Ncil20250514 — Santee City Council, May 14, 2025 (part 1 of 2)

FINAL
Initial Study/
Negative Declaration
City of Santee Safety and
Environmental Justice Element
October 2024
Prepared for:

City of Santee
10601 Magnolia Avenue
Santee, California 92071
Contact: Christina Rios, Senior Planner
Prepared by:
600 B Street, Suite 2000
San Diego, California 92101
(619) 236-1778
Contact: Darin Neufeld, AICP, Director
DRAFT
Initial Study/
Negative Declaration
City of Santee Safety and
Environmental Justice Element
October 2024
Prepared for:

Santee
DO MORE » DUE EAST
City of Santee
10601 Magnolia Avenue
Santee, California 92071
Contact: Christina Rios, Senior Planner
Prepared by:

P| ‘ : <a Harris & Associates
600 B Street, Suite 2000
San Diego, California 92101
(619) 236-1778
Contact: Darin Neufeld, AICP, Director
This page intentionally left blank. This page intentionally left blank.

IS/ND i July 2023
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
Table of Contents
Acronyms and Abbreviations .................................................................................................iii Document Overview..................................................................................................................v Section 1 Project Description...............................................................................................1

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

1.2 Project Overview............................................................................................1

1.3 Project Background........................................................................................3

1.4 Proposed Element..........................................................................................3

1.5 Regulatory Requirements, Permits, and Approvals ........................................4 Section 2 Initial Study Checklist...........................................................................................7

2.1 Project Information.........................................................................................7

2.2 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ....................................................9

2.3 Lead Agency Determination .........................................................................10

2.4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ...........................................................11

2.4.1 Aesthetics.................................................................................................12

2.4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ........................................................16

2.4.3 Air Quality.................................................................................................19

2.4.4 Biological Resources ...............................................................................24

2.4.5 Cultural Resources...................................................................................31

2.4.6 Energy ......................................................................................................36

2.4.7 Geology and Soils....................................................................................39

2.4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions....................................................................46

2.4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ..........................................................51

2.4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality...................................................................61

2.4.11 Land Use and Planning............................................................................72

2.4.12 Mineral Resources ...................................................................................74

2.4.13 Noise ........................................................................................................76

2.4.14 Population and Housing...........................................................................79

2.4.15 Public Services.........................................................................................83

2.4.16 Recreation................................................................................................91

2.4.17 Transportation..........................................................................................94

2.4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources ......................................................................101

2.4.19 Utilities and Service Systems.................................................................103

2.4.20 Wildfire....................................................................................................108

2.4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance.......................................................118 Table of Contents
ACronymMs and AbDbreviatiOns .........cccccccccceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaeaaaaaeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaeaaaaeeaaaeneneaeaneqanea iii Document OVErViewW............00:0 ieee ieee Vv
Section 1 Project Description. ...............cccceccceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaeseeeeeeseeeeaaaeeneeeeeseeeeaaaes 1 sid wd) (=1 01 0 Ler | (©) 0 eee 1

1.2 Project OVErVICW 0.0... cccccccccceeecceccceeeeseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeseseaeeeeeeeeeeseaaeeaeeeeeeeeeessaaeeeeees 1

1.3 Project Background.............ccccceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeteeette tne 3

1.4 Proposed ElOMeNt........ cc cccccccccccceeseeeeeeeeeeeeeseeeseeeeeeeeeeeeesseeeeeeeeeeeessssaaeeeees 3

1.5 Regulatory Requirements, Permits, and Approvals ..............::::ccseecceeeeeeeeeeeeees 4 Section 2 Initial Study Checklist..............ccccccssssseeeeeeeeeseeeasseeeeeeeeeeeeeaassneeeeeseeeeaaaesneeeeeseeseaaaes 7

2.1 Project INFOrMation ..........c cc cccccccccccceeesseeeeeceeeeeeeseaseaeeeeeeeseessaeeeeseceeeeessaaaaaeeeees 7

2.2 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected .............cccceececeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees 9

2.3 Lead Agency Determination ..............ccccccccceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeenenees 10

2.4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ...............cccccccecssseeeeeeeeeeeeeaeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaes 11

2.4.1 A@StNCtICS 2.0... eecccnececeeeeeeeececeseaeeeseeseeeceaeseaeeseeseaeseaeeseeescaeeeeeeseaeeenneess 12

2.4.2 Agriculture and Forestry RESOUICES ............ccsscccssssseeeessseeeessssneeesssseeeeess 16

2.4.3 Air QUaIILY 0... cece cece ceneecteeeseeecaeeeeeeeseeseseesseeseeeseseeseeessaeseaeessaeeseeeeneees 19

2.4.4 Biological RESOUMCES 0.0.00... eeceeeeeneeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeseeeeeaeeseeeseaeeeeeseeeseaeenieees 24

2.4.5 Cultural RESOUICES............ccccccesceceeeeeeeneeeeeeeeesseeeseaeeeseaeescaaeessaeeensaeesseneessas 31 Ao a lB =) 1 © ) | er 36

2.4.7 G@OlOGY AN SOS ........cceccceseeeseeecsseeesseeeesseeesseeeesaeeseeeessaeeeesaeeesteeeesas 39

2.4.8 Greenhouse Gas EMiSSIONS..............c::ccceccecesceeeeneeeeeeeesseeeesaeeessaeessneeeneas 46

2.4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ..............:.::cccccceseceeeeeeeeeeneeeesneeeeneeetens 51

2.4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality .........ccceceeeeceeeeeeeeeeceeeteeeeeseeeeeseeeeeeeeeeaes 61

2.4.11 Land Use and PIanning.............:ccccccccsseessseeseseessseeessaeesseeessneeessaeeseseeeeeas 72

2.4.12 Mineral RESOUMCES ..........ceccccecceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaeeeeeseaeeeaeeseeeseaeeeeeseneeeeeeneees 74

2.4.13 NOISE ......ccccececcccseeeseccseeseeessaeeeeeeseeeseaeeeaeesceeseaeeseeseeescaeeseeeseeeeceeeseeeeeneeeeees 76

2.4.14 Population ANd HOUSING...........ccceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeseeeeeaeeseeeeeaeeeaeeseeeeeeeeneees 79

2.4.15 PUbIIC SCrViC€S...........ceeccecececeeeeeeeeeeseeeeeeecaeeseeeseeeecseeseeeseaeseeeseeeseeeeeees 83

2.4.16 ReCreation .........:ccccccceccceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaeeceneceaeeeaeeseeeseaeeeeeseeeseaeeeieeseeeseeeeenees 91

2.4.17 TrANSPOrtation .........cecccccseessseeesseeesseeeeseeeesseeeseeeessaeesesseeseeeeeseeeesseesses 94

2.4.18 Tribal Cultural RESOUICES ..........ccccecceeseeseeeeeeeeeeeeeseeeeseeeseesseeseseeseesees 101

2.4.19 Utilities and Service SySteMS............:ececeeeeeeee cette eeeeeeeeeeeseeseneeeeeeates 103

2.4.20 WiIIFIC eee ceccececeeeceeeeceeeceeeceeeceeeecaeeceeseaeseaeeseeceaeseeeseeeseaeeeeeeseaeeeats 108

2.4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance.............ccccccssesssteeesseeesseeesseeeesaees 118 IS/ND July 2023
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
IS/ND ii July 2023
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
Section 3 List of Preparers ...............................................................................................122

3.1 Lead Agency ..............................................................................................122

3.2 Consultants................................................................................................122 Section 4 References ........................................................................................................124 Figures
Figure 1. Regional Location ........................................................................................................5 Tables
Table 1. City of Santee EnviroStor Cleanup Sites .....................................................................52 Table 2. City of Santee Population (2010–2020).......................................................................79 Section 3 List of Preparer ................ccc cece eee i ii eee eee e eee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeenees 122

3.1 LOA AQONCY 00... eee eee cece cece cece cece eect eee e eee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaeaeaeaaaaaaaeaaaaaas 122

3.2 COMNSUIEANES 00... cece teeter eee e etter teeeaaaeeeeeeeeeeeeeeenaaaeeeeeeeeeeeeeennaaaees 122 Section 4 Reference ...........eeeeeeeeeen eee eee eeeeeeeeee esse ee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaeeseeeeeeeseeeeaaesesseeeneeeeeeees 124 Figures
Figure 1. Regional Location .............ccccccccccssseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesaeeaeeeeeeeeessaaeeeeeeeeeeeeaas 5 Tables
Table 1. City of Santee EnviroStor Cleanup Sites 20.0.0... 2. cece ec eeeeeeeeeeeee eee eeeeceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeneeeeeeees 52 Table 2. City of Santee Population (2010-2020) o.oo... cc ceeteeeee cece eee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeteeeeeeees 79 IS/ND i July 2023
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
IS/ND iii October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
Acronyms and Abbreviations
AB Assembly Bill
ALUC Airport Land Use Commission
ALUCP Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
Attainment Plan Attainment Plan for San Diego County
Basin Plan Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin BMP best management practice
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CALGreen California Green Building Standards Code
CalRecycle California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CBC California Building Code
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CH4 methane
CNEL community noise equivalent level
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
CWA Clean Water Act
dB decibel
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EV electric vehicle
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
GHG greenhouse gas
GWP global warming potential
HU Hydrological Unit
I- Interstate
IS Initial Study
LID Low Impact Development
Metropolitan Metropolitan Water District of Southern California MRZ Mineral Resource Zone
MSCP Multiple Species Conservation Program
N2O nitrous oxide
ND Negative Declaration
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
O3 ozone
Padre Dam Padre Dam Municipal Water District
Pb lead
PM10 particulate matter measuring no more than 10 microns in diameter PM2.5 fine particulate matter measuring no more than 2.5 microns in diameter
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
Acronyms and Abbreviations
AB
ALUC
ALUCP
Attainment Plan
Assembly Bill
Airport Land Use Commission
Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
Attainment Plan for San Diego County
Basin Plan Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin BMP best management practice
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CALGreen California Green Building Standards Code
CalRecycle California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CBC California Building Code
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CH4 methane
CNEL community noise equivalent level
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
COze carbon dioxide equivalent
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
CWA Clean Water Act
dB decibel
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EV electric vehicle
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
GHG greenhouse gas
GWP global warming potential
HU Hydrological Unit
I- Interstate
IS Initial Study
LID Low Impact Development
Metropolitan Metropolitan Water District of Southern California MRZ Mineral Resource Zone
MSCP Multiple Species Conservation Program
N20 nitrous oxide
ND Negative Declaration
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
O03 ozone
Padre Dam Padre Dam Municipal Water District
Pb lead
PMio particulate matter measuring no more than 10 microns in diameter PM25 fine particulate matter measuring no more than 2.5 microns in diameter
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
IS/ND ii October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
IS/ND iv October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
Safety-EJ Element Safety and Environmental Justice Element SANDAG San Diego Association of Governments
SB Senate Bill
SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy
SDAB San Diego Air Basin
SDAPCD San Diego County Air Pollution Control District
SDMTS San Diego Metropolitan Transit System
SF6 sulfur hexafluoride
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SR- State Route
SRA State Responsibility Area
Sustainable Santee Plan Sustainable Santee Plan: The City’s Roadmap to Greenhouse Gas Reductions
SWPPP Stormwater Pollutant Prevention Plan
VMT vehicle miles traveled
VHFHSZ Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones
RWQCB
Safety-EJ Element
SANDAG
SB
SCS
SDAB
SDAPCD
SDMTS
SF6
SO2
SRSRA
Sustainable Santee Plan
Regional Water Quality Control Board
Safety and Environmental Justice Element
San Diego Association of Governments
Senate Bill
Sustainable Communities Strategy
San Diego Air Basin
San Diego County Air Pollution Control District
San Diego Metropolitan Transit System
sulfur hexafluoride
sulfur dioxide
State Route
State Responsibility Area
Sustainable Santee Plan: The City’s Roadmap to Greenhouse Gas Reductions
SWPPP Stormwater Pollutant Prevention Plan
VMT vehicle miles traveled
VHFHSZ Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones
IS/ND iv October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
IS/ND v October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
Document Overview
This Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) has been prepared in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines for the proposed Safety and Environmental Justice Element (Safety-EJ Element). The primary intent of this document is to (1) determine whether the Safety-EJ Element would result in potentially significant impacts to the environment, and (2) incorporate mitigation measures into the project design, as necessary, to eliminate or reduce the Safety-EJ Element’s potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level.

In accordance with CEQA, projects that have the potential to result in either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment must undergo analysis to disclose potential significant effects. The provisions of CEQA apply to California governmental agencies at all levels, including local agencies, regional agencies, state agencies, boards, commissions, and special districts. CEQA requires preparation of an IS for a discretionary project to determine the range of potential environmental impacts of that project and to define the scope of the environment review document. As specified in Section 15064(f) of the CEQA Guidelines, the lead agency (i.e., City of Santee) may prepare an ND if, in the course of the IS analysis, it is recognized that the project would not have a significant impact on the environment. As the lead agency for the Safety-EJ Element, the City has the principal responsibility for conducting the CEQA environmental review to analyze the potential environmental effects associated with the Safety-EJ Element. During the review process, it was determined that potential impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, an IS/ND has been prepared for the Safety-EJ Element.

