06 1,943 Condo/T
ownhous
e

23.2 21.4 13.3 142 0.39 0.22 41.0 41.2 0.21 10.4 10.6 — 39,390 39,390 1.80 1.61 1.19 39,917 13 / 67
Santee TCSP Program 2035 Operations Detailed Report, 3/1/2024 Apartme
nts
Low Rise

20.7 19.1 11.9 127 0.35 0.20 36.6 36.8 0.19 9.29 9.48 — 35,198 35,198 1.61 1.44 1.07 35,669 Apartme
nts
Mid Rise

15.3 14.1 8.81 93.7 0.26 0.15 27.1 27.2 0.14 6.86 7.00 — 26,008 26,008 1.19 1.06 0.79 26,355 Total 180 165 106 1,127 3.11 1.78 330 332 1.66 83.7 85.4 — 316,742 316,742 14.2 12.8 9.62 320,916 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall 16.2 14.9 9.76 106 0.30 0.17 31.5 31.7 0.16 7.99 8.15 — 27,696 27,696 1.18 1.08 13.9 28,061 Regional
Shopping
Center

1.37 1.29 0.62 6.30 0.01 0.01 1.47 1.47 0.01 0.37 0.38 — 1,327 1,327 0.08 0.07 0.65 1,350 Governm
ent
(Civic
Center)

0.88 0.81 0.53 5.77 0.02 0.01 1.71 1.72 0.01 0.43 0.44 — 1,501 1,501 0.06 0.06 0.75 1,521 Office
Park

2.63 2.42 1.58 17.3 0.05 0.03 5.11 5.14 0.03 1.30 1.32 — 4,493 4,493 0.19 0.18 2.26 4,552 City Park 0.19 0.17 0.11 1.23 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.36 0.37 < 0.005 0.09 0.09 — 320 320 0.01 0.01 0.16 324 Condo/T
ownhous
e

4.17 3.85 2.39 25.9 0.07 0.04 7.45 7.49 0.04 1.89 1.93 — 6,568 6,568 0.29 0.26 3.29 6,657 Apartme
nts
Low Rise

3.73 3.44 2.14 23.1 0.06 0.04 6.65 6.69 0.03 1.69 1.72 — 5,869 5,869 0.26 0.24 2.94 5,948 Apartme
nts
Mid Rise

2.75 2.54 1.58 17.1 0.05 0.03 4.92 4.94 0.03 1.25 1.27 — 4,336 4,336 0.19 0.17 2.17 4,395 Total 32.0 29.4 18.7 203 0.56 0.32 59.2 59.5 0.30 15.0 15.3 — 52,109 52,109 2.28 2.07 26.2 52,808

4.1.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 14 / 67
Land TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Use
Santee TCSP Program 2035 Operations Detailed Report, 3/1/2024 Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall 90.9 83.6 49.4 621 1.71 0.93 173 174 0.87 44.0 44.9 — 173,908 173,908 6.88 6.24 195 176,133 Regional
Shopping
Center

7.77 7.35 3.25 37.0 0.09 0.05 8.73 8.78 0.05 2.21 2.26 — 8,965 8,965 0.48 0.40 9.80 9,104 Governm
ent
(Civic
Center)

6.90 6.35 3.74 47.1 0.13 0.07 13.2 13.2 0.07 3.34 3.40 — 13,194 13,194 0.52 0.47 14.8 13,363 Office
Park

23.4 21.6 12.1 150 0.40 0.22 41.0 41.2 0.21 10.4 10.6 — 41,233 41,233 1.70 1.52 46.0 41,775 Apartme
nts
Low Rise

20.9 19.3 10.8 134 0.36 0.20 36.6 36.8 0.19 9.29 9.48 — 36,845 36,845 1.52 1.36 41.1 37,329 Apartme
nts
Mid Rise

7.72 7.28 3.59 36.7 0.08 0.05 8.73 8.78 0.05 2.21 2.26 — 8,576 8,576 0.52 0.42 0.25 8,714 Governm
ent
(Civic
Center)

6.84 6.29 4.12 44.2 0.12 0.07 13.2 13.2 0.07 3.34 3.40 — 12,602 12,602 0.55 0.50 0.38 12,765 15 / 67
16 / 67
Santee TCSP Program 2035 Operations Detailed Report, 3/1/2024 Office
Park

23.2 21.4 13.3 142 0.39 0.22 41.0 41.2 0.21 10.4 10.6 — 39,390 39,390 1.80 1.61 1.19 39,917 Apartme
nts
Low Rise

20.7 19.1 11.9 127 0.35 0.20 36.6 36.8 0.19 9.29 9.48 — 35,198 35,198 1.61 1.44 1.07 35,669 Apartme
nts
Mid Rise

1.37 1.29 0.62 6.30 0.01 0.01 1.47 1.47 0.01 0.37 0.38 — 1,327 1,327 0.08 0.07 0.65 1,350 Governm
ent
(Civic
Center)

0.88 0.81 0.53 5.77 0.02 0.01 1.71 1.72 0.01 0.43 0.44 — 1,501 1,501 0.06 0.06 0.75 1,521 Office
Park

4.17 3.85 2.39 25.9 0.07 0.04 7.45 7.49 0.04 1.89 1.93 — 6,568 6,568 0.29 0.26 3.29 6,657 Apartme
nts
Low Rise

3.73 3.44 2.14 23.1 0.06 0.04 6.65 6.69 0.03 1.69 1.72 — 5,869 5,869 0.26 0.24 2.94 5,948 Apartme
nts
Mid Rise

2.75 2.54 1.58 17.1 0.05 0.03 4.92 4.94 0.03 1.25 1.27 — 4,336 4,336 0.19 0.17 2.17 4,395 Total 32.0 29.4 18.7 203 0.56 0.32 59.2 59.5 0.30 15.0 15.3 — 52,109 52,109 2.28 2.07 26.2 52,808 Santee TCSP Program 2035 Operations Detailed Report, 3/1/2024

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 17 / 67
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — — 2,426 2,426 0.47 0.06 — 2,455 Regional
Shopping
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — — 101 101 0.02 < 0.005 — 102
Governm
ent
(Civic
Center)
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,444 1,444 0.28 0.03 — 1,461
Office
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,853 1,853 0.36 0.04 — 1,875
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Condo/T
ownhous
e
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,885 1,885 0.37 0.04 — 1,907
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,899 1,899 0.37 0.04 — 1,922
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,557 1,557 0.30 0.04 — 1,576
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 11,165 11,165 2.17 0.26 — 11,298 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — — 2,426 2,426 0.47 0.06 — 2,455 Santee TCSP Program 2035 Operations Detailed Report, 3/1/2024 Regional
Shopping
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — — 101 101 0.02 < 0.005 — 102
Governm
ent
(Civic
Center)
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,444 1,444 0.28 0.03 — 1,461
Office
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,853 1,853 0.36 0.04 — 1,875
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Condo/T
ownhous
e
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,885 1,885 0.37 0.04 — 1,907
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,899 1,899 0.37 0.04 — 1,922
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,557 1,557 0.30 0.04 — 1,576
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 11,165 11,165 2.17 0.26 — 11,298 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — — 402 402 0.08 0.01 — 406 Regional
Shopping
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — — 16.7 16.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16.9 Governm
ent
(Civic
Center)
— — — — — — — — — — — — 239 239 0.05 0.01 — 242
Office
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — 307 307 0.06 0.01 — 310
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Condo/T
ownhous
e
— — — — — — — — — — — — 312 312 0.06 0.01 — 316
18 / 67
Santee TCSP Program 2035 Operations Detailed Report, 3/1/2024 Apartme
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 314 314 0.06 0.01 — 318
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 258 258 0.05 0.01 — 261
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,848 1,848 0.36 0.04 — 1,870