The Safety-EJ Element has not been approved or denied. It is being reviewed for environmental impacts only.

This IS/ND is organized as follows:
• Section 1: Project Description. This section introduces the document and discusses the project description, including location, setting, and specifics of the lead agency and contacts. • Section 2: Initial Study Checklist. This section discusses the CEQA environmental topics and checklist questions and identifies the potential for impacts. • Section 3: List of Preparers. This section lists the organizations and individuals who were consulted and/or prepared this IS/ND.
• Section 4: References. This section presents a list of reference materials consulted during preparation of this IS/ND.

Document Overview
This Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) has been prepared in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines for the proposed Safety and Environmental Justice Element (Safety-EJ Element). The primary intent of this document is to (1) determine whether the Safety-EJ Element would result in potentially significant impacts to the environment, and (2) incorporate mitigation measures into the project design, as necessary, to eliminate or reduce the Safety-EJ Element’s potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level.

The Safety-EJ Element has not been approved or denied. It is being reviewed for environmental impacts only.

This IS/ND is organized as follows:
e Section 1: Project Description. This section introduces the document and discusses the project description, including location, setting, and specifics of the lead agency and contacts. e Section 2: Initial Study Checklist. This section discusses the CEQA environmental topics and checklist questions and identifies the potential for impacts. e Section 3: List of Preparers. This section lists the organizations and individuals who were consulted and/or prepared this IS/ND.
e Section 4: References. This section presents a list of reference materials consulted during preparation of this IS/ND.

IS/ND Vv October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
IS/ND vi October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
Public Review
The IS/ND will be circulated for a 30-day public review period from October 25, 2024, to November 25, 2024.

Comments regarding this IS/ND must be made in writing and submitted to Christina Rios, 10601 Magnolia Avenue, Santee, California 92071, or by email to [email protected].

Comments should focus on the proposed finding that the Safety-EJ Element would not have a significant effect on the environment because revisions or mitigation measures have been made or agreed to by the City. If the commenter believes that the Safety-EJ Element may have a significant environmental effect, it would be helpful for the commenter to identify the specific effect and explain why the commenter believes the effect would occur and why it would be significant.

Public Review
The IS/ND will be circulated for a 30-day public review period from October 25, 2024, to November 25, 2024.

Comments regarding this IS/ND must be made in writing and submitted to Christina Rios, 10601 Magnolia Avenue, Santee, California 92071, or by email to [email protected].

IS/ND vi October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
IS/ND 1 July 2023
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
Section 1 Project Description

1.1 Project Location
The City of Santee is a suburban city in eastern San Diego County. The City is part of the East County region and is approximately 18 miles from the Pacific Ocean. The City’s regional location is shown on Figure 1, Regional Location. The City is connected to the coastline by State Route (SR-) 52, a six-lane freeway that runs from Interstate (I-) 5 in La Jolla to SR-67 in El Cajon. The City is intersected by the San Diego River, which is composed of a linear greenbelt that includes parks, trails, and more than 1,100 acres of natural riparian habitat.

1.2 Project Overview
The City proposes to update the City’s existing General Plan Safety Element while incorporating a new Environmental Justice Element into one combined General Plan Element (hereafter referred to as the “Safety-EJ Element”). The Safety-EJ Element would be a component of the Santee General Plan that assesses the safety and environmental justice needs of all economic segments of the City; defines the goals, objectives, and policies that would guide the City’s approach to resolving those needs; and recommends a set of programs that would implement these policies over the next 8 years.

The Safety-EJ Element, as part of the Santee General Plan, would establish safety- and environmental justice-related implementing programs to guide City decision-making related to emergency preparedness, emergency response, access to public facilities, and climate adaptation and resilience strategies, particularly for sensitive and vulnerable communities. The Safety-EJ Element would include strategies to establish action-oriented programs to increase the City’s adaptive capacity to respond to climate change-related impacts to meet the current and future needs of people living and working in Santee. The Safety-EJ Element would require that the City implement a series of actions, referred to as the “implementation program” (Section 8 of the Safety-EJ Element), for compliance with state law.

Pursuant to California Government Code, Section 65302(g), a city’s Safety Element is required to address the protection of its people from unreasonable risks associated with disasters, including earthquakes, floods, fires, landslides, and other hazards, identified by the local community.

Specifically, the Safety Element must identify hazards and hazard abatement provisions to guide local decisions related to zoning, subdivisions, and entitlement permitting and should also integrate hazard and risk reduction strategies. In addition, the state recently adopted legislation that requires the Safety Element to provide additional information related to flooding, wildfires, emergency evacuation, and climate change, as well as several other requirements, including the following:

Section’ Project Description

1.2 Project Overview
The City proposes to update the City’s existing General Plan Safety Element while incorporating anew Environmental Justice Element into one combined General Plan Element (hereafter referred to as the “Safety-EJ Element”). The Safety-EJ Element would be a component of the Santee General Plan that assesses the safety and environmental justice needs of all economic segments of the City; defines the goals, objectives, and policies that would guide the City’s approach to resolving those needs; and recommends a set of programs that would implement these policies over the next 8 years.

IS/ND 1 July 2023
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
IS/ND 2 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
• An incorporation of, either by reference or through direct integration of content, the hazard profiles from the jurisdiction’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (Assembly Bill [AB] 2140)
• A Vulnerability Assessment that addresses the potential impact and the adaptive capacity of the jurisdiction to climate change-related events through a myriad of climate adaptation and resilience strategies (Senate Bill [SB] 379) • An Emergency Evacuation Route Analysis that identifies evacuation routes and evaluates their capacity, safety, and viability under a range of emergency scenarios (AB 747) and evacuation route locations (AB 1409)
Pursuant to California Government Code, Section 65302(h), and SB 1000, a city’s Environmental Justice Element is required to identify disadvantaged communities in the area covered by the jurisdiction’s General Plan, if the jurisdiction has a disadvantaged community. The Environmental Justice Element is required to perform the following:
• Identify objectives and policies to reduce the unique or compounded health risks in disadvantaged communities by means that include but are not limited to the reduction of pollution exposure, including the improvement of air quality, and the promotion of public facilities, food access, safe and sanitary homes, and physical activity • Identify objectives and policies to promote civic engagement in the public decisionmaking process • Identify objectives and policies that prioritize improvements and programs that address the needs of disadvantaged communities
The Safety-EJ Element would consist of the following major components:
• Section 1, Executive Summary
• Section 2, Introduction
• Section 3, Statutory Requirements
• Section 4, Safety – Existing Conditions
• Section 5, Climate Adaptation and Resilience
• Section 6, Environmental Justice – Existing Conditions • Section 7, Goals, Objectives, and Policies
• Section 8, Implementation
• Appendices
− A, Vulnerability Assessment
− B, Emergency Evacuation Route Analysis
− C, Geotechnical/Seismic Hazard Study
− D, Environmental Justice Existing Conditions Assessment − E, Environmental Justice Community Survey Results
An incorporation of, either by reference or through direct integration of content, the hazard profiles from the jurisdiction’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (Assembly Bill [AB] 2140)
A Vulnerability Assessment that addresses the potential impact and the adaptive capacity of the jurisdiction to climate change-related events through a myriad of climate adaptation and resilience strategies (Senate Bill [SB] 379) An Emergency Evacuation Route Analysis that identifies evacuation routes and evaluates their capacity, safety, and viability under a range of emergency scenarios (AB 747) and evacuation route locations (AB 1409)
Pursuant to California Government Code, Section 65302(h), and SB 1000, a city’s Environmental Justice Element is required to identify disadvantaged communities in the area covered by the jurisdiction’s General Plan, if the jurisdiction has a disadvantaged community. The Environmental Justice Element is required to perform the following:

Identify objectives and policies to reduce the unique or compounded health risks in disadvantaged communities by means that include but are not limited to the reduction of pollution exposure, including the improvement of air quality, and the promotion of public facilities, food access, safe and sanitary homes, and physical activity Identify objectives and policies to promote civic engagement in the public decisionmaking process Identify objectives and policies that prioritize improvements and programs that address the needs of disadvantaged communities
The Safety-EJ Element would consist of the following major components:

Section 1, Executive Summary
Section 2, Introduction
Section 3, Statutory Requirements
Section 4, Safety — Existing Conditions
Section 5, Climate Adaptation and Resilience
Section 6, Environmental Justice — Existing Conditions
Section 7, Goals, Objectives, and Policies
Section 8, Implementation
Appendices
— A, Vulnerability Assessment
— B, Emergency Evacuation Route Analysis
— CC, Geotechnical/Seismic Hazard Study
— D, Environmental Justice Existing Conditions Assessment — E, Environmental Justice Community Survey Results
IS/ND 2 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
IS/ND 3 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element

1.3 Project Background
The Safety-EJ Element would be adopted as a “joint element,” meaning that the Safety Element would be updated in conjunction with the Environmental Justice Element. The Safety-EJ Element would align with the City’s focus on providing “a more livable, equitable, and economically vibrant community,” especially considering the Element’s goal of creating a resilient, adaptable community in the face of climate change. The City would also be working toward its commitment to incorporate environmental responsibility into the management of its community and municipal operations through this Safety-EJ Element.

The City began coordinating development of its Safety-EJ Element with the update of its Housing Element, which was adopted in May 2022. The update of two or more General Plan Elements (Housing and Safety) triggers a state requirement to address environmental justice under the provisions of SB 1035 and SB 1000—the Planning for Healthy Communities Act (2016). SB 1000 requires cities and counties to address environmental justice in their General Plans. Therefore, the City is required to create new environmental justice policies to ensure compliance with state law and document the review.

1.4 Proposed Element
The Safety-EJ Element would be consistent with existing and updated Santee General Plan goals, objectives, and policies and regulatory compliance with new California legislation. The Safety-EJ Element would assess existing conditions of potential hazards, health risks, and disproportionate environmental burdens faced by disadvantaged communities. The purpose of the Element is to identify goals, objectives, and policies that would perform the following:
• Mitigate existing and potential hazards in Santee
• Reduce the unique or compounded health risks in disadvantaged communities • Promote public engagement in the City’s decision-making process • Prioritize improvements and programs that address the needs of disadvantaged communities Implementation of the Safety-EJ Element may encourage minor development and infrastructure projects for the enhancement of public safety and environmental justice in the City, such as the following:
• Utility and infrastructure improvements:
− Improvement of drainage ways and flood control facilities to lessen recurrent flood problems;
− Additional fire station construction or renovation;
− Installation of sufficient security lighting around structures; and − Installation of solar equipment of electric vehicle charging stations.

1.3. Project Background
The Safety-EJ Element would be adopted as a “joint element,” meaning that the Safety Element would be updated in conjunction with the Environmental Justice Element. The Safety-EJ Element would align with the City’s focus on providing “a more livable, equitable, and economically vibrant community,” especially considering the Element’s goal of creating a resilient, adaptable community in the face of climate change. The City would also be working toward its commitment to incorporate environmental responsibility into the management of its community and municipal operations through this Safety-EJ Element.

1.4 Proposed Element
The Safety-EJ Element would be consistent with existing and updated Santee General Plan goals, objectives, and policies and regulatory compliance with new California legislation. The Safety-EJ Element would assess existing conditions of potential hazards, health risks, and disproportionate environmental burdens faced by disadvantaged communities. The purpose of the Element is to identify goals, objectives, and policies that would perform the following:
e Mitigate existing and potential hazards in Santee
e Reduce the unique or compounded health risks in disadvantaged communities e Promote public engagement in the City’s decision-making process e Prioritize improvements and programs that address the needs of disadvantaged communities Implementation of the Safety-EJ Element may encourage minor development and infrastructure projects for the enhancement of public safety and environmental justice in the City, such as the following:
e Utility and infrastructure improvements:
— Improvement of drainage ways and flood control facilities to lessen recurrent flood problems;
— Additional fire station construction or renovation;
— Installation of sufficient security lighting around structures; and — Installation of solar equipment of electric vehicle charging stations.

IS/ND 3 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
IS/ND 4 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
• Transportation infrastructure:
− Installation of traffic control devices such as signals, medians, and other street design measures along busy roadways;
− Construction of additional transit stops;
− Construction of alternative transit;
− Development of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure (e.g., bike paths, sidewalks, crosswalks, etc.); and
− Road improvements to ensure that multiple evacuation routes are available under a range of hazard scenarios.
• Recreational facilities, community facilities, and green infrastructure:
− Development of vegetative barriers, tree canopy, and green infrastructure; − Development of parks, green space, recreation facilities, and natural environments;
− Development of community gardens;
− Development of community centers and community-building facilities; and − Development of greenways and tree trenches to increase resiliency to the impacts of extreme precipitation.
• Development of farmers markets, farm stands, ethnic markets, mobile health food markets, and convenience/corner stores that sell healthy foods • New healthcare facilities, including mental health facilities • Housing repairs
It should be noted that while the Safety-EJ Element encourages the types of projects listed above, this Element is a policy document that does not propose any specific development. Therefore, the SafetyEJ Element would not directly result in the development of new infrastructure or facilities. Section 7, Goals, Objectives, and Policies, of the Safety-EJ Element provides the safety and environmental justice goals, objectives, and policies that are evaluated for environmental impacts in this Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND). Proposed Safety and EJ policies included in the Safety-EJ Element are listed in Section 2.4 as they relate to each of the resource areas evaluated (refer to Section 7, Goals, Objectives, and Policies, of the Safety-EJ Element for a full list of the proposed policies).

1.5 Regulatory Requirements, Permits, and Approvals
The Safety-EJ Element would require an amendment to the Santee General Plan. In addition, the 2018 County of San Diego Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan would be incorporated into the Safety-EJ Element through resolution. If the 2023 County of San Diego Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan is approved prior to adoption of the Safety-EJ Element and this IS/ND, then that update would also be incorporated by resolution. Adoption of the Safety-EJ Element requires adoption of this IS/ND. No other regulatory requirements, permits, and/or approvals are required. e Transportation infrastructure:
— Installation of traffic control devices such as signals, medians, and other street design measures along busy roadways;
— Construction of additional transit stops;
— Construction of alternative transit;
— Development of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure (e.g., bike paths, sidewalks, crosswalks, etc.); and
— Road improvements to ensure that multiple evacuation routes are available under a range of hazard scenarios.
e Recreational facilities, community facilities, and green infrastructure:
— Development of vegetative barriers, tree canopy, and green infrastructure; — Development of parks, green space, recreation facilities, and natural environments;
— Development of community gardens;
— Development of community centers and community-building facilities; and — Development of greenways and tree trenches to increase resiliency to the impacts of extreme precipitation.
e Development of farmers markets, farm stands, ethnic markets, mobile health food markets, and convenience/corner stores that sell healthy foods e New healthcare facilities, including mental health facilities e Housing repairs
It should be noted that while the Safety-EJ Element encourages the types of projects listed above, this Element is a policy document that does not propose any specific development. Therefore, the SafetyEJ Element would not directly result in the development of new infrastructure or facilities. Section 7, Goals, Objectives, and Policies, of the Safety-EJ Element provides the safety and environmental justice goals, objectives, and policies that are evaluated for environmental impacts in this Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND). Proposed Safety and EJ policies included in the Safety-EJ Element are listed in Section 2.4 as they relate to each of the resource areas evaluated (refer to Section 7, Goals, Objectives, and Policies, of the Safety-EJ Element for a full list of the proposed policies).

IS/ND 4 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
IS/ND 5 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
Figure 1. Figure 1. Regional Location Regional Location *,
ry Sruirre Race ian | ners ans FORD
IS/ND 5 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
IS/ND 6 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
TThis his page intentionally left blank. page intentionally left blank.

IS/ND 6 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
IS/ND 7 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
Section 2 Initial Study Checklist
The following discussion of potential environmental effects was completed in accordance with Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines to determine if the proposed Safety-EJ Element may have a significant effect on the environment.

2.1 Project Information

1. Project title: City of Santee Safety and Environmental Justice Element

2. Lead agency name and address: City of Santee, Department of Development Services
10601 Magnolia Avenue
Santee, California 92071

3. Contact person name, address, and
phone number:

Christina Rios, Senior Planner
10601 Magnolia Avenue
Santee, California 92071
(619) 258-4100 x157 [email protected]

4. Project location: City of Santee and sphere of influence 5 Project sponsor’s name and address: City of Santee, Department of Development Services
10601 Magnolia Avenue
Santee, California 92071

6. General plan designation: Citywide – varies

7. Zoning: Citywide – varies

8. Description of project: Refer to Section 1, Project Description, of this IS/ND.

9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Refer to Section 1 of this IS/ND.

Section2 Initial Study Checklist
The following discussion of potential environmental effects was completed in accordance with Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines to determine if the proposed Safety-EJ Element may have a significant effect on the environment.

2.1 Project Information

1. Project title: City of Santee Safety and Environmental Justice Element

2. Lead agency name and address: City of Santee, Department of Development Services
10601 Magnolia Avenue
Santee, California 92071

3. Contact person name, address, and Christina Rios, Senior Planner phone number: 10601 Magnolia Avenue
Santee, California 92071
(619) 258-4100 x157 [email protected]

4. Project location: City of Santee and sphere of influence 5 Project sponsor’s name and address: City of Santee, Department of Development Services
10601 Magnolia Avenue
Santee, California 92071

6. General plan designation: Citywide — varies

7. Zoning: Citywide — varies

8. Description of project: Refer to Section 1, Project Description, of this IS/ND.

9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Refer to Section 1 of this IS/ND.

IS/ND 7 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
IS/ND 8 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element

10. Other public agencies whose
approval is required:

No other approvals are required.

11. Have California Native American
Tribes traditionally and culturally
affiliated with the project area
requested consultation pursuant to
Public Resources Code section
21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for
consultation that includes, for
example, the determination of
significance of impacts to tribal
cultural resources, procedures
regarding confidentiality, etc.?
The City initiated and completed Native American
consultation requirements consistent with Senate
Bill 18 (SB18) and Assembly Bill 52 (AB52). The
City contacted the tribal representatives which are
traditionally and culturally affiliated within Santee
and the tribal representatives recommended by the
Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC)
by certified mail. Two requests for consultation
were received by the San Pasqual Band of Mission
Indians and the Campo Band of Mission Indians.

Staff held a meeting with each tribal representative
and explained that the project is an update to a
planning-level document and future site-specific
development would be subject to additional
environmental review. The tribal representative
from the Campo Band of Mission Indians requested
a copy of the completed Negative Declaration for
their records. No additional questions or requests
were received by any of the tribes within the 30 and
90-day consultation period.

10. Other public agencies whose

11. approval is required:

Have California Native American
Tribes traditionally and culturally
affiliated with the project area
requested consultation pursuant to
Public Resources Code section
21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for
consultation that includes, for
example, the determination of
significance of impacts to tribal
cultural resources, procedures
regarding confidentiality, etc.?
No other approvals are required.

The City initiated and completed Native American
consultation requirements consistent with Senate
Bill 18 (SB18) and Assembly Bill 52 (AB52). The
City contacted the tribal representatives which are
traditionally and culturally affiliated within Santee
and the tribal representatives recommended by the
Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC)
by certified mail. Two requests for consultation
were received by the San Pasqual Band of Mission
Indians and the Campo Band of Mission Indians.

IS/ND
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
8 October 2024
IS/ND 9 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element

2.2 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by the Safety-EJ Element, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
☐ Aesthetics ☐ Agriculture and
Forestry Resources
☐ Air Quality
☐ Biological Resources ☐ Cultural Resources ☐ Energy
☐ Geology and Soils ☐ Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
☐ Hazards and
Hazardous Materials
☐ Hydrology and Water
Quality
☐ Land Use and Planning ☐ Mineral Resources
☐ Noise ☐ Population and Housing ☐ Public Services
☐ Recreation ☐ Transportation ☐ Tribal Cultural
Resources
☐ Utilities and Service
Systems
☐ Wildfire ☐ Mandatory Findings
of Significance
☒ None

L] Aesthetics L] Agriculture and L] Air Quality
Forestry Resources
L] Biological Resources L] Cultural Resources L] Energy L] Geology and Soils L] Greenhouse Gas L] Hazards and
Emissions Hazardous Materials
L] Hydrology and Water [] Land Use and Planning [LJ Mineral Resources Quality
L] Noise L] Population and Housing LJ Public Services
CL] Recreation L] Transportation CL] Tribal Cultural
Resources
L] Utilities and Service L] Wildfire L] Mandatory Findings Systems of Significance
None
IS/ND 9 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
IS/ND 10 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element

2.3 Lead Agency Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
☒ I find that the proposed Safety-EJ Element COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ☐ I find that although the proposed Safety-EJ Element could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the Safety-EJ Element have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent, including implementation of the mitigation measures identified herein. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
☐ I find that the proposed Safety-EJ Element MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ☐ I find that the proposed Safety-EJ Element MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ☐ I find that although the proposed Safety-EJ Element could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed Safety-EJ Element, nothing further is required.

Signature Date
Christina Rios, Senior Planner, City of Santee

2.3 Lead Agency Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed Safety-EJ Element COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

CL] I find that although the proposed Safety-EJ Element could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the Safety-EJ Element have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent, including implementation of the mitigation measures identified herein. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

L] I find that the proposed Safety-EJ Element MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. [| I find that the proposed Safety-EJ Element MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

CL] I find that although the proposed Safety-EJ Element could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed Safety-EJ Element, nothing further is required.

Signature Date
Christina Rios, Senior Planner, City of Santee
IS/ND 10 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
10/25/24
IS/ND 11 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element

2.4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
This section documents the screening process used to identify and focus on environmental impacts that could result from the Safety-EJ Element. The checklist portion of the IS begins below and includes explanations of each CEQA issue topic. CEQA requires that an explanation of all answers be provided along with this checklist, including a discussion of ways to mitigate any significant effects identified. The following terminology is used to describe the potential level of significance of impacts:
• No Impact. The analysis concludes that the Safety-EJ Element would not affect the particular resource in any way.
• Less than Significant. The analysis concludes that the Safety-EJ Element would not cause substantial adverse change to the environment without the incorporation of mitigation. • Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The analysis concludes that it would not cause substantial adverse change to the environment with the inclusion of mitigation agreed upon by the project proponent.
• Potentially Significant. The analysis concludes that the Safety-EJ Element could result a substantial adverse effect or significant effect on the environment, even if mitigation is incorporated. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required.

2.4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
This section documents the screening process used to identify and focus on environmental impacts that could result from the Safety-EJ Element. The checklist portion of the IS begins below and includes explanations of each CEQA issue topic. CEQA requires that an explanation of all answers be provided along with this checklist, including a discussion of ways to mitigate any significant effects identified. The following terminology is used to describe the potential level of significance of impacts:
e No Impact. The analysis concludes that the Safety-EJ Element would not affect the particular resource in any way.
e Less than Significant. The analysis concludes that the Safety-EJ Element would not cause substantial adverse change to the environment without the incorporation of mitigation. e Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The analysis concludes that it would not cause substantial adverse change to the environment with the inclusion of mitigation agreed upon by the project proponent.
e Potentially Significant. The analysis concludes that the Safety-EJ Element could result a substantial adverse effect or significant effect on the environment, even if mitigation is incorporated. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact’ entries when the determination is made, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required.

IS/ND 11 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
IS/ND 12 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element

2.4.1 Aesthetics
Except as provided in Public Resources Code
Section 21099, would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c. In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those
that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage
point.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare
that would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Environmental Setting
The City is primarily composed of the flat San Diego River Valley and the gently sloping areas that transition to the steeply sloped hillsides associated with major ridgeline systems. The dramatic hillsides, ridgelines, and rock outcrops form a significant design resource (City of Santee 2003).

The orientation of the San Diego River corridor creates impressive long views in Santee and to the surrounding ridgelines and mountains, such as El Capitan. The elevated western entry to the City along Mission Gorge Road also affords an opportunity for scenic views along the San Diego River corridor (City of Santee 2003). The numerous topographic features of the City and the surrounding vicinity provide distinctive views and vistas from the developed portions of the City.

Impact Analysis
a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less Than Significant Impact. Scenic vistas in Santee are identified in the Santee General Plan Community Enhancement Element, which describes several areas in and adjacent to the City that provide scenic relief and vistas and backdrops, including views of “scenic undisturbed hills and ridgelines” that surround the City, open space areas, and scenic views of the San Diego River corridor along Mission Gorge Road (City of Santee 2003). The Community Enhancement Element identifies Mission Gorge Road as a local scenic road and contains Mission Gorge Road Design Standards that establish specific design standards for properties along the Mission Gorge Road corridor. The design standards pertain to architectural theme of commercial buildings, signage,

2.4.1 Aesthetics
Less Than
Potentially | Significant with Less Than
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Significant Mitigation Significant Section 21099, would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? LJ LJ LJ b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including but L] CO | not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway?
c. Innon-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the LJ LJ LJ existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those
that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage
point.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare CJ CJ O that would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?
Environmental Setting
The City is primarily composed of the flat San Diego River Valley and the gently sloping areas that transition to the steeply sloped hillsides associated with major ridgeline systems. The dramatic hillsides, ridgelines, and rock outcrops form a significant design resource (City of Santee 2003).