4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 19 / 67
Land TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Use
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — — 2,434 2,434 0.47 0.06 — 2,463 Regional — — — — — — — — — — — — 101 101 0.02 < 0.005 — 102 Shopping
Center
Governm — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,446 1,446 0.28 0.03 — 1,464 ent
(Civic
Center)
Office — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,856 1,856 0.36 0.04 — 1,878 Park
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Condo/T — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,897 1,897 0.37 0.04 — 1,920 ownhous
e
Apartme — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,914 1,914 0.37 0.05 — 1,937 nts
Low Rise
Apartme — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,570 1,570 0.31 0.04 — 1,588 nts
Mid Rise
Santee TCSP Program 2035 Operations Detailed Report, 3/1/2024 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 11,218 11,218 2.18 0.26 — 11,352 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — — 2,426 2,426 0.47 0.06 — 2,455 Regional
Shopping
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — — 101 101 0.02 < 0.005 — 102
Governm
ent
(Civic
Center)
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,444 1,444 0.28 0.03 — 1,461
Office
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,853 1,853 0.36 0.04 — 1,875
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Condo/T
ownhous
e
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,885 1,885 0.37 0.04 — 1,907
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,899 1,899 0.37 0.04 — 1,922
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,557 1,557 0.30 0.04 — 1,576
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 11,165 11,165 2.17 0.26 — 11,298 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — — 402 402 0.08 0.01 — 407 Regional
Shopping
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — — 16.7 16.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16.9 Governm
ent
(Civic
Center)
— — — — — — — — — — — — 239 239 0.05 0.01 — 242
20 / 67
Santee TCSP Program 2035 Operations Detailed Report, 3/1/2024 Office
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — 307 307 0.06 0.01 — 311
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Condo/T
ownhous
e
— — — — — — — — — — — — 313 313 0.06 0.01 — 317
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 316 316 0.06 0.01 — 319
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 259 259 0.05 0.01 — 262
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,853 1,853 0.36 0.04 — 1,875

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall 0.08 0.04 0.69 0.58 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 821 821 0.07 < 0.005 — 824 Regional
Shopping
Center
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 34.2 34.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 34.2 Governm
ent
(Civic
Center)

0.18 0.09 1.61 1.35 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.12 — 0.12 — 1,921 1,921 0.17 < 0.005 — 1,927 Office
Park

0.23 0.11 2.07 1.74 0.01 0.16 — 0.16 0.16 — 0.16 — 2,465 2,465 0.22 < 0.005 — 2,472 City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 21 / 67
Santee TCSP Program 2035 Operations Detailed Report, 3/1/2024 Condo/T
ownhous
e

0.60 0.30 5.10 2.17 0.03 0.41 — 0.41 0.41 — 0.41 — 6,472 6,472 0.57 0.01 — 6,490 Apartme
nts
Low Rise

0.47 0.23 4.01 1.71 0.03 0.32 — 0.32 0.32 — 0.32 — 5,087 5,087 0.45 0.01 — 5,101 Apartme
nts
Mid Rise

0.21 0.10 1.77 0.75 0.01 0.14 — 0.14 0.14 — 0.14 — 2,241 2,241 0.20 < 0.005 — 2,248 Total 1.76 0.88 15.3 8.32 0.10 1.21 — 1.21 1.21 — 1.21 — 19,042 19,042 1.69 0.04 — 19,095 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall 0.08 0.04 0.69 0.58 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 821 821 0.07 < 0.005 — 824 Regional
Shopping
Center
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 34.2 34.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 34.2 Governm
ent
(Civic
Center)

0.18 0.09 1.61 1.35 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.12 — 0.12 — 1,921 1,921 0.17 < 0.005 — 1,927 Office
Park

0.23 0.11 2.07 1.74 0.01 0.16 — 0.16 0.16 — 0.16 — 2,465 2,465 0.22 < 0.005 — 2,472 City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Condo/T
ownhous
e

0.60 0.30 5.10 2.17 0.03 0.41 — 0.41 0.41 — 0.41 — 6,472 6,472 0.57 0.01 — 6,490 Apartme
nts
Low Rise

0.47 0.23 4.01 1.71 0.03 0.32 — 0.32 0.32 — 0.32 — 5,087 5,087 0.45 0.01 — 5,101 Apartme
nts
Mid Rise

0.21 0.10 1.77 0.75 0.01 0.14 — 0.14 0.14 — 0.14 — 2,241 2,241 0.20 < 0.005 — 2,248 Total 1.76 0.88 15.3 8.32 0.10 1.21 — 1.21 1.21 — 1.21 — 19,042 19,042 1.69 0.04 — 19,095 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
22 / 67
Santee TCSP Program 2035 Operations Detailed Report, 3/1/2024 Strip Mall 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.11 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 136 136 0.01 < 0.005 — 136 Regional
Shopping
Center
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 5.65 5.65 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.67 Governm
ent
(Civic
Center)

0.03 0.02 0.29 0.25 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 318 318 0.03 < 0.005 — 319 Office
Park

0.04 0.02 0.38 0.32 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 408 408 0.04 < 0.005 — 409 City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Condo/T
ownhous
e

0.11 0.05 0.93 0.40 0.01 0.08 — 0.08 0.08 — 0.08 — 1,072 1,072 0.09 < 0.005 — 1,074 Apartme
nts
Low Rise

0.09 0.04 0.73 0.31 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 842 842 0.07 < 0.005 — 844 Apartme
nts
Mid Rise

0.04 0.02 0.32 0.14 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 371 371 0.03 < 0.005 — 372 Total 0.32 0.16 2.79 1.52 0.02 0.22 — 0.22 0.22 — 0.22 — 3,153 3,153 0.28 0.01 — 3,161

4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 23 / 67
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall 0.08 0.04 0.69 0.58 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 821 821 0.07 < 0.005 — 824 Regional
Shopping
Center
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 34.2 34.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 34.2 Santee TCSP Program 2035 Operations Detailed Report, 3/1/2024 Governm
ent

0.18 0.09 1.61 1.35 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.12 — 0.12 — 1,921 1,921 0.17 < 0.005 — 1,927 Office
Park

0.60 0.30 5.10 2.17 0.03 0.41 — 0.41 0.41 — 0.41 — 6,472 6,472 0.57 0.01 — 6,490 Apartme
nts
Low Rise

0.47 0.23 4.01 1.71 0.03 0.32 — 0.32 0.32 — 0.32 — 5,087 5,087 0.45 0.01 — 5,101 Apartme
nts
Mid Rise

0.18 0.09 1.61 1.35 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.12 — 0.12 — 1,921 1,921 0.17 < 0.005 — 1,927 Office
Park

0.60 0.30 5.10 2.17 0.03 0.41 — 0.41 0.41 — 0.41 — 6,472 6,472 0.57 0.01 — 6,490 Apartme
nts
Low Rise

0.47 0.23 4.01 1.71 0.03 0.32 — 0.32 0.32 — 0.32 — 5,087 5,087 0.45 0.01 — 5,101 24 / 67
-------------------
Santee TCSP Program 2035 Operations Detailed Report, 3/1/2024 Apartme
Mid Rise