The Safety-EJ Element would not specifically propose development that would inhibit existing views in Santee of surrounding scenic areas. Future development that may be facilitated under implementation of the Safety-EJ Element could include transit and utilities infrastructure construction and repairs, healthcare facilities, and recreational space/community centers (refer to Section 1.4, Proposed Element, for further discussion of the types of projects that may be facilitated under the Safety-EJ Element). Due to the conceptual nature of future development, future development proposals would require project-specific CEQA review, including an assessment of potential impacts to scenic vistas in Santee. If necessary, mitigation would be required to reduce potential project-level impacts to a less than significant level. Future development that may be facilitated under implementation of the Safety-EJ Element would be subject to existing development standards in the Santee Municipal Code, such as the Mission Gorge Road Design Standards and other applicable standards. Compliance with these standards would ensure future development does not affect scenic views of the San Diego River corridor from Mission Gorge Road or other scenic vistas in Santee. The Santee General Plan Community Enhancement Element includes a goal to beautify the City to provide an aesthetically pleasing community: “To respect and integrate the natural and man-made environments of Santee to enhance the quality of life, revitalize older neighborhoods and community places, and sustain a beautiful, distinctive and wellorganized community for our citizens” (City of Santee 2003). Therefore, compliance with applicable design standards and project-specific CEQA review would ensure that the Safety-EJ Element would result in less than significant impacts to scenic vistas. b. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Less Than Significant Impact. The entirety of SR-52 is identified as eligible for designation as a state scenic highway between I-5 and SR-67 but has not been officially designated. A portion of SR-52 is an officially designated state scenic highway due to the available scenic views toward Mission Trails Regional Park, which includes the Mission Trails Summit and Cowles Mountain.

The Safety-EJ Element would not specifically propose new development that would adversely affect (directly or indirectly) scenic resources in Santee. As described under Section 2.4.1(a), future development that may be facilitated under implementation of the Safety-EJ Element would be subject to existing development standards in the Santee Municipal Code, such as the Mission Gorge Road Design Standards and other applicable standards. Due to the conceptual nature of future development, future development proposals would require project-specific CEQA review, including an assessment of potential impacts to scenic resources in Santee. If necessary, mitigation would be required to reduce potential project-level impacts to a less than significant level.

Therefore, the Safety-EJ Element would result in less than significant impacts to scenic resources. access, and landscaping and are intended to improve the appearance and enhance the viability of commercial properties in the Mission Gorge Road corridor.

Therefore, the Safety-EJ Element would result in less than significant impacts to scenic resources.

IS/ND 13 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
IS/ND 14 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
c. Would the project, in non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? Less Than Significant Impact. The Santee General Plan Community Enhancement Element includes the objective of strengthening the gateways into the City (Objective 10.0) and maintaining and enhancing scenic views (Objective 15.0). The objectives are supported by policies to preserve the high-quality scenic viewshed visible from the western entry along Mission Gorge Road and SR-52 (Policy 10.1) and provide for the maintenance of view opportunities to surrounding hillsides by ensuring proposed structures do not significantly impact existing community-level viewsheds (Policy 15.2).

The Safety-EJ Element would not specifically propose the development of infrastructure that would degrade the visual character of the City. Due to the conceptual nature of future development, future development proposals would require project-specific CEQA review, including an assessment of potential impacts to visual character and scenic quality of the City. If necessary, mitigation would be required to reduce potential project-level impacts to a less than significant level. In addition, the Santee General Plan Land Use Element includes the objective to ensure that development in Santee is consistent with the overall community character and contributes positively toward the City’s image (Objective 11.0). The objective is supported by policies to ensure that all requirements set forth within the Community Enhancement Element are implemented during the development review process (Policy 11.1) and to maintain and update, as needed, the design standards for landscaping and site planning to provide guidelines for future developments (Policy 11.2). Future development that may be facilitated under implementation of the Safety-EJ Element would be required to comply with these policies, and project-specific CEQA review would ensure that future development would not conflict with applicable zoning or regulations that have been designed to protect scenic quality. Therefore, impactsto visual character and scenic quality of the City would be less than significant. d. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Safety-EJ Element would not specifically propose the development of infrastructure that would create a new source of light or glare or that adversely affect day or nighttime views in Santee. Future development that may be facilitated under implementation of the Safety-EJ Element would be subject to existing development standards in the Santee Municipal Code. For example, light spillover and glare are regulated by Section

13.30.030(B) of the Santee Municipal Code, which states that all lighting shall be designed and adjusted to reflect light away from any road or street and away from any adjoining premises. New sources of light or glare would be consistent with the ambient light levels from nearby sources. c. Would the project, in non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? Less Than Significant Impact. The Santee General Plan Community Enhancement Element includes the objective of strengthening the gateways into the City (Objective 10.0) and maintaining and enhancing scenic views (Objective 15.0). The objectives are supported by policies to preserve the high-quality scenic viewshed visible from the western entry along Mission Gorge Road and SR-52 (Policy 10.1) and provide for the maintenance of view opportunities to surrounding hillsides by ensuring proposed structures do not significantly impact existing community-level viewsheds (Policy 15.2).

The Safety-EJ Element would not specifically propose the development of infrastructure that would degrade the visual character of the City. Due to the conceptual nature of future development, future development proposals would require project-specific CEQA review, including an assessment of potential impacts to visual character and scenic quality of the City. If necessary, mitigation would be required to reduce potential project-level impacts to a less than significant level. In addition, the Santee General Plan Land Use Element includes the objective to ensure that development in Santee is consistent with the overall community character and contributes positively toward the City’s image (Objective 11.0). The objective is supported by policies to ensure that all requirements set forth within the Community Enhancement Element are implemented during the development review process (Policy 11.1) and to maintain and update, as needed, the design standards for landscaping and site planning to provide guidelines for future developments (Policy 11.2). Future development that may be facilitated under implementation of the Safety-EJ Element would be required to comply with these policies, and project-specific CEQA review would ensure that future development would not conflict with applicable zoning or regulations that have been designed to protect scenic quality. Therefore, impacts to visual character and scenic quality of the City would be less than significant. d. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Safety-EJ Element would not specifically propose the development of infrastructure that would create a new source of light or glare or that adversely affect day or nighttime views in Santee. Future development that may be facilitated under implementation of the Safety-EJ Element would be subject to existing development standards in the Santee Municipal Code. For example, light spillover and glare are regulated by Section

IS/ND 14 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
IS/ND 15 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
Future development proposals would require project-specific CEQA review, including an assessment of potential impacts related to light and glare. If necessary, mitigation would be required to reduce potential project-level impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, the Safety-EJ Element would result in less than significant impacts to light or glare that could affect day or nighttime views in Santee.

Future development proposals would require project-specific CEQA review, including an assessment of potential impacts related to light and glare. If necessary, mitigation would be required to reduce potential project-level impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, the Safety-EJ Element would result in less than significant impacts to light or glare that could affect day or nighttime views in Santee.

IS/ND 15 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
IS/ND 16 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources
Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by
Public Resources Code section 4526), or
timberland zoned Timberland Production (as
defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e. Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result
in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use
or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Environmental Setting
The California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program designates the majority of the City as Urban Land (not Important Farmland) (DOC 2016). No Farmlands of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmlands, or Farmlands of Local Importance occur in Santee. Further, according to the Santee General Plan Land Use Element, no agricultural land uses occur in Santee.

2.4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
In determining whether impacts to agricultural
resources are significant environmental effects, lead
agencies may refer to the California Agricultural
Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997)
prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as
an optional model to use in assessing impacts on
agriculture and farmland. In determining whether
impacts to forest resources, including timberland,
are significant environmental effects, lead agencies
may refer to information compiled by the California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
regarding the state’s inventory of forest land,
including the Forest and Range Assessment Project Less Than and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and Potentially | Significant with | Less Than forest carbon measurement methodology provided. Significant Mitigation Significant Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or | CL] CL] Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or | L] LI a Williamson Act contract?
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning LJ LJ L] of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources
Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by
Public Resources Code section 4526), or
timberland zoned Timberland Production (as
defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of L] LJ L] forest land to non-forest use?
e. Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result
in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use
or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Environmental Setting
The California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program designates the majority of the City as Urban Land (not Important Farmland) (DOC 2016). No Farmlands of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmlands, or Farmlands of Local Importance occur in Santee. Further, according to the Santee General Plan Land Use Element, no agricultural land uses occur in Santee.

IS/ND
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
16 October 2024
IS/ND 17 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
Impact Analysis
a. Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. The Safety-EJ Element does not propose specific development, but may facilitate minor development and infrastructure projects, such as transportation and utility improvements and recreational spaces/community centers (refer to Section 1.4, Proposed Element, for further discussion of the types of projects that may be facilitated under the Safety-EJ Element). Future development that may be facilitated under implementation of the Safety-EJ Element would be in areas that have been defined by the California Department of Conservation as Urban Land. The proposed Safety-EJ Element would be consistent with the existing Santee General Plan and would not identify any new land that is subject to urbanization or rezoning from agricultural use to commercial and/or residential use. As described above, no Farmlands of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmlands, or Farmlands of Local Importance exist in Santee. Therefore, future development would not result in the conversion of Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Local Importance, and Grazing to non-agricultural use, and no impact would occur.
b. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The Santee General Plan Land Use Map shows no agricultural land uses in Santee.

Therefore, the Safety-EJ Element would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. No impact would occur.
c. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
No Impact. No state forests or lands currently used for timber production or management are in Santee. Additionally, no zoning designation for timberland or forest resources exists in Santee.

Therefore, future development that may be facilitated under implementation of the Safety-EJ Element would not conflict with existing zoning or cause rezoning of forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. Therefore, no impact would occur. d. Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. As described in Section 2.4.2(c), no zoning designation for timberland or forest resources exists in Santee. Nevertheless, along the San Diego River is dedicated open space heavily vegetated with trees. Future development that may be facilitated under implementation of the Safety-EJ Element would be consistent with current zoning and land use regulations and would Impact Analysis
a. Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. The Safety-EJ Element does not propose specific development, but may facilitate minor development and infrastructure projects, such as transportation and utility improvements and recreational spaces/community centers (refer to Section 1.4, Proposed Element, for further discussion of the types of projects that may be facilitated under the Safety-EJ Element). Future development that may be facilitated under implementation of the Safety-EJ Element would be in areas that have been defined by the California Department of Conservation as Urban Land. The proposed Safety-EJ Element would be consistent with the existing Santee General Plan and would not identify any new land that is subject to urbanization or rezoning from agricultural use to commercial and/or residential use. As described above, no Farmlands of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmlands, or Farmlands of Local Importance exist in Santee. Therefore, future development would not result in the conversion of Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Local Importance, and Grazing to non-agricultural use, and no impact would occur.
b. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The Santee General Plan Land Use Map shows no agricultural land uses in Santee.

Therefore, future development that may be facilitated under implementation of the Safety-EJ Element would not conflict with existing zoning or cause rezoning of forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. Therefore, no impact would occur. d. Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. As described in Section 2.4.2(c), no zoning designation for timberland or forest resources exists in Santee. Nevertheless, along the San Diego River is dedicated open space heavily vegetated with trees. Future development that may be facilitated under implementation of the Safety-EJ Element would be consistent with current zoning and land use regulations and would IS/ND 17 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
IS/ND 18 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
not include development projects in designated open space areas of the City. As such, the proposed Safety-EJ Element would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to nonforest use. Therefore, no impact would occur. e. Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact. As described in Section 2.4.1(b), the Santee General Plan Land Use Map shows no agricultural land uses in Santee. Therefore, the Safety-EJ Element would not result in a zoning change for existing agricultural properties and would not restrict agricultural uses on these properties. Implementation of the Safety-EJ Element would not involve other changes in the existing environment that, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of forest land to non-forest use. Therefore, no impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures
The analysis completed for this section indicates that no significant impacts would result from implementation of the proposed Safety-EJ Element. As a result, no mitigation measures are required. not include development projects in designated open space areas of the City. As such, the proposed Safety-EJ Element would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to nonforest use. Therefore, no impact would occur. e. Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact. As described in Section 2.4.1(b), the Santee General Plan Land Use Map shows no agricultural land uses in Santee. Therefore, the Safety-EJ Element would not result in a zoning change for existing agricultural properties and would not restrict agricultural uses on these properties. Implementation of the Safety-EJ Element would not involve other changes in the existing environment that, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of forest land to non-forest use. Therefore, no impact would occur.

IS/ND 18 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
IS/ND 19 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element

2.4.3 Air Quality
Where available, the significance criteria
established by the applicable air quality
management district or air pollution control district
may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutant for which the project region
is non-attainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard)?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading
to odors) adversely affecting a substantial
number of people?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Environmental Setting
Southern California is characterized as a semiarid climate, although it contains three distinct zones of rainfall that coincide with the coast, mountain, and desert. The City is within the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB). The SDAB is a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west and high mountain ranges to the east. The topography in the SDAB region varies greatly, from beaches to the west, to mountains, and then desert to the east.

Regional climate and local meteorological conditions influence ambient air quality. The climate in the SDAB is largely dominated by the strength and position of the semi-permanent highpressure system over the Pacific Ocean, known as the Pacific High. This high-pressure ridge over the West Coast often creates a pattern of late night and early morning low clouds, hazy afternoon sunshine, daytime onshore breezes, and little temperature variation year-round.

The favorable climate of the SDAB also works to create air pollution problems. Sinking or subsiding air from the Pacific High Pressure Zone creates a temperature inversion, known as a “subsidence inversion,” which acts as a lid to vertical dispersion of pollutants. Weak summertime pressure gradients further limit horizontal dispersion of pollutants in the mixed layer below the subsidence inversion. The combination of poorly dispersed anthropogenic emissions and strong sunshine leads to photochemical reactions, which results in the creation of ozone (O3) at this surface layer.

Air quality is defined by ambient air concentrations of six specific pollutants identified by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency to be of concern with respect to health and welfare of the public (known as criterial pollutants). The criteria pollutants include O3, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen

2.4.3 Air Quality
Where available, the significance criteria
established by the applicable air quality Less Than
management district or air pollution control district Potentially | Significant with | Less Than may be relied upon to make the following Significant Mitigation Significant determinations. Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the CJ LJ LJ applicable air quality plan?
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase LJ CJ LI of any criteria pollutant for which the project region
is non-attainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard)?
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial CX L]
pollutant concentrations?
d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading LJ CJ LI to odors) adversely affecting a substantial
number of people?
Environmental Setting
Southern California is characterized as a semiarid climate, although it contains three distinct zones of rainfall that coincide with the coast, mountain, and desert. The City is within the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB). The SDAB is a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west and high mountain ranges to the east. The topography in the SDAB region varies greatly, from beaches to the west, to mountains, and then desert to the east.

Air quality is defined by ambient air concentrations of six specific pollutants identified by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency to be of concern with respect to health and welfare of the public (known as criterial pollutants). The criteria pollutants include O3, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen IS/ND 19 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
IS/ND 20 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
dioxide (NO2), 10-micrometer or less particulate matter (PM10), and 2.5-micrometer or less particulate matter (PM2.5), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead (Pb).

Air quality in the SDAB is regulated by the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD). The SDAPCD is the government agency that regulates sources of air pollution in San Diego County. Currently, the SDAB has a “non-attainment” status for criteria pollutants O3, PM10, and PM2.5. The SDAPCD has prepared an Attainment Plan for San Diego County (Attainment Plan), the applicable air quality plan, to provide control measures to achieve attainment status for these criteria pollutants. The Attainment Plan relies on information from the California Air Resources Board and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), including mobile and area source emissions and information regarding projecting growth in San Diego County, to project future emissions and then determine strategies necessary for the reduction of emissions through regulatory controls. The California Air Resources Board mobile source emission projections and SANDAG growth projections are based on population and vehicle trends and land use plans developed by the cities and San Diego County. Projects that propose development that are consistent with the growth anticipated by the Santee General Plan are therefore consistent with the Attainment Plan.

Proposed Policies
The following EJ policies in the Safety-EJ Element apply to air quality:

Policy 1.4: Continue to protect the air, water, soil, and biotic resources from damage by exposure to hazardous materials.

Policy 2.1: Continue to maintain or improve the current air quality level within the City of Santee’s jurisdiction.

Policy 2.2: Remove particulate matter from mobile source emissions through implementation of the Sustainable Santee Plan’s public transit, active transportation, and electrification strategies.

Policy 2.3: Seek to partner with the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District and the California Department of Transportation to establish a mitigation program, such as a roadside vegetation barrier program, to reduce the impacts of pollution, notably for homes in the disadvantaged communities bounded by Magnolia Avenue, Prospect Avenue, Cuyamaca Street, and Mission Gorge Road.

Policy 2.4: Explore creating a program to provide education on how to improve air quality for City residents impacted by air pollutants, especially those living within proximity to Gillespie Field.

Policy 2.5: Seek to partner with the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District to (1) establish a mitigation program to reduce the impact of air pollution on disadvantaged communities and (2) dioxide (NO2), 10-micrometer or less particulate matter (PM10), and 2.5-micrometer or less particulate matter (PM2.s), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead (Pb).

Air quality in the SDAB is regulated by the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD). The SDAPCD is the government agency that regulates sources of air pollution in San Diego County. Currently, the SDAB has a “non-attainment” status for criteria pollutants O03, PM1o, and PM2s5. The SDAPCD has prepared an Attainment Plan for San Diego County (Attainment Plan), the applicable air quality plan, to provide control measures to achieve attainment status for these criteria pollutants. The Attainment Plan relies on information from the California Air Resources Board and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), including mobile and area source emissions and information regarding projecting growth in San Diego County, to project future emissions and then determine strategies necessary for the reduction of emissions through regulatory controls. The California Air Resources Board mobile source emission projections and SANDAG growth projections are based on population and vehicle trends and land use plans developed by the cities and San Diego County. Projects that propose development that are consistent with the growth anticipated by the Santee General Plan are therefore consistent with the Attainment Plan.

Proposed Policies
The following EJ policies in the Safety-EJ Element apply to air quality:

Policy 1.4: Continue to protect the air, water, soil, and biotic resources from damage by exposure to hazardous materials.

Policy 2.1: Continue to maintain or improve the current air quality level within the City of Santee’s jurisdiction.

Policy 2.2: Remove particulate matter from mobile source emissions through implementation of the Sustainable Santee Plan’s public transit, active transportation, and electrification strategies.

Policy 2.4: Explore creating a program to provide education on how to improve air quality for City residents impacted by air pollutants, especially those living within proximity to Gillespie Field.

Policy 2.5: Seek to partner with the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District to (1) establish a mitigation program to reduce the impact of air pollution on disadvantaged communities and (2) IS/ND 20 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
IS/ND 21 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
create targeted permit inspection programs in disadvantaged communities to help ensure enforcement of air quality permits.

Policy 2.6: Create land use patterns that encourage people to bicycle, walk, or use public transit to reduce emissions from mobile sources, such as plans that (1) require vegetative barriers to be included in industrial developments near residential areas in Santee and/or (2) improve tree canopy and promote green infrastructure development in disadvantaged communities, particularly the neighborhoods that do not already have access to green space.

Policy 2.7: Encourage stronger pollution controls at facilities in/near disadvantaged communities, especially the neighborhoods around Magnolia Avenue, Prospect Avenue, Cuyamaca Street, and Mission Gorge Road.

Impact Analysis
a. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less Than Significant Impact. The Safety-EJ Element does not propose specific development that could conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Attainment Plan. Instead, the Safety-EJ Element would identify policies that could be implemented to mitigate the current levels of air pollution in Santee. For example, the proposed Safety-EJ Element would incorporate the following new policies, which would improve air quality in Santee:

Policy 2.2: Remove particulate matter from mobile source emissions through implementation of the Sustainable Santee Plan’s public transit, active transportation, and electrification strategies.

Policy 5.3: Encourage ridesharing and the use of transit and other transportation systems management programs to reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled and traffic congestion.

Policy 5.4: Preclude through-city truck traffic on local roadways and limit truck routes through Santee to principal and major arterial roadways.

Policy 11.2: Continue expedited review of building permits for solar equipment and electric vehicle charging stations.

Policy 2.2: Remove particulate matter from mobile source emissions through implementation of the Sustainable Santee Plan’s public transit, active transportation, and electrification strategies.

Policy 5.3: Encourage ridesharing and the use of transit and other transportation systems management programs to reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled and traffic congestion.

Policy 5.4: Preclude through-city truck traffic on local roadways and limit truck routes through Santee to principal and major arterial roadways.

Policy 11.2: Continue expedited review of building permits for solar equipment and electric vehicle charging stations.

While the Safety-EJ Element does not propose specific development, it may facilitate minor development and infrastructure projects, such as transportation and utility improvements, healthcare facilities, and recreational spaces/community centers (refer to Section 1.4, Proposed Element, for further discussion of the types of projects that may be facilitated under the Safety-EJ Element). For specific future development projects, consistency with the Attainment Plan would be assessed during project-specific CEQA review at the time the individual projects are proposed, and mitigation measures would be applied as necessary in conformance with CEQA. Therefore, IS/ND 21 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
IS/ND 22 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
the Safety-EJ Element would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of applicable air quality plans, and impacts would be less than significant.
b. Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard)?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Safety-EJ Element does not propose specific development that could result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which San Diego County is non-attainment. Instead, the Safety-EJ Element would identify policies that could be implemented to mitigate the current levels of air pollution in Santee. Construction and operational emissions of future development projects would be estimated during projects-specific CEQA review and compared against the SDAPCD’s screening-level thresholds. Mitigation measures would be applied as necessary in conformance with CEQA. Further, implementation of the proposed SafetyEJ Element would include several new policies that would improve air quality in Santee (e.g., Policies 5.3, 5.4, and 11.2 listed above). Therefore, the Safety-EJ Element would not result in a cumulatively net increase of any criteria pollutant, and impacts would be less than significant. c. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact. The Safety-EJ Element would not identify or approve specific development projects that could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

However, future development that may be facilitated under implementation of the Safety-EJ Element would result in short-term construction emissions, such as dust (i.e., particulate matter) generated by clearing and grading activities, exhaust from gas- and diesel-powered construction equipment, and vehicular emissions associated with construction worker commutes. All future development that may be facilitated under implementation of the Safety-EJ Element would require project-specific CEQA review, including an assessment of criteria pollutant emissions associated with construction and operation of the individual development project. Potential air quality-related impacts would be location-specific and cannot be assessed in a meaningful way until the nature of the individual project and location of the project site are known. The individual development project would be subject to SDAPCD rules and regulations, and any impacts identified with the development project would be addressed through mitigation measures specific to the impact.

Short-term construction and long-term operational air emissions would be subject to the screeninglevel thresholds set forth in the San Diego County’s CEQA Guidelines. In addition, the Safety-EJ Element would contain policies that would maintain or improve air quality through reducing vehicle traffic congestion (Policy 5.3), reducing particulate matter (Policy 2.2), and encouraging EV use (Policy 11.2). Therefore, impacts related to exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations would be less than significant. the Safety-EJ Element would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of applicable air quality plans, and impacts would be less than significant.
b. Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard)?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Safety-EJ Element does not propose specific development that could result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which San Diego County is non-attainment. Instead, the Safety-EJ Element would identify policies that could be implemented to mitigate the current levels of air pollution in Santee. Construction and operational emissions of future development projects would be estimated during projects-specific CEQA review and compared against the SDAPCD’s screening-level thresholds. Mitigation measures would be applied as necessary in conformance with CEQA. Further, implementation of the proposed SafetyEJ Element would include several new policies that would improve air quality in Santee (e.g., Policies 5.3, 5.4, and 11.2 listed above). Therefore, the Safety-EJ Element would not result in a cumulatively net increase of any criteria pollutant, and impacts would be less than significant. c. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact. The Safety-EJ Element would not identify or approve specific development projects that could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

IS/ND 22 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
IS/ND 23 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
d. Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less Than Significant Impact. Odors are one of the most obvious forms of air pollution to the public. The California Air Resources Board’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook includes a list of the most common sources of odor complaints received by local air districts. Although offensive odors seldom cause physical harm, they can be a nuisance. Typical sources of odor complaints include facilities such as sewage treatment plants, landfills, recycling facilities, petroleum refineries, and livestock operations.

The Safety-EJ Element does not propose specific development projects. However, construction associated with future development that may be facilitated under implementation of the Safety-EJ Element could result in, for example, minor amounts of odor compounds associated with diesel heavy equipment exhaust. Construction would not take place all at once and would occur at various locations throughout the City. Any operations near existing receptors would be temporary; therefore, impacts associated with odors during construction and operation of new development would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
The analysis completed for this section indicates that no significant impacts would result from implementation of the proposed Safety-EJ Element. As a result, no mitigation measures are required. d. Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less Than Significant Impact. Odors are one of the most obvious forms of air pollution to the public. The California Air Resources Board’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook includes a list of the most common sources of odor complaints received by local air districts. Although offensive odors seldom cause physical harm, they can be a nuisance. Typical sources of odor complaints include facilities such as sewage treatment plants, landfills, recycling facilities, petroleum refineries, and livestock operations.

IS/ND 23 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
IS/ND 24 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element

2.4.4 Biological Resources
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly
or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans, policies,
or regulations, or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e. Conflict with any applicable policies protecting
biological resources?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other applicable habitat
conservation plan?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Environmental Setting
According to the Santee General Plan Conservation Element, the regionally important biological resources that occur in Santee include the coastal sage scrub- and chaparral-covered hills north and south of the City and the riparian corridor along the San Diego River (City of Santee 2003).