0.21 0.10 1.77 0.75 0.01 0.14 — 0.14 0.14 — 0.14 — 2,241 2,241 0.20 < 0.005 — 2,248 Total 1.76 0.88 15.3 8.32 0.10 1.21 — 1.21 1.21 — 1.21 — 19,042 19,042 1.69 0.04 — 19,095 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.11 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 136 136 0.01 < 0.005 — 136 Regional
Shopping
Center
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 5.65 5.65 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.67 Governm
ent
(Civic
Center)

0.03 0.02 0.29 0.25 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 318 318 0.03 < 0.005 — 319 Office
Park

0.11 0.05 0.93 0.40 0.01 0.08 — 0.08 0.08 — 0.08 — 1,072 1,072 0.09 < 0.005 — 1,074 Apartme
nts
Low Rise

0.09 0.04 0.73 0.31 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 842 842 0.07 < 0.005 — 844 Apartme
nts
Mid Rise

0.04 0.02 0.32 0.14 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 371 371 0.03 < 0.005 — 372 Total 0.32 0.16 2.79 1.52 0.02 0.22 — 0.22 0.22 — 0.22 — 3,153 3,153 0.28 0.01 — 3,161

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e 25 / 67
Santee TCSP Program 2035 Operations Detailed Report, 3/1/2024 Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Products
— 91.5 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

24.4 22.9 2.03 224 0.01 0.16 — 0.16 0.12 — 0.12 — 663 663 0.03 0.01 — 665 Total 24.4 114 2.03 224 0.01 0.16 — 0.16 0.12 — 0.12 0.00 663 663 0.03 0.01 — 665 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Products
— 91.5 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 0.00 91.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Products
— 16.7 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

2.19 2.06 0.18 20.2 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 54.1 54.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 54.3 Total 2.19 18.8 0.18 20.2 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.00 54.1 54.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 54.3

4.3.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 26 / 67
-------------------
Santee TCSP Program 2035 Operations Detailed Report, 3/1/2024 Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Products
— 91.5 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 0.00 91.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Products
— 91.5 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 0.00 91.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Products
— 16.7 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 0.00 16.7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e 27 / 67
Santee TCSP Program 2035 Operations Detailed Report, 3/1/2024 Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — 84.1 141 225 8.65 0.21 — 503 Regional
Shopping
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — 3.50 5.86 9.36 0.36 0.01 — 20.9
Governm
ent
(Civic
Center)
— — — — — — — — — — — 71.3 118 190 7.33 0.18 — 425
Office
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 81.8 136 218 8.42 0.20 — 488
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 Condo/T
ownhous
e
— — — — — — — — — — — 66.1 114 180 6.80 0.16 — 399
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 78.8 136 214 8.10 0.20 — 475
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 66.5 114 181 6.84 0.16 — 401
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 452 765 1,217 46.5 1.12 — 2,713 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — 84.1 141 225 8.65 0.21 — 503 Regional
Shopping
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — 3.50 5.86 9.36 0.36 0.01 — 20.9
Governm
ent
(Civic
Center)
— — — — — — — — — — — 71.3 118 190 7.33 0.18 — 425
28 / 67
29 / 67
Santee TCSP Program 2035 Operations Detailed Report, 3/1/2024 Office
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 81.8 136 218 8.42 0.20 — 488
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 Condo/T
ownhous
e
— — — — — — — — — — — 66.1 114 180 6.80 0.16 — 399
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 78.8 136 214 8.10 0.20 — 475
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 66.5 114 181 6.84 0.16 — 401
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 452 765 1,217 46.5 1.12 — 2,713 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — 13.9 23.3 37.3 1.43 0.03 — 83.3 Regional
Shopping
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.58 0.97 1.55 0.06 < 0.005 — 3.46 Governm
ent
(Civic
Center)
— — — — — — — — — — — 11.8 19.6 31.4 1.21 0.03 — 70.4
Office
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 13.5 22.5 36.1 1.39 0.03 — 80.9
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 Condo/T
ownhous
e
— — — — — — — — — — — 10.9 18.8 29.8 1.13 0.03 — 66.0
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 13.0 22.5 35.5 1.34 0.03 — 78.7
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 11.0 18.9 29.9 1.13 0.03 — 66.4
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 74.8 127 201 7.70 0.19 — 449 Santee TCSP Program 2035 Operations Detailed Report, 3/1/2024

4.4.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — 84.1 141 225 8.65 0.21 — 503 Regional
Shopping
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — 3.50 5.86 9.36 0.36 0.01 — 20.9
Governm
ent
(Civic
Center)
— — — — — — — — — — — 71.3 118 190 7.33 0.18 — 425
Office
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 81.8 136 218 8.42 0.20 — 488
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 Condo/T
ownhous
e
— — — — — — — — — — — 66.1 114 180 6.80 0.16 — 399
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 78.8 136 214 8.10 0.20 — 475
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 66.5 114 181 6.84 0.16 — 401
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 452 765 1,217 46.5 1.12 — 2,713 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — 84.1 141 225 8.65 0.21 — 503 30 / 67
Santee TCSP Program 2035 Operations Detailed Report, 3/1/2024 Regional
Shopping
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — 3.50 5.86 9.36 0.36 0.01 — 20.9
Governm
ent
(Civic
Center)
— — — — — — — — — — — 71.3 118 190 7.33 0.18 — 425
Office
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 81.8 136 218 8.42 0.20 — 488
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 Condo/T
ownhous
e
— — — — — — — — — — — 66.1 114 180 6.80 0.16 — 399
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 78.8 136 214 8.10 0.20 — 475
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 66.5 114 181 6.84 0.16 — 401
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 452 765 1,217 46.5 1.12 — 2,713 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — 13.9 23.3 37.3 1.43 0.03 — 83.3 Regional
Shopping
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.58 0.97 1.55 0.06 < 0.005 — 3.46 Governm
ent
(Civic
Center)
— — — — — — — — — — — 11.8 19.6 31.4 1.21 0.03 — 70.4
Office
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 13.5 22.5 36.1 1.39 0.03 — 80.9
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 Condo/T
ownhous
e
— — — — — — — — — — — 10.9 18.8 29.8 1.13 0.03 — 66.0
31 / 67
Santee TCSP Program 2035 Operations Detailed Report, 3/1/2024 Apartme
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 13.0 22.5 35.5 1.34 0.03 — 78.7
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 11.0 18.9 29.9 1.13 0.03 — 66.4
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 74.8 127 201 7.70 0.19 — 449