The City contains numerous wildlife species that are defined as “sensitive” species, meaning listed as rare, endangered, threatened, of “special concern,” or otherwise noteworthy by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the California Native Plant Society, or other conservation agencies, organizations, or local botanists (City of Santee 2003).

2.4.4 Biological Resources
Less Than
Potentially | Significant with | Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly CO CO CJ or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans, policies,
or regulations, or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian LJ CJ LI habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or LJ CJ LI federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any LJ CJ L] native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
e. Conflict with any applicable policies protecting
biological resources?
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other applicable habitat
conservation plan?
Environmental Setting
According to the Santee General Plan Conservation Element, the regionally important biological resources that occur in Santee include the coastal sage scrub- and chaparral-covered hills north and south of the City and the riparian corridor along the San Diego River (City of Santee 2003).

Chaparral and coastal sage scrub communities occur throughout the City on undeveloped hillside areas in the North Magnolia area, Rattlesnake Mountain, and in the southwestern quadrant of the City, south of Prospect Avenue and Rancho Fanita Drive. These communities also provide IS/ND 24 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
IS/ND 25 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
valuable wildlife habitat for a diverse group of species, including protected species like the California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica) and the San Diego banded gecko (Coleonyx variegatus abbotti) (City of Santee 2003).

Sensitive plants in the region include the San Diego County viguiera (Viguiera laciniata), San Diego ambrosia (Ambrosia pumila), San Diego thorn mint (Acanthomintha ilicifolia), San Diego sagewort (Artemisia palmeri), Orcutt’s brodiaea (Brodiaea orcuttii), long-spined spineflower (Chorizanthe polygonoides var. longispina), Palmer’s grapplinghook (Harpagonella palmeri), and others.

Sensitive animals in the region include the San Diego coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma coronatum blainvillei), coastal western whiptail (Cnemidophorus tigris multiscutatus), desert woodrat (Neotoma lepida), loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), and several other wide-ranging species, including various native bats (City of Santee 2003).

The City participates in the San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) under the Natural Communities Conservation Planning Program and has prepared a MSCP Subarea Plan (City of Santee 2006). The MSCP is a multi-jurisdictional program that provides a regional conservation solution to species and habitat issues that have historically presented roadblocks to land and infrastructure development. The Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan represents its contribution to the MSCP and to the regional Natural Communities Conservation Planning (California Natural Community Conservation Planning) conservation goals. The implementation of the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan also contributes to the recovery of listed species due in part to the coordination of key biological areas, including biological cores and habitat linkages and to the proactive habitat management actions. The Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan addresses the need for broad-based planning to accommodate the conflicting demands for wildlife conservation and urban development while contributing to the recovery of a species and their habitat.

Proposed Policies
The following Safety policies in the Safety-EJ Element apply to biological resources:

Policy 13.1: Continue to encourage the implementation of low-impact development (e.g., rain gardens, rainwater harvesting, green roofs) to reduce flooding.

Policy 13.2: Continue to promote the application of nature-based solutions (e.g., greenways, tree trenches) to improve resilience and preserve biodiversity.

Policy 13.3: Continue to encourage the use of climate-smart landscaped surfaces (e.g., permeable pavement, stormwater parks, green streets) in new and existing development.

The following EJ policies in the Safety-EJ Element apply to biological resources:

Policy 1.1: Continue to protect natural resources from pollution, such as trash and debris in creeks, rivers, and storm drainage areas, especially in areas where transient populations are prevalent. valuable wildlife habitat for a diverse group of species, including protected species like the California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica) and the San Diego banded gecko (Coleonyx variegatus abbotti) (City of Santee 2003).

Proposed Policies
The following Safety policies in the Safety-EJ Element apply to biological resources:

Policy 13.1: Continue to encourage the implementation of low-impact development (e.g., rain gardens, rainwater harvesting, green roofs) to reduce flooding.

Policy 13.2: Continue to promote the application of nature-based solutions (e.g., greenways, tree trenches) to improve resilience and preserve biodiversity.

Policy 13.3: Continue to encourage the use of climate-smart landscaped surfaces (e.g., permeable pavement, stormwater parks, green streets) in new and existing development.

The following EJ policies in the Safety-EJ Element apply to biological resources:

Policy 1.1: Continue to protect natural resources from pollution, such as trash and debris in creeks, rivers, and storm drainage areas, especially in areas where transient populations are prevalent.

IS/ND 25 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
IS/ND 26 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
Policy 1.2: Increase maintenance of public spaces, such as parks and trails, to protect natural resources from pollution.

Policy 1.3: Continue to reduce the potential danger related to the use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials to an acceptable level of risk.

Policy 1.4: Continue to protect the air, water, soil, and biotic resources from damage by exposure to hazardous materials.

Policy 8.1: Consider creating an environmental education program that will include the following to encourage the appreciation of Santee’s natural resources:
• Development of trails, interpretive signs, and overlooks at public parks adjacent to sensitive environments
• Encouragement of private environmental organizations to sponsor wetlands enhancement programs and to provide docents for wetlands tours • Coordination with school districts to use specified areas as outdoor learning laboratories
Policy 8.2: Consider developing and implementing a Green Infrastructure Plan, including a combination of stormwater features, habitat, trees, and other greenery.

Policy 8.3: Identify strategies for grassroots implementation of green infrastructure and restoration by Santee residents, such as through the promotion of eco-literacy with a focus on urban gardening.

Policy 14.8: Implement green infrastructure projects, including tree planting in disadvantaged communities, through implementation of a Green Infrastructure Plan through implementation of the Sustainable Santee Plan, Urban Forestry Plan, and private development proposals.

Policy 14.9: Integrate the natural and human-made landscapes of Santee to enhance the quality of life, revitalize older neighborhoods and community places, and sustain a beautiful, distinctive, and well-organized community for Santee residents.

Policy 1.3: Continue to reduce the potential danger related to the use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials to an acceptable level of risk.

Policy 1.4: Continue to protect the air, water, soil, and biotic resources from damage by exposure to hazardous materials.

Policy 8.1: Consider creating an environmental education program that will include the following to encourage the appreciation of Santee’s natural resources:
e Development of trails, interpretive signs, and overlooks at public parks adjacent to sensitive environments
e Encouragement of private environmental organizations to sponsor wetlands enhancement programs and to provide docents for wetlands tours e Coordination with school districts to use specified areas as outdoor learning laboratories
Policy 8.2: Consider developing and implementing a Green Infrastructure Plan, including a combination of stormwater features, habitat, trees, and other greenery.

Impact Analysis
a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Santee General Plan Conservation Element includes policies designed to promote the preservation of natural communities that support rare, threatened, and/or endangered species. Specifically, Conservation Element Policy 10.1 addresses the importance of preserving significant natural resources (e.g., biological resources) in Santee: “The City should IS/ND 26 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
IS/ND 27 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
encourage the conservation of rare or unique plants and wildlife by identifying such resources through the environmental review process and by using open space preservation, where appropriate, to preserve the resources as a condition of a project approval, consistent with the City’s future Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan” (City of Santee 2003).

Implementation of the Safety-EJ Element may facilitate minor development and infrastructure projects that could directly and indirectly affect sensitive and special-status plant and wildlife species, such as drainage and flood control improvements and development of parks and recreational facilities (refer to Section 1.4, Proposed Element, for further discussion of the types of projects that may be facilitated under the Safety-EJ Element). Given the programmatic nature of the Safety-EJ Element, specific development projects are unknown at this time. Future development that may be facilitated under implementation of the Safety-EJ Element would require subsequent project-specific CEQA review to identify the potential for significant impacts to sensitive species. However, the Safety-EJ Element is a policy document that includes goals, objectives, and policies for the enhancement of public safety and environmental justice in the City and does not propose any specific development projects. Therefore, the Safety-EJ Element would not directly result in the development of new infrastructure or facilities.

The City, through its CEQA compliance program, requires that new development projects in undeveloped areas prepare an assessment of biological habitat and potential impacts to sensitive species. Future projects would be required to comply with federal, state, and local regulations in place to protect special-status species. With implementation of project-specific CEQA review and compliance with federal, state, and local regulations protecting special-status species, impacts to candidate, sensitive, or special-status species would be less than significant. b. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Significant Impact. The Santee General Plan Conservation Element includes policies designed to promote the preservation of natural communities. Conservation Element Policy 2.1 intends to protect “the San Diego River Corridor and all other City water corridors to reduce flood hazards, protect significant biological resources and scenic values, and to provide for appropriate recreational uses” (City of Santee 2003).

Implementation of the Safety-EJ Element may facilitate minor development and infrastructure projects that could directly and indirectly affect riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities as identified by state and federal agencies, such as drainage and flood control improvements and development of parks and recreational facilities (refer to Section 1.4, Proposed Element, for further discussion of the types of projects that may be facilitated under the Safety-EJ Element). Currently, specific development projects are unknown. The Safety-EJ Element is a encourage the conservation of rare or unique plants and wildlife by identifying such resources through the environmental review process and by using open space preservation, where appropriate, to preserve the resources as a condition of a project approval, consistent with the City’s future Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan” (City of Santee 2003).

Implementation of the Safety-EJ Element may facilitate minor development and infrastructure projects that could directly and indirectly affect riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities as identified by state and federal agencies, such as drainage and flood control improvements and development of parks and recreational facilities (refer to Section 1.4, Proposed Element, for further discussion of the types of projects that may be facilitated under the Safety-EJ Element). Currently, specific development projects are unknown. The Safety-EJ Element is a IS/ND 27 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
IS/ND 28 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
policy document that includes goals, objectives, and policies for the enhancement of public safety and environmental justice in the City and does not propose any specific development projects.

Therefore, the Safety-EJ Element would not directly result in the development of new infrastructure or facilities.

Future development that may be facilitated under implementation of the Safety-EJ Element would require subsequent project-specific CEQA review to identify the potential for significant impacts to sensitive species. Further, the City, through its CEQA compliance program, requires that new development projects in undeveloped areas prepare an assessment of biological habitat, including riparian habitat and other sensitive natural communities. Future projects would be required to comply with federal, state, and local regulations in place to protect riparian habitat and sensitive natural communities. With implementation of project-specific CEQA review and compliance with federal, state, and local regulations, impacts to riparian habitats and other sensitive natural communities would be less than significant.
c. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Less Than Significant Impact. Isolated wetlands that may be under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which regulates compliance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), are supported in Santee. Construction associated with future development that may be facilitated under implementation of the Safety-EJ Element may directly or indirectly affect such wetlands.

Given the programmatic nature of the Safety-EJ Element, specific development projects are unknown at this time. Future development that may be facilitated under implementation of the Safety-EJ Element would require subsequent project-specific CEQA review to identify the potential for significant impacts to federally protected wetlands. Any potential impacts to these resources from future projects would require consultation with and permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Therefore, impacts to jurisdictional aquatic resources would be less than significant.

EJ Policy 8.1 encourages an environmental education program that includes wetlands enhancement programs with guided wetland tours. Additionally, Safety Policies 1.1 through 1.9 discourage development within the floodplain, which may include some wetlands areas. d. Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the Safety-EJ Element may facilitate minor development and infrastructure projects, such as drainage and flood control improvements and development of parks and recreational facilities, that may adversely affect the ability of wildlife to policy document that includes goals, objectives, and policies for the enhancement of public safety and environmental justice in the City and does not propose any specific development projects.

Therefore, the Safety-EJ Element would not directly result in the development of new infrastructure or facilities.

Future development that may be facilitated under implementation of the Safety-EJ Element would require subsequent project-specific CEQA review to identify the potential for significant impacts to sensitive species. Further, the City, through its CEQA compliance program, requires that new development projects in undeveloped areas prepare an assessment of biological habitat, including riparian habitat and other sensitive natural communities. Future projects would be required to comply with federal, state, and local regulations in place to protect riparian habitat and sensitive natural communities. With implementation of project-specific CEQA review and compliance with federal, state, and local regulations, impacts to riparian habitats and other sensitive natural communities would be less than significant.
c. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Less Than Significant Impact. Isolated wetlands that may be under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which regulates compliance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), are supported in Santee. Construction associated with future development that may be facilitated under implementation of the Safety-EJ Element may directly or indirectly affect such wetlands.

Therefore, impacts to jurisdictional aquatic resources would be less than significant.

EJ Policy 8.1 encourages an environmental education program that includes wetlands enhancement programs with guided wetland tours. Additionally, Safety Policies 1.1 through 1.9 discourage development within the floodplain, which may include some wetlands areas. d. Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the Safety-EJ Element may facilitate minor development and infrastructure projects, such as drainage and flood control improvements and development of parks and recreational facilities, that may adversely affect the ability of wildlife to IS/ND 28 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
IS/ND 29 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
move through the City and cause habitat fragmentation (refer to Section 1.4, Proposed Element, for further discussion of the types of projects that may be facilitated under the Safety-EJ Element).