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 32 / 67
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — 335 0.00 335 33.5 0.00 — 1,173 Regional
Shopping
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — 13.9 0.00 13.9 1.39 0.00 — 48.8
Governm
ent
(Civic
Center)
— — — — — — — — — — — 575 0.00 575 57.5 0.00 — 2,012
Office
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 120 0.00 120 12.0 0.00 — 421
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 2.75 0.00 2.75 0.27 0.00 — 9.63 Condo/T
ownhous
e
— — — — — — — — — — — 391 0.00 391 39.1 0.00 — 1,369
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 466 0.00 466 46.6 0.00 — 1,631
Santee TCSP Program 2035 Operations Detailed Report, 3/1/2024 Apartme
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 394 0.00 394 39.4 0.00 — 1,378
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 2,299 0.00 2,299 230 0.00 — 8,043 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — 335 0.00 335 33.5 0.00 — 1,173 Regional
Shopping
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — 13.9 0.00 13.9 1.39 0.00 — 48.8
Governm
ent
(Civic
Center)
— — — — — — — — — — — 575 0.00 575 57.5 0.00 — 2,012
Office
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 120 0.00 120 12.0 0.00 — 421
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 2.75 0.00 2.75 0.27 0.00 — 9.63 Condo/T
ownhous
e
— — — — — — — — — — — 391 0.00 391 39.1 0.00 — 1,369
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 466 0.00 466 46.6 0.00 — 1,631
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 394 0.00 394 39.4 0.00 — 1,378
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 2,299 0.00 2,299 230 0.00 — 8,043 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — 55.5 0.00 55.5 5.55 0.00 — 194 Regional
Shopping
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — 2.31 0.00 2.31 0.23 0.00 — 8.07
33 / 67
Santee TCSP Program 2035 Operations Detailed Report, 3/1/2024 Governm
ent
(Civic
Center)
— — — — — — — — — — — 95.2 0.00 95.2 9.52 0.00 — 333
Office
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 19.9 0.00 19.9 1.99 0.00 — 69.7
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 0.46 0.00 0.46 0.05 0.00 — 1.59 Condo/T
ownhous
e
— — — — — — — — — — — 64.8 0.00 64.8 6.48 0.00 — 227
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 77.2 0.00 77.2 7.71 0.00 — 270
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 65.2 0.00 65.2 6.52 0.00 — 228
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 381 0.00 381 38.0 0.00 — 1,332

4.5.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — 335 0.00 335 33.5 0.00 — 1,173 Regional
Shopping
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — 13.9 0.00 13.9 1.39 0.00 — 48.8
Governm
ent
(Civic
Center)
— — — — — — — — — — — 575 0.00 575 57.5 0.00 — 2,012
34 / 67
Santee TCSP Program 2035 Operations Detailed Report, 3/1/2024 Office
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 120 0.00 120 12.0 0.00 — 421
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 2.75 0.00 2.75 0.27 0.00 — 9.63 Condo/T
ownhous
e
— — — — — — — — — — — 391 0.00 391 39.1 0.00 — 1,369
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 466 0.00 466 46.6 0.00 — 1,631
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 394 0.00 394 39.4 0.00 — 1,378
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 2,299 0.00 2,299 230 0.00 — 8,043 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — 335 0.00 335 33.5 0.00 — 1,173 Regional
Shopping
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — 13.9 0.00 13.9 1.39 0.00 — 48.8
Governm
ent
(Civic
Center)
— — — — — — — — — — — 575 0.00 575 57.5 0.00 — 2,012
Office
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 120 0.00 120 12.0 0.00 — 421
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 2.75 0.00 2.75 0.27 0.00 — 9.63 Condo/T
ownhous
e
— — — — — — — — — — — 391 0.00 391 39.1 0.00 — 1,369
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 466 0.00 466 46.6 0.00 — 1,631
35 / 67
Santee TCSP Program 2035 Operations Detailed Report, 3/1/2024 Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 394 0.00 394 39.4 0.00 — 1,378
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 2,299 0.00 2,299 230 0.00 — 8,043 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — 55.5 0.00 55.5 5.55 0.00 — 194 Regional
Shopping
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — 2.31 0.00 2.31 0.23 0.00 — 8.07
Governm
ent
(Civic
Center)
— — — — — — — — — — — 95.2 0.00 95.2 9.52 0.00 — 333
Office
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 19.9 0.00 19.9 1.99 0.00 — 69.7
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 0.46 0.00 0.46 0.05 0.00 — 1.59 Condo/T
ownhous
e
— — — — — — — — — — — 64.8 0.00 64.8 6.48 0.00 — 227
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 77.2 0.00 77.2 7.71 0.00 — 270
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 65.2 0.00 65.2 6.52 0.00 — 228
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 381 0.00 381 38.0 0.00 — 1,332

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e 36 / 67
Santee TCSP Program 2035 Operations Detailed Report, 3/1/2024 Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 3.69 3.69
Regional
Shopping
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.12 0.12
Governm
ent
(Civic
Center)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.46 0.46
Office
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.58 0.58
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Condo/T
ownhous
e
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 7.46 7.46
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 8.88 8.88
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 6.79 6.79
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 28.0 28.0
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 3.69 3.69
Regional
Shopping
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.12 0.12
Governm
ent
(Civic
Center)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.46 0.46
37 / 67
38 / 67
Santee TCSP Program 2035 Operations Detailed Report, 3/1/2024 Office
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.58 0.58
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Condo/T
ownhous
e
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 7.46 7.46
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 8.88 8.88
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 6.79 6.79
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 28.0 28.0
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.61 0.61
Regional
Shopping
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.02 0.02
Governm
ent
(Civic
Center)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.08 0.08
Office
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.10 0.10
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Condo/T
ownhous
e
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.23 1.23
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.47 1.47
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.12 1.12
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 4.63 4.63
Santee TCSP Program 2035 Operations Detailed Report, 3/1/2024

4.6.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Use
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 3.69 3.69
Regional — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.12 0.12
Shopping
Center
Governm — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.46 0.46
ent
(Civic
Center)
Office — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.58 0.58
Park
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Condo/T — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 7.46 7.46
ownhous
e
Apartme — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 8.88 8.88
nts
Low Rise
Apartme — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 6.79 6.79
nts
Mid Rise
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 28.0 28.0
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 3.69 3.69
39 / 67
Santee TCSP Program 2035 Operations Detailed Report, 3/1/2024 Regional
Shopping
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.12 0.12
Governm
ent
(Civic
Center)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.46 0.46
Office
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.58 0.58
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Condo/T
ownhous
e
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 7.46 7.46
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 8.88 8.88
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 6.79 6.79
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 28.0 28.0
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.61 0.61
Regional
Shopping
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.02 0.02
Governm
ent
(Civic
Center)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.08 0.08
Office
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.10 0.10
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Condo/T
ownhous
e
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.23 1.23
40 / 67
Santee TCSP Program 2035 Operations Detailed Report, 3/1/2024 Apartme
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.47 1.47
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.12 1.12
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 4.63 4.63

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.7.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e 41 / 67
Santee TCSP Program 2035 Operations Detailed Report, 3/1/2024 Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 42 / 67
Santee TCSP Program 2035 Operations Detailed Report, 3/1/2024 Equipme TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Type
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 44 / 67
Vegetatio TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e n
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
-------------------
Santee TCSP Program 2035 Operations Detailed Report, 3/1/2024 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
45 / 67
Santee TCSP Program 2035 Operations Detailed Report, 3/1/2024 Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio
n
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e 46 / 67
-------------------
Santee TCSP Program 2035 Operations Detailed Report, 3/1/2024 Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e 47 / 67
Santee TCSP Program 2035 Operations Detailed Report, 3/1/2024 Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
48 / 67
Santee TCSP Program 2035 Operations Detailed Report, 3/1/2024 Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Strip Mall 29,613 29,613 29,613 10,808,709 245,789 245,789 245,789 89,712,877 Regional Shopping
Center
2,955 2,955 2,955 1,078,575 11,061 12,364 12,364 4,173,039 Government (Civic
Center)
2,247 0.00 0.00 585,742 18,648 0.00 0.00 4,861,689
Office Park 4,804 4,804 4,804 1,753,504 39,874 39,874 39,874 14,554,178 City Park 342 342 342 124,798 2,838 2,838 2,838 1,035,834 Condo/Townhouse 7,856 7,856 7,856 2,867,440 58,096 58,096 58,096 21,205,141 Apartments Low
Rise
7,020 7,020 7,020 2,562,300 51,914 51,914 51,914 18,948,586 Apartments Mid Rise 5,187 5,187 5,187 1,893,255 38,359 38,359 38,359 14,000,900

5.9.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Strip Mall 29,613 29,613 29,613 10,808,709 245,789 245,789 245,789 89,712,877 Regional Shopping
Center
2,955 2,955 2,955 1,078,575 11,061 12,364 12,364 4,173,039 49 / 67
Santee TCSP Program 2035 Operations Detailed Report, 3/1/2024 Government (Civic
Center)
2,247 0.00 0.00 585,742 18,648 0.00 0.00 4,861,689
Office Park 4,804 4,804 4,804 1,753,504 39,874 39,874 39,874 14,554,178 City Park 342 342 342 124,798 2,838 2,838 2,838 1,035,834 Condo/Townhouse 7,856 7,856 7,856 2,867,440 58,096 58,096 58,096 21,205,141 Apartments Low
Rise
7,020 7,020 7,020 2,562,300 51,914 51,914 51,914 18,948,586 Apartments Mid Rise 5,187 5,187 5,187 1,893,255 38,359 38,359 38,359 14,000,900

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Condo/Townhouse —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 0
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 982
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Pellet Wood Stoves 0
Apartments Low Rise —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 0
50 / 67
Santee TCSP Program 2035 Operations Detailed Report, 3/1/2024 Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 1170
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Pellet Wood Stoves 0
Apartments Mid Rise —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 0
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 988
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Pellet Wood Stoves 0

5.10.1.2. Mitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Condo/Townhouse —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 0
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 982
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
51 / 67
Santee TCSP Program 2035 Operations Detailed Report, 3/1/2024 Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Pellet Wood Stoves 0
Apartments Low Rise —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 0
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 1170
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Pellet Wood Stoves 0
Apartments Mid Rise —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 0
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 988
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Pellet Wood Stoves 0

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180

5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Strip Mall 5,220,493 170 0.0330 0.0040 2,562,947
Regional Shopping Center 217,059 170 0.0330 0.0040 106,563 Government (Civic Center) 3,106,885 170 0.0330 0.0040 5,995,447 Office Park 3,986,114 170 0.0330 0.0040 7,692,123
City Park 0.00 170 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Condo/Townhouse 4,055,026 170 0.0330 0.0040 20,194,567
Apartments Low Rise 4,087,093 170 0.0330 0.0040 15,871,531 Apartments Mid Rise 3,350,179 170 0.0330 0.0040 6,993,495 53 / 67
Santee TCSP Program 2035 Operations Detailed Report, 3/1/2024

5.11.2. Mitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Strip Mall 5,220,493 170 0.0330 0.0040 2,562,947
Regional Shopping Center 217,059 170 0.0330 0.0040 106,563 Government (Civic Center) 3,106,885 170 0.0330 0.0040 5,995,447 Office Park 3,986,114 170 0.0330 0.0040 7,692,123
City Park 0.00 170 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Condo/Townhouse 4,055,026 170 0.0330 0.0040 20,194,567
Apartments Low Rise 4,087,093 170 0.0330 0.0040 15,871,531 Apartments Mid Rise 3,350,179 170 0.0330 0.0040 6,993,495

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Strip Mall 43,870,043 885,068
Regional Shopping Center 1,824,036 36,793
Government (Civic Center) 37,193,742 279,785
Office Park 42,692,713 358,959
City Park 0.00 1,971
Condo/Townhouse 34,500,680 1,901,250
Apartments Low Rise 41,105,698 2,265,236
Apartments Mid Rise 34,711,478 1,732,407

5.12.2. Mitigated
54 / 67
Santee TCSP Program 2035 Operations Detailed Report, 3/1/2024 Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Strip Mall 43,870,043 885,068
Regional Shopping Center 1,824,036 36,793
Government (Civic Center) 37,193,742 279,785
Office Park 42,692,713 358,959
City Park 0.00 1,971
Condo/Townhouse 34,500,680 1,901,250
Apartments Low Rise 41,105,698 2,265,236
Apartments Mid Rise 34,711,478 1,732,407

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Strip Mall 622 —
Regional Shopping Center 25.9 —
Government (Civic Center) 1,067 —
Office Park 223 —
City Park 5.10 —
Condo/Townhouse 726 —
Apartments Low Rise 865 —
Apartments Mid Rise 731 —

5.13.2. Mitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Strip Mall 622 —
Regional Shopping Center 25.9 —
55 / 67
Santee TCSP Program 2035 Operations Detailed Report, 3/1/2024 Government (Civic Center) 1,067 —
Office Park 223 —
City Park 5.10 —
Condo/Townhouse 726 —
Apartments Low Rise 865 —
Apartments Mid Rise 731 —

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Strip Mall Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Strip Mall Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00
Strip Mall Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0
Regional Shopping
Center
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Regional Shopping
Center
Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00
Government (Civic
Center)
Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.02 0.60 0.00 1.00
Government (Civic
Center)
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Office Park Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.02 0.60 0.00 1.00
Office Park Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
56 / 67
Santee TCSP Program 2035 Operations Detailed Report, 3/1/2024 City Park Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
City Park Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00
Condo/Townhouse Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Condo/Townhouse Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
Apartments Low Rise Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Apartments Low Rise Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
Apartments Mid Rise Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Apartments Mid Rise Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00

5.14.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Strip Mall Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Strip Mall Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00
Strip Mall Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0
Regional Shopping
Center
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
57 / 67
Santee TCSP Program 2035 Operations Detailed Report, 3/1/2024 Regional Shopping
Center
Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00
Government (Civic
Center)
Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.02 0.60 0.00 1.00
Government (Civic
Center)
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Office Park Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.02 0.60 0.00 1.00
Office Park Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
City Park Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
City Park Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00
Condo/Townhouse Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Condo/Townhouse Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
Apartments Low Rise Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Apartments Low Rise Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
Apartments Mid Rise Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Apartments Mid Rise Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
58 / 67
Santee TCSP Program 2035 Operations Detailed Report, 3/1/2024

5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.15.2. Mitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor

5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)

5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
59 / 67
Santee TCSP Program 2035 Operations Detailed Report, 3/1/2024 Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

5.18.2.2. Mitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 12.4 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 3.90 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
60 / 67
Santee TCSP Program 2035 Operations Detailed Report, 3/1/2024 Wildfire 7.98 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
61 / 67
Santee TCSP Program 2035 Operations Detailed Report, 3/1/2024 Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 64.7
AQ-PM 45.1
AQ-DPM 25.7
Drinking Water 10.9
Lead Risk Housing 17.5
Pesticides 0.00
Toxic Releases 25.6
Traffic 48.6
62 / 67
Santee TCSP Program 2035 Operations Detailed Report, 3/1/2024 Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 37.8
Groundwater 40.8
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 84.7
Impaired Water Bodies 77.3
Solid Waste 9.67
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 35.6
Cardio-vascular 30.2
Low Birth Weights 18.6
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 43.4
Housing 19.8
Linguistic 10.4
Poverty 16.6
Unemployment 28.2