The Santee General Plan Conservation Element addresses the need to ensure that individual projects comply with federal and state laws protecting sensitive plant and wildlife species: “The City shall require that all development proposals provide appropriate mitigation for identified significant biological resources including selective preservation, sensitive site planning techniques and in-kind mitigation for identified impact” (Policy 7.2) (City of Santee 2003).

Future development that may be facilitated under implementation of the Safety-EJ Element would require subsequent project-specific CEQA review to identify the potential for significant impacts to wildlife movement. In areas so designated by the regulatory agencies, appropriate surveys shall be conducted at the times of year necessary to detect sensitive species for which potentially suitable habitat exists on a given site, and appropriate mitigation shall be applied. Future projects would be required to comply with these goals and policies, as well as federal, state, and local regulations in place, to protect species movement. Further, the Safety-EJ Element is a policy document intended to enhance public safety and environmental justice in the City and does not propose any specific development. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. e. Would the project conflict with any applicable policies protecting biological resources? Less Than Significant Impact. Future projects in Santee would be required to comply with policies protecting biological resources identified in the Santee General Plan Conservation Element. Any future development that may be facilitated under implementation of the Safety-EJ Element would be subject to applicable federal, state, and local policies protecting biological resources. Santee’s defensible space requirement is a 100-foot minimum for fuel modification between structures and wildland areas in accordance with the California Fire Code and City of Santee Fire Code Amendments. Policy 12.1 of the Safety-EJ Element states: “Continue to require fire prevention planning and defensible space in all new development within Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones or wildland-urban interface.” Additionally, Santee Municipal Code Section 8.06 (Urban Forestry Ordinance) prohibit arbitrarily removing trees. Therefore, the Safety-EJ Element would not conflict with Santee Municipal Code Section 8.06 since tree removal for public safety would not be arbitrary and is in compliance with the California Fire Code and City of Santee Fire Code Amendments. In cases where the potential for adverse impacts to biological resources may occur, individual projects would require consultation and applicable permits with the appropriate regulatory agencies. Project-specific CEQA review would ensure that no significant adverse impacts to biological resources would occur. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. move through the City and cause habitat fragmentation (refer to Section 1.4, Proposed Element, for further discussion of the types of projects that may be facilitated under the Safety-EJ Element).

Future development that may be facilitated under implementation of the Safety-EJ Element would require subsequent project-specific CEQA review to identify the potential for significant impacts to wildlife movement. In areas so designated by the regulatory agencies, appropriate surveys shall be conducted at the times of year necessary to detect sensitive species for which potentially suitable habitat exists on a given site, and appropriate mitigation shall be applied. Future projects would be required to comply with these goals and policies, as well as federal, state, and local regulations in place, to protect species movement. Further, the Safety-EJ Element is a policy document intended to enhance public safety and environmental justice in the City and does not propose any specific development. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. e. Would the project conflict with any applicable policies protecting biological resources? Less Than Significant Impact. Future projects in Santee would be required to comply with policies protecting biological resources identified in the Santee General Plan Conservation Element. Any future development that may be facilitated under implementation of the Safety-EJ Element would be subject to applicable federal, state, and local policies protecting biological resources. Santee’s defensible space requirement is a 100-foot minimum for fuel modification between structures and wildland areas in accordance with the California Fire Code and City of Santee Fire Code Amendments. Policy 12.1 of the Safety-EJ Element states: “Continue to require fire prevention planning and defensible space in all new development within Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones or wildland-urban interface.” Additionally, Santee Municipal Code Section 8.06 (Urban Forestry Ordinance) prohibit arbitrarily removing trees. Therefore, the Safety-EJ Element would not conflict with Santee Municipal Code Section 8.06 since tree removal for public safety would not be arbitrary and is in compliance with the California Fire Code and City of Santee Fire Code Amendments. In cases where the potential for adverse impacts to biological resources may occur, individual projects would require consultation and applicable permits with the appropriate regulatory agencies. Project-specific CEQA review would ensure that no significant adverse impacts to biological resources would occur. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

IS/ND 29 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
IS/ND 30 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
f. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other applicable habitat conservation plan? Less Than Significant Impact. The City is subject to the San Diego MSCP under the Natural Communities Conservation Planning Program and prepared a Draft MSCP Subarea Plan (City of Santee 2018). Future development that may be facilitated under implementation of the Safety-EJ Element would be subject to the San Diego MSCP and the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan.

Future housing that may be facilitated under implementation of the Safety-EJ Element could result in impacts to or inconsistencies with the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan. Future development would require subsequent CEQA review to identify the potential for conflict with the provisions of the San Diego MSCP and the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan. Therefore, implementation of the Safety-EJ Element would not conflict with provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Communities Conservation Plan, or any other applicable Habitat Conservation Plan, and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
The analysis completed for this section indicates that no significant impacts would result from implementation of the proposed Safety-EJ Element. As a result, no mitigation measures are required. f. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other applicable habitat conservation plan? Less Than Significant Impact. The City is subject to the San Diego MSCP under the Natural Communities Conservation Planning Program and prepared a Draft MSCP Subarea Plan (City of Santee 2018). Future development that may be facilitated under implementation of the Safety-EJ Element would be subject to the San Diego MSCP and the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan.

IS/ND 30 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
IS/ND 31 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element

2.4.5 Cultural Resources
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to
Section 15064.5?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant
to Section 15064.5?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c. Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Environmental Setting
Cultural resources are defined as those environmental components that are fragile and nonrenewable evidence of human activity as reflected in districts, sites, structures, artifacts, works of art, and natural features that were of importance in human events, which in Santee, primarily consist of archaeological sites, features, and structures ranging from early prehistoric to recent historic age.

Prehistoric Resources
The City is in the San Diego River Valley, which has been a prime location of human occupation since Native American hunter-gatherers first arrived in the San Diego County region. Climatic conditions are known to have fluctuated during the prehistoric period; however, the valley would have remained an important environment, providing both a reliable water supply and abundant fauna and floral resources. The settlement of this rich environment was both extensive in its range from the coast to the mountains and intensive in its relative density of sites (City of Santee 2003).

As of 2003, based on a review of official records, 65 recorded cultural sites exist within Santee’s limits. The majority (60) of the cultural resources in Santee are prehistoric sites, with one that has both a prehistoric and a historic component. Prehistoric sites in the area tend to be characterized by diversity in the archaeological assemblage including bedrock milling stations, artifact scatters, and midden soils varying in size from small, temporary encampments to large, complex habitation areas. This is evidenced by the fact that only 20 sites are defined by only a lithic artifact scatter (City of Santee 2003).

2.4.5 Cultural Resources
Less Than
Potentially | Significant with | Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the L] | |
significance of a historical resource pursuant to
Section 15064.5?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the CJ LC] LJ
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant
to Section 15064.5?
c. Disturb any human remains, including those CJ LC] LJ interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
Environmental Setting
Cultural resources are defined as those environmental components that are fragile and nonrenewable evidence of human activity as reflected in districts, sites, structures, artifacts, works of art, and natural features that were of importance in human events, which in Santee, primarily consist of archaeological sites, features, and structures ranging from early prehistoric to recent historic age.

Most are late prehistoric in age though a few may relate to the Early Archaic and Paleo-Indian cultural traditions. The late prehistoric sites may be affiliated with the Kumeyaay people that inhabited the area at the time of Euro-American contact (see Section 2.4.18, Tribal Cultural Resources). Fifteen prehistoric sites have been evaluated for eligibility to the California Register IS/ND 31 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
IS/ND 32 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
of Historic Resources (CRHR) or National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Six of these were determined eligible for listing, and nine were determined ineligible. Human remains are known to occur on one site, which was evaluated and determined eligible for listing in the NRHP (City of Santee 2003).

Historic Resources
Whereas those cultural resources related to Native American occupation are classified as prehistoric, those related to Euro-American presence in the region are defined as historic resources.

In San Diego, the historic period begins with establishment of the first mission in Alta, California, by Father Junípero Serra in 1769. Lasting until about 1824, this first phase of historic occupation has been designated the Spanish missionization and early agricultural development period.

Following this, other phases are delineated: the Mexican land grant distribution (1824–1920) and, finally, the Modern Period (1920–present) (City of Santee 2003).

Five historic sites have been recorded in Santee and represent less than 10 percent of the total cultural resource inventory in Santee. One of these, SDI-5535/H, is a historic trash scatter that also contains a prehistoric component. Two of the sites date to the early 1930s and were recorded during a survey for SR-52. They include a historic trash site near Cuyamaca Street and Mission Gorge Road and a Depression-era agricultural complex in the eastern part of the City near Woodside Avenue. Another site is the Edgemoor Farm Polo Barn within the vicinity of Mission Gorge Road and Magnolia Avenue, an area that may contain numerous historic archaeological remains. The fifth site is a historic trash scatter that has not been assessed. Only SDI-5535/H has been evaluated for NRHP listing and was subsequently determined to be ineligible (City of Santee 2003).

Historic Structures
The City has one structure that is listed on the NRHP: the Edgemoor Farm Dairy Barn, or Polo Barn. Located on the Edgemoor Hospital Grounds on Magnolia Avenue, the barn was built in 1913 by Walter H. Dupee to house his prize cattle and champion polo ponies. The barn was added to the NRHP in 1985. The City also has one officially registered Local Historic Landmark, the James Love House, or Granite House. The Granite House is on the City’s maintenance yard property on Hazeldon Drive, just south of Forester Creek. The Granite House was built in 1934 of granite quarried from the Coyote Hill quarry, which is now the site of the Cameron’s Mobile Estates Mobilehome Park. The house was officially recognized by the City as a Local Historic Landmark in May 1995. However, the structure does not qualify for listing in the NRHP and was relocated due to construction of SR-52 (City of Santee 2003).

Resource Evaluation
Most of the City is either urbanized and, therefore, of low probability for significant cultural resources or has been subjected to surveys within the last decade resulting in complete resource of Historic Resources (CRHR) or National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Six of these were determined eligible for listing, and nine were determined ineligible. Human remains are known to occur on one site, which was evaluated and determined eligible for listing in the NRHP (City of Santee 2003).

In San Diego, the historic period begins with establishment of the first mission in Alta, California, by Father Junipero Serra in 1769. Lasting until about 1824, this first phase of historic occupation has been designated the Spanish missionization and early agricultural development period.

Following this, other phases are delineated: the Mexican land grant distribution (1824—1920) and, finally, the Modern Period (1920—present) (City of Santee 2003).

Resource Evaluation
Most of the City is either urbanized and, therefore, of low probability for significant cultural resources or has been subjected to surveys within the last decade resulting in complete resource IS/ND 32 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
IS/ND 33 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
inventories. As such, the potential for unexamined areas with significant and CRHR-eligible historic properties (sites) is fairly low. Areas of the City with low cultural resource sensitivity consist of the developed areas and sloping terrain, while areas with cultural resource sensitivity moderate include two pockets of land in the northern area of the City and the San Diego River plain itself, where there is the potential for buried archaeological sites (City of Santee 2003).

Since a few areas remain that have not been surveyed, additional sites can be anticipated, especially buried sites along the San Diego River. This area is delineated as being of moderate potential for CRHR- and NRHP-eligible archaeological deposits that may be encountered during constructionrelated excavations exceeding a meter in depth. Three areas of the City are either regions of known significant resources or lands of projected resource potential—the San Diego River corridor, Sycamore Canyon, and North Magnolia Avenue (see Section 4.3 of the Santee General Plan Conservation Element for more detailed discussion of the resource potential is these areas) (City of Santee 2003).

Impact Analysis
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Less Than Significant Impact. Previously unrecorded and recorded built environment resources are in Santee. The Safety-EJ Element is intended to enhance public safety and environmental justice in the City. The Safety-EJ Element does not propose specific development, but may facilitate minor development and infrastructure projects, such as utility improvements, healthcare facilities, and housing repairs (refer to Section 1.4, Proposed Element, for further discussion of the types of projects that may be facilitated under the Safety-EJ Element). Therefore, implementation of the Safety-EJ Element may have the potential to result in impacts to and removal of historical resources in Santee; for example, to ensure that residences and services in Santee have adequate capacity to address increased needs due to climate change-related impacts and other hazardous events. Future development that may be facilitated under implementation of the Safety-EJ Element would require subsequent project-specific CEQA review to identify the potential for significant impacts to historical resources. Additionally, the Santee General Plan Conservation Element requires 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 CEQA (Policy 8.1). Preservation may include various measures, including avoidance, preservation in place, incorporation into open space, or covering or capping. The type of preservation would depend on the nature and significance of the archaeological resource and the practical requirements of the proposed land use.