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 66.11061209
Employed 1.296034903
Median HI 58.75785962
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 47.36301809
High school enrollment 17.87501604
63 / 67
Santee TCSP Program 2035 Operations Detailed Report, 3/1/2024 Preschool enrollment 14.26921596
Transportation —
Auto Access 76.73553189
Active commuting 33.56858719
Social —
2-parent households 27.65302194
Voting 75.72180162
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 42.80764789
Park access 24.26536635
Retail density 59.4636212
Supermarket access 60.82381625
Tree canopy 8.135506224
Housing —
Homeownership 43.19260875
Housing habitability 69.11330681
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 75.55498524 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 83.49801104
Uncrowded housing 47.26036186
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 74.51559091
Arthritis 0.0
Asthma ER Admissions 59.9
High Blood Pressure 0.0
Cancer (excluding skin) 0.0
Asthma 0.0
Coronary Heart Disease 0.0
64 / 67
Santee TCSP Program 2035 Operations Detailed Report, 3/1/2024 Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 0.0
Diagnosed Diabetes 0.0
Life Expectancy at Birth 1.7
Cognitively Disabled 36.6
Physically Disabled 78.7
Heart Attack ER Admissions 49.6
Mental Health Not Good 0.0
Chronic Kidney Disease 0.0
Obesity 0.0
Pedestrian Injuries 19.6
Physical Health Not Good 0.0
Stroke 0.0
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 0.0
Current Smoker 0.0
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 0.0
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 48.8
Elderly 83.1
English Speaking 76.6
Foreign-born 6.0
Outdoor Workers 58.3
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 55.9
Traffic Density 49.3
65 / 67
Santee TCSP Program 2035 Operations Detailed Report, 3/1/2024 Traffic Access 51.5
Other Indices —
Hardship 31.7
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 76.0

7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Land Use Land Uses and acreages based on Town Center Specific Plan Buildout Summary (9-7-2023 Draft).

Operations: Vehicle Data Trip generation rates provided by Intersecting Metrics 66 / 67
Santee TCSP Program 2035 Operations Detailed Report, 3/1/2024 Operations: Hearths No hearths
67 / 67
Appendix B
Sustainable Santee Plan Checklist
Sustainable Santee Action Plan Consistency and Implementation Tracking Checklist The Sustainable Santee Action Plan Project Consistency Checklist (Checklist) is intended to be a tool for development projects to demonstrate consistency with Santee's (City's) Sustainable Santee Action Plan, which is a qualified greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction plan in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15183.5. This Checklist has been developed as part of the Sustainable Santee Action Plan implementation and monitoring process and will support the achievement of individual GHG reduction measures as well as the City's overall GHG reduction goals. In addition, this Checklist will further the City's sustainability goals and policies that encourage sustainable development and aim to conserve and reduce the consumption of resources, such as energy and water, among others.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5 allows lead agencies to analyze the impacts associated with GHG emissions at a programmatic level in plan-level documents such as Climate Action Plans or sustainability plans, so that project-level environmental documents may tier from the programmatic review. Projects that meet the requirements of this Checklist will be deemed to be consistent with the Sustainable Santee Action Plan and will be found to have a less than significant contribution to cumulative GHG (i.e., the project's incremental contribution to cumulative GHG effects is not cumulatively considerable), pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(h)(3), 15130(d), and 15183(b). Projects that do not meet the requirements in this Checklist will be deemed to be inconsistent with the Sustainable Santee Action Plan and must prepare a project-specific analysis of GHG emissions, including quantification of existing and projected GHG emissions and incorporation of the measures in this Checklist to the extent feasible. This GHG Checklist can be updated to reflect adoption of new GHG reduction strategies or to comply with any changes and updates in the Plan or local, State or federal regulations.

Sustainable Santee Action Plan Consistency Checklist December 2019

1. Project Information
Contact Information
Project No./Name: Santee Town Center Specific Plan (TCSP) Sites 16A, 168, 20A, & 208 Address: Civic Center Site I, Civic Center Site 11, 9200 Magnolia Ave.

Applicant Name: City of Santee
Contact Information: Michael Coyne, Principal Planner
10601 Magnolia Ave., Bldg 3, Santee, CA 92071
619-258-4100 x160 / [email protected]
Project Description Characteristics

1. What is the size of the Project (acres)? 37.47 acres total

2. Identify all Applicable Proposed Land uses:
a. Residential-Single Family (Indicate number of single-family units) b. Residential-Multifamily (Indicate number of multifamily units) 1,480 dwelling units c. Commercial (total square footage)
d. Industrial (total square footage)
e. Other (describe)

3. Provide a brief description of the project proposed: See below The City Council adopted the Housing Element (2021-2029 Sixth Cycle) on May 11, 2022. The HE was prepared in compliance with State housing law as determined by the California Department of Housing and Community Development on December 6, 2022. The HE included a Sites Inventory map and table (Figure C-1 and Table C-1 of the HE), that included a series of sites that are currently undeveloped or underutilized. The identified sites provide an opportunity for the City to meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation housing production goals. Four of the strategic undeveloped housing sites are identified as 16A, 16B, 20A, and 20B. Sites 16A and 16B are located just north of Mission Gorge Road and east of Riverview Parkway in the Santee Town Center. The area surrounding the sites is primarily developed with Santee Trolley Square immediately west of the site, the Las Colinas Detention Facility to the east, and open space associated with the San Diego River to the north. A portion of Site 16A is located within the Airport Safety Zone 4 as designated in the Gillespie Field Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). Sites 20A and 20B are located just west of Magnolia Avenue, south of Riverview Parkway, and east of Edgemoor Drive. Sites 20A and 20B surround the Historic Edgemoor Polo or Dairy Barn. To the west of Site 20A is the Las Colinas Detention Facility, to the east is a gated 55+ manufactured home community. Site 20B is bordered by single-family residential homes to the south, multifamily residential to the east, and Las Colinas and Riverview Office Park to the west. A portion of the site is located within the Gillespie Field ALUCP Airport Safety Zone 4. The sites are proposed to be developed with residential uses.

To further advance the housing production in Santee, City staff applied for a Housing Acceleration Program grant from the San Diego Association of Governments, which was awarded. The grant provides funding for project-level analysis of HE sites 16A, 16B, 20A, and 20B. The amended TCSP will include graphics and data that illustrate site planning and development concepts for each of these sites based on the maximum allowable density allowed by zoning.

Sustainable Santee Action Plan Consistency Checklist December 2019

2. Determining Land Use Consistency
Checklist Item
As the first step in determining the consistency with the Sustainable Santee Action Plan for the discretionary development projects, this section allows the City to determine the project's consistency with the land use assumptions used in the Plan.

1. Is the proposed project consistent with the existing General Plan and land use zoning designations? OR

2. If the proposed project is not consistent with the existing land use plan and zoning designations, does the project include a land use plan and/or zoning designation amendment that is identified in the Sustainable Santee Action Plan Land Use Buffer (see Aooendix A. Table 11)?

3. If the proposed project is not consistent with the existing land use plan, zoning designations, or Land Use Buffer, does the project include a land use plan and/or zoning designation ammendment that will result in an equivalent or less GHGintensive project when compared to the existing designations? Notes:

For questions 1, if the answer is Yes, proceed to the Sustainable Santee Action Plan Consistency Checklist. If the answer is No, proceed to question 2.

For question 2, if the answer is Yes, proceed to the Sustainable Santee Action Plan Consistency Checklist.

If the answer is No, proceed to question 3.

For question 3, if the answer is Yes provide estimated project emissions under both existing and proposed designation (s) for comparison. Compare the maximum buildout of the existing designation and the maximum buildout of the proposed designation. If the answer of question 3 is No then, in accordance with the City's Significance Determination Thresholds, the project's GHG impact may be significant. The project must nonetheless incorporate each of the applicable measures identified in the Checklist to mitigate cumulative GHG emissions impacts unless the decision maker finds that a measure is infeasible in accordance with CEOA Guidelines Section 15091.

Sustainable Santee Action Plan Consistency Checklist
Yes No
✓
December 2019
Sustainable Santee Action Plan CEQA Project Consistency Checklist Notes Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measure Measure Applicability This checklist is to be filled out by the applicant
Yes No N/A Description
Emissions Measures Category: Energy Efficiency Measure 1.1 is not on checklist because it focuses
Land Use Sector-Residential on minor residental
alterations not subject to
Goal 1. Increase Energy Efficiency in Existing Residential Units CEQA Measure 1.2. For existing Residential Unit Permit for Major Modifications (more than 30% of dwelling unit size, including bathroom and kitchen) that is considered a Project under CEQA must implement energy t/ Measure 1.2 only applies if
efficiency retrofits recommended from City Energy Audit and explain the energy efficiency retrofits The project does not include existing residential uses. alteration is subject to implemented. CEQA
Goal 2. Increase Energy Efficiency in the New Residential Units Measure 2.1. New residential construction meet or exceed California Green Building Standards Tier 2 Voluntary Measures, such as obtaining green building ratings including LEED, Build it Green, or Energy Star t/ Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) Mitigation Measure (MM) GHG-1 requires implementation of this measun Certified building certifications in scoring development and explain the measures implemented. ~
Land Use Sector-Commercial Measure 3.1 is not on
checklist because it focuses
on minor alterations which
Goal 3. Increase Energy Efficiency in Existing Commercial Units are not subject to CEQA Measure 3.2. For existing commercial units of 10,000 sq. ft. or more seeking building permits for modifications representing 30% or more sq. ft, and considered a Project under CEQA must implement energy t/ Measure 3.2 only applies if efficiency retrofits recommended by the City to meet California Green Building Standards Tier 1 Voluntary The project does not include existing commercial or industrial uses. alteration is subject to Measures and explain the retrofits implemented. CEQA
Goal 4. Increase Energy Efficiency in New Commercial Units Measure 4.1. New commercial units meet or exceed California Green Building Standards Tier 2 Voluntary The project does not include new commercial or industrial uses.

Measures such as obtain green building ratings including: LEED, Build it Green, or Energy Star Certified buildings certifications in scoring development and explain the measures implemented. t/ Emissions Measures Category: Advanced Goals Measures
Land Use Sector-Commercial
Goal 5. Decrease Energy Demand through Reducing Urban Heat Island Effect Measure 5.1. Project utilizes tree planting for shade and energy efficiency such as tree planting in parking lots .,, DEIR MM GHG-2 requires implementation of this measure. and streetscapes.

Measure 5.2. Project uses light-reflecting surfaces such as enhanced cool roofs on commercial buildings. ✓ The project does not include new commercial buildings.

Emissions Measures Category: Transportation
Land Use Sector-Residential and Commercial
Goal 6. Decrease GHG Emissions through a Reduction in VMT Measure 6.1. Proposed project streets include sidewalks, crosswalks, and other infrastructure that promotes ✓ The project would not include street work. non-motorized transportation options.

Measure 6.2. Proposed project installs bike paths to improve bike transit. ✓ The oroiect would not include street work.

Sustainable Santee Action Plan CEQA Project Consistency Checklist December 2019 Land Use Sector-Residential and Commercial
Goal 7: Increase Use of Electric Vehicles
Measure 7.1. Install electric vehicle chargers in all new residential and commercial developments. a. For new Single-Family Residential, install complete 40 Amp electrical service and one e-charger. ✓ The project does not include single-family residential uses. b. For new Multifamily Residential, install e-chargers for 13 percent of total parking. t/ DEIR MM GHG-3 requires implementation of this measure. c. For new Office Space, Regional Shopping Centers, and Movie Theaters, install e-chargers for 5 percent of ✓ The project does not include office uses, regional shopping centers, or movie theaters. total parking spaces.

Ia. t-or new 1naustna1 ana otner Lana uses employing LUU or more employees, install e-cnarges tor::, percent ✓ The project does not include new industrial or other land uses employing 200 or more employees. of total parking spaces.

Land Use Sector-Residential and Commercial
Goal 8. Improve Traffic Flow
Projects that include
Measure 8.1. Implement traffic flow improvement program. traffic controls need to a. Install smart traffic signals at intersections warranting a traffic signal, OR ✓ The project would not require the installation of new traffic signals. show consistency with b. Install roundabout. ✓ The project would not require the installation of a roundabout. one of these Emissions Measures Category: Solid Waste
Land Use Sector-Residential and Commercial
Goal 9: Decrease GHG Emissions through Reducing Solid Waste Generation Measure 9.1. Reduce waste at landfills. t/ DEIR MM GHG-4 requires implementation of this measure. waste.

Emissions Measures Category: Clean Energy
Land Use Sector-Residential and Commercial
Goal 10. Decrease GHG Emissions through Increased Clean Energy Use Measure 10.1. Increase distributed energy generation within City of Santee by implementing the following applicable photovoltaic solar systems:
a. Single-family residential to install at least 2kW per unit of PV solar systems, unless the installation is ✓ The project does not include single-family residential uses. infeasible due to poor solar resources established in a solar feasibility study prepared by a qualified solar consultant submitted with an application
b. Multifamily residential to install at least lkW per unit of PV solar systems, unless the installation is infeasible due to poor solar resources established in a solar feasibility study prepared by a qualified solar ✓ DEIR MM GHG-5 requires implementation of this measure. consultant submitted with an applicant's formal project submittal to City. c. On commercial buildings, install at least 2 kW per square foot of building area (e.g., 2,000 sq. ft. = 3 kW) ✓ The project does not include commercial buildings. unless the installation is infeasible due to poor solar resources.

Sustainable Santee Action Plan CEQA Project Consistency Checklist December 2019 Appendix F
Noise Technical Report
This page intentionally left blank
Santee Town Center Specific
Plan Update
Noise Technical Report
July 2024 | 01427.00004.001
Prepared for:

M.W. Steele Group
1805 Newton Avenue, Suite A
San Diego, CA 92113
Prepared by:

HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
7578 El Cajon Boulevard
La Mesa, CA 91942
This page intentionally left blank
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................ES-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................1

1.1 Project Location ..................................................................................................................1

1.2 Project Description .............................................................................................................1

1.2.1 Town Center Specific Plan .....................................................................................1

1.2.2 Arts & Entertainment Neighborhood ....................................................................2

1.2.3 Four Strategic Housing Element Sites (2021-2029 Sixth Cycle).............................3

1.3 Noise and Sound Level Descriptors and Terminology ........................................................4

1.3.1 Descriptors.............................................................................................................4

1.3.2 Terminology...........................................................................................................4

1.3.3 Vibration Descriptors and Terminology.................................................................5

2.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK.............................................................................................................5

2.1 State Regulations................................................................................................................5

2.1.1 California Noise Control Act...................................................................................5

2.1.2 California Noise Insulation Standards [California’s Title 24 Noise Standards, Cal.

Adm. Code Title 24, Chap. 2-35]............................................................................6

2.1.3 California Environmental Quality Act ....................................................................6

2.1.4 Assembly Bill 1307 .................................................................................................6

2.2 Local Regulations................................................................................................................6

2.2.1 City of Santee Municipal Code Noise Control Ordinance ......................................6

2.2.2 City of Santee General Plan Noise Element...........................................................8

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING............................................................................................................10

3.1 Existing Land Uses.............................................................................................................10

3.2 Noise-Sensitive and Vibration-Sensitive Land Uses..........................................................11

3.3 Ambient Noise Survey.......................................................................................................11

4.0 ANALYSIS, METHODOLOGY, AND ASSUMPTIONS..........................................................................12

4.1 Methodology.....................................................................................................................12

4.1.1 Ambient Noise Survey..........................................................................................12

4.1.2 Noise Modeling Software ....................................................................................12

4.2 Assumptions......................................................................................................................13

4.2.1 Operational Noise................................................................................................13

4.2.2 Stationary Noise Sources.....................................................................................13

4.2.3 Vehicular Traffic Noise.........................................................................................14

4.2.4 Railway Noise.......................................................................................................14

4.3 Guidelines for the Determination of Significance and Conditions of Approval................14 ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
Section Page

5.0 IMPACTS.........................................................................................................................................15

5.1 Issue 1: Excessive Noise Levels.........................................................................................15

5.1.1 Construction Noise ..............................................................................................16

5.1.2 Operational Noise................................................................................................17

5.1.3 Significance of Impacts........................................................................................19

5.1.4 Mitigation Measures............................................................................................20

5.1.5 Significance After Mitigation ...............................................................................22

5.2 Issue 2: Excessive Vibration ..............................................................................................22

5.2.1 Construction Vibration.........................................................................................22

5.2.2 Significance of Impacts........................................................................................23

5.3 Issue 3: Airport Noise Exposure........................................................................................23

5.3.1 Airport Noise........................................................................................................23

5.4 Issue 4: Land Use Compatibility........................................................................................24

5.4.1 Exterior Noise Levels............................................................................................24

5.4.2 Interior Noise Levels............................................................................................24

5.4.3 Consistency with City Standards..........................................................................25

5.4.4 Conditions of Approval ........................................................................................25

5.4.5 Policy Consistency After Implementation of Conditions of Approval .................25

6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ........................................................................................................................25

7.0 REFERENCES...................................................................................................................................27

LIST OF APPENDICES
A Site Survey Measurement Sheets
B Carrier 38HDR060 Split System Condenser
C Existing and Future Traffic Noise Levels
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES
No. Title Follows Page
1 Regional Location............................................................................................................................. 2 2 Aerial Photograph............................................................................................................................ 2 3 TCSP Land Uses................................................................................................................................ 2 4 Ambient Noise Survey.................................................................................................................... 12 5 Transportation Noise Contours (No Project)................................................................................. 20 6 Transportation Noise Contours (With Project).............................................................................. 20

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
µPa micro-Pascals
ADT average daily trips/traffic
AEN Arts and Entertainment Neighborhood
ALUCP Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
ANSI American National Standards Institute
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
City City of Santee
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
dB decibel
dBA A-weighted decibel
EIR Environmental Impact Report
FTA Federal Transit Administration
HVAC Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
Hz Hertz
kHz kilohertz
LDN Day-Night level
LEQ equivalent sound level
LMAX maximum noise level
NSLU noise-sensitive land use
PPV peak particle velocity
RCNM Roadway Construction Noise Model
SANDAG San Diego Association of Governments
SPL sound pressure level
SWL sound power level
TCSP Town Center Specific Plan
USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation
l
vi
This page intentionally left blank
Noise Technical Report for the Santee Town Center Specific Plan Project |July 2024 ES-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Town Center Specific Plan (TCSP) and Arts and Entertainment Neighborhood (AEN) areas are within the City of Santee (City). The proposed TCSP and AEN areas are intended to provide a policy framework to guide future development within these areas of the City. This report presents an assessment of the potential construction and operational noise and vibration impacts associated with the proposed implementation of the TCSP and AEN.

Construction noise impacts due to the implementation of the proposed TCSP and AEN and construction of the Housing Element sites would be potentially significant. Mitigation measure NOI-1 would require a construction noise management plan for future projects where construction noise may exceed existing ambient conditions.

Operational noise from implementation of the proposed TCSP and AEN and construction of the Housing Element sites would be potentially significant. Mitigation measures NOI-2 would require future operational noise to be below the conversational noise threshold of 60 dBA. The proposed outdoor performance space would also be required to be reduced to 60 dBA, through implementation of NOI-3 which would require a future study to ensure noise level compliance.

A site-specific vibration study would be required within specified distances from major construction sites, and pile driving activities. Implementation of mitigation measures Noi-4. Vibration impacts from construction of the Housing Element sites would be less than significant.

Traffic noise levels would increase resulting from implementation of the TCSP and AEN and construction of the Housing Element sites, however noise levels would not increase by more than 3 A-weighted decibels (dBA). Traffic noise increases would not be perceptible, and impacts would be less than significant.

Exterior noise levels from implementation of the proposed TCSP and AEN may exceed the City’s Noise Element exterior noise level standards and Title 24 interior noise standards. As a condition of approval, a site-specific acoustical study would be required for future projects where noise levels exceed the conditionally compatible exterior noise levels as defined in the City’s Noise Compatibility Guidelines for land uses. The completion of an exterior-to-interior noise analysis where exterior noise levels exceed 65 dBA CNEL for residential land uses and the subsequent implementation of applicable attenuation measures (e.g., noise barriers and architectural enhancements including dual pane windows reduce interior noise) would reduce interior noise levels below the 45 dBA CNEL interior standard for residences. Application of noise attenuation measures identified in the noise analysis would ensure that proposed new uses would be consistent with City policies and standards.

Noise Technical Report for the Santee Town Center Specific Plan Project |July 2024 ES-2
This page intentionally left blank
Noise Technical Report for the Santee Town Center Specific Plan Project | July 2024 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report analyzes potential noise and vibration impacts associated with the Santee Town Center Specific Plan Housing Acceleration Program (project). The report analyzes the potential impacts of future development within the Santee Town Center Specific Plan (TCSP) area, and, as appropriate, identifies measures which can be taken to avoid adverse impacts related to noise and vibration. The analysis within this report was prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.), CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, Section 15000 et seq. of the California Code of Regulations).

1.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The project area is located in the City of Santee, in the eastern portion of the County of San Diego, north of State Route (SR) 52 and west of SR 67 (Figure 1, Regional Location). The proposed project area extends across over 1,000 Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs), within the TCSP Area in the central portion of the City, bounded by Mission Gorge Road to the south, Mast Boulevard to the north, and Magnolia Avenue to the east (Figure 2, Aerial Photograph). Cuyamaca Street runs north-south through the western portion of the project area, forming segments of the western project boundary, and the San Diego River runs through the central northern portion of the project area (Figure 2). The topography of the project area is bisected by the San Diego River, which originates within the Santa Ysabel Open Space Preserve East and flows west and southwest and ultimately reaches the Pacific Ocean.

Santee City CouncilFebruary 26, 2025

Santee City Council
February 26, 2025