Future development that may be facilitated under implementation of the Safety-EJ Element would be required to comply with applicable policies to protect historical resources. Therefore, impacts to historical resources would be less than significant. inventories. As such, the potential for unexamined areas with significant and CRHR-eligible historic properties (sites) is fairly low. Areas of the City with low cultural resource sensitivity consist of the developed areas and sloping terrain, while areas with cultural resource sensitivity moderate include two pockets of land in the northern area of the City and the San Diego River plain itself, where there is the potential for buried archaeological sites (City of Santee 2003).

IS/ND 33 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
IS/ND 34 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Less Than Significant Impact. As described in Section 2.4.5(a), implementation of the Safety-EJ Element may have the potential to result in removal of cultural resources in Santee; however, the Safety-EJ Element does not propose specific development. Future development that may be facilitated under implementation of the Safety-EJ Element would require subsequent projectspecific CEQA review to identify the potential for significant impacts to archaeological resources.

Additionally, the Santee General Plan Conservation Element requires curation of any recovered artifacts as a condition of any cultural resources mitigation program (Policy 8.1).

Development that is proposed on known sensitive sites or sites that are discovered to be sensitive require a reconnaissance survey to determine the likelihood of discovering resources during construction. If cultural resources, including archaeological resources, are encountered during construction, developers would be required to cease work and retain a qualified archaeologist to evaluate and conserve the resource(s). Future projects facilitated under implementation of the Safety-EJ Element would be required to comply with applicable federal, state, and local policies to protect archaeological resources. Therefore, impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant.
c. Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
Less Than Significant Impact. Future development consistent with the Safety-EJ Element has the potential to encounter previously buried known and unknown resources. However, the Safety-EJ Element does not propose specific development. Future projects that may be facilitated under implementation of the Safety-EJ Element would require subsequent project-specific CEQA review to identify the potential for significant impacts to archaeological resources, including human remains.

Additionally, Objective 8 of the Santee General Plan Conservation Element outlines policies that strive to preserve cultural resources, which include human remains, in Santee. Policy 8.1 requires projects to determine the presence and absence of and consider impacts to cultural resources during project review. Policy 8.1 also provides examples of the measures that would be implemented to allow for the preservation of significant cultural resources. Furthermore, if human remains are encountered during project construction, the California Health and Safety Code and CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5, require that work in the immediate area must halt and that the remains must be protected. The County Coroner and the Native American Heritage Commission shall be notified immediately, if applicable, per Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code and Section 7050.5 of California Health and Safety Code. The responsibilities for acting on notification of a discovery of Native American human remains are identified in California Public Resources Code, Section 5097.94. Future projects facilitated under implementation of the Safetyb. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Less Than Significant Impact. As described in Section 2.4.5(a), implementation of the Safety-EJ Element may have the potential to result in removal of cultural resources in Santee; however, the Safety-EJ Element does not propose specific development. Future development that may be facilitated under implementation of the Safety-EJ Element would require subsequent projectspecific CEQA review to identify the potential for significant impacts to archaeological resources.

Additionally, the Santee General Plan Conservation Element requires curation of any recovered artifacts as a condition of any cultural resources mitigation program (Policy 8.1).

Additionally, Objective 8 of the Santee General Plan Conservation Element outlines policies that strive to preserve cultural resources, which include human remains, in Santee. Policy 8.1 requires projects to determine the presence and absence of and consider impacts to cultural resources during project review. Policy 8.1 also provides examples of the measures that would be implemented to allow for the preservation of significant cultural resources. Furthermore, if human remains are encountered during project construction, the California Health and Safety Code and CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5, require that work in the immediate area must halt and that the remains must be protected. The County Coroner and the Native American Heritage Commission shall be notified immediately, if applicable, per Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code and Section 7050.5 of California Health and Safety Code. The responsibilities for acting on notification of a discovery of Native American human remains are identified in California Public Resources Code, Section 5097.94. Future projects facilitated under implementation of the SafetyIS/ND 34 October 2024 City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
IS/ND 35 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
EJ Element would be required to comply with federal, state, and local regulations in place to protect human remains. Therefore, impacts to human remains would be less than significant.

EJ Element would be required to comply with federal, state, and local regulations in place to protect human remains. Therefore, impacts to human remains would be less than significant.

IS/ND 35 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
IS/ND 36 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element

2.4.6 Energy
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Environmental Setting
The California Building Code (CBC) contains standards that regulate the method of use, properties, performance, or types of materials used in the construction, alteration, improvement, repair, or rehabilitation of a building or other improvement to real property. The CBC includes mandatory green building standards (CALGreen) for residential and nonresidential structures; the most recent version includes the 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. These standards focus on four key areas: smart residential photovoltaic systems, updated thermal envelope standards (preventing heat transfer from the interior to the exterior and vice versa), residential and nonresidential ventilation requirements, and nonresidential lighting requirements. The City has adopted the 2022 CBC, including CALGreen, and includes it in the Sustainable Santee Plan: The City’s Roadmap to Greenhouse Gas Reductions (Sustainable Santee Plan) (City of Santee 2019).

Proposed Policies
The following Safety policies in the Safety-EJ Element apply to energy efficiency and energy demand:

Policy 10.5: Provide information on the benefits of the resiliency of existing residential and commercial development through structural strengthening, fire safe landscaping, and energy efficiency upgrades.

Policy 11.1: Increase the energy reliability of municipal facilities to withstand increased energy demands.

Policy 11.2: Continue expedited review of building permits for solar equipment and electric vehicle charging stations.

Policy 11.3: Encourage the conservation of energy during peak demand hours.

2.4.6 Energy
Less Than
Potentially | Significant with | Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a. Result in potentially significant environmental impact LJ LJ LO due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for CO CJ LJ renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Environmental Setting
The California Building Code (CBC) contains standards that regulate the method of use, properties, performance, or types of materials used in the construction, alteration, improvement, repair, or rehabilitation of a building or other improvement to real property. The CBC includes mandatory green building standards (CALGreen) for residential and nonresidential structures; the most recent version includes the 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. These standards focus on four key areas: smart residential photovoltaic systems, updated thermal envelope standards (preventing heat transfer from the interior to the exterior and vice versa), residential and nonresidential ventilation requirements, and nonresidential lighting requirements. The City has adopted the 2022 CBC, including CALGreen, and includes it in the Sustainable Santee Plan: The City’s Roadmap to Greenhouse Gas Reductions (Sustainable Santee Plan) (City of Santee 2019).

Proposed Policies
The following Safety policies in the Safety-EJ Element apply to energy efficiency and energy demand:

Policy 11.1: Increase the energy reliability of municipal facilities to withstand increased energy demands.

Policy 11.2: Continue expedited review of building permits for solar equipment and electric vehicle charging stations.

Policy 11.3: Encourage the conservation of energy during peak demand hours.

IS/ND 36 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
IS/ND 37 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
The following EJ policy in the Safety-EJ Element apply to energy efficiency and energy demand:

Policy 11.5: Continue to educate and/or provide resources and weatherization (i.e., weatherproofing) measures that can improve housing conditions and reduce energy costs.

Impact Analysis
a. Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Safety-EJ Element does not propose specific development, but may facilitate minor development and infrastructure projects, such as new or renovated fire stations, healthcare facilities, and community centers (refer to Section 1.4, Proposed Element, for further discussion of the types of projects that may be facilitated under the Safety-EJ Element).

Future development that may be facilitated under implementation of the Safety-EJ Element would be consistent with the Santee General Plan and would not result in any unplanned regional energy use. Implementation of new development has the potential to result in impacts to energy supply due to the anticipated development. Energy resources would be consumed during construction of future development that may be facilitated under implementation of the proposed Safety-EJ Element. Energy would also be consumed to provide operational lighting, heating, cooling, and transportation for future development. Future development that may be facilitated under implementation of the Safety-EJ Element would require subsequent project-specific CEQA review to identify the potential for significant impacts to energy use, including analysis of individual project consistency with the CBC, CALGreen, and any other requirements included as part of the Santee General Plan and the Sustainable Santee Plan. Compliance with state and local building regulations and standards would ensure that energy usage would not be inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Additionally, the Safety-EJ Element would improve energy efficiency by incorporating several new policies and actions addressing energy use and energy efficiency in Santee:

Policy 11.5: Continue to educate and/or provide resources and weatherization (i.e., weatherproofing) measures that can improve housing conditions and reduce energy costs.

Policy 14.2: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions, increase renewable energy, and promote energy efficiency through implementation of the Sustainable Santee Plan.

As such, implementation of the Safety-EJ Element would result in beneficial impacts related to energy efficiency in Santee.

The following EJ policy in the Safety-EJ Element apply to energy efficiency and energy demand:

Policy 11.5: Continue to educate and/or provide resources and weatherization (i.e., weatherproofing) measures that can improve housing conditions and reduce energy costs.

Additionally, the Safety-EJ Element would improve energy efficiency by incorporating several new policies and actions addressing energy use and energy efficiency in Santee:

Policy 11.5: Continue to educate and/or provide resources and weatherization (i.e., weatherproofing) measures that can improve housing conditions and reduce energy costs.

Policy 14.2: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions, increase renewable energy, and promote energy efficiency through implementation of the Sustainable Santee Plan.

As such, implementation of the Safety-EJ Element would result in beneficial impacts related to energy efficiency in Santee.

IS/ND 37 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
IS/ND 38 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
b. Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Sustainable Santee Plan is the applicable plan for energy efficiency in Santee. Goal 10 of the Sustainable Santee Plan promotes energy sustainability by outlining measures to decrease greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions through increasing clean energy use (i.e., renewable energy sources, especially those that have zero or near zero emissions, such as photovoltaic solar and wind generation). Measure 10.1 (Increase Distributed Renewable Energy within Santee) and Measure 10.2 (Community Choice Aggregation Program) of the Sustainable Santee Plan provide the blueprint for a more renewable, sustainable city. As described above, future development that may be facilitated under implementation of the Safety-EJ Element would require subsequent project-specific CEQA review to identify the potential for significant impacts to energy use, including compliance with applicable energy plans. In addition, as described in Section 2.4.6(b), the Safety-EJ Element would improve energy efficiency by incorporating new policies addressing energy use, renewable energy, and energy efficiency in Santee (refer to Policy

11.5 and Policy 14.2), thereby contributing to implementation of the Sustainable Santee Plan.

Because implementation of the Safety-EJ Element would be consistent with and further implementation of the Sustainable Santee Plan, it would not conflict with applicable energy efficiency plans, and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
The analysis completed for this section indicates that no significant impacts would result from implementation of the proposed Safety-EJ Element. As a result, no mitigation measures are required. b. Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Sustainable Santee Plan is the applicable plan for energy efficiency in Santee. Goal 10 of the Sustainable Santee Plan promotes energy sustainability by outlining measures to decrease greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions through increasing clean energy use (i.e., renewable energy sources, especially those that have zero or near zero emissions, such as photovoltaic solar and wind generation). Measure 10.1 (Increase Distributed Renewable Energy within Santee) and Measure 10.2 (Community Choice Aggregation Program) of the Sustainable Santee Plan provide the blueprint for a more renewable, sustainable city. As described above, future development that may be facilitated under implementation of the Safety-EJ Element would require subsequent project-specific CEQA review to identify the potential for significant impacts to energy use, including compliance with applicable energy plans. In addition, as described in Section 2.4.6(b), the Safety-EJ Element would improve energy efficiency by incorporating new policies addressing energy use, renewable energy, and energy efficiency in Santee (refer to Policy

11.5 and Policy 14.2), thereby contributing to implementation of the Sustainable Santee Plan.

IS/ND 38 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
IS/ND 39 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element

2.4.7 Geology and Soils
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer
to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iv. Landslides? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a result
of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative waste water
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of waste water?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Environmental Setting
The City is in seismically active Southern California, a region that has experienced numerous earthquakes in the past. The Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act specifies that an area termed an Earthquake Fault Zone is to be delineated if surrounding faults are deemed sufficiently active or well-defined after a review of seismic records and geological studies. The City is not within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. The seismic risk in Santee is not considered significantly greater than that of the surrounding municipalities and the San Diego County area in general. Since no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones exist in Santee, no restrictions on development related to the Alquist-Priolo requirements occur.

2.4.7 Geology and Soils
Less Than
Potentially | Significant with | Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as LJ CJ L]
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer
to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? CJ CJ L]
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including CJ L] LI liquefaction?
iv. Landslides? C O L]
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? LJ LJ L] c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is CJ LJ LJ unstable, or that would become unstable as a result
of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- CJ LJ LJ 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the LJ LJ L] use of septic tanks or alternative waste water
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of waste water?
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological LJ LJ L] resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Environmental Setting
The City is in seismically active Southern California, a region that has experienced numerous earthquakes in the past. The Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act specifies that an area termed an Earthquake Fault Zone is to be delineated if surrounding faults are deemed sufficiently active or well-defined after a review of seismic records and geological studies. The City is not within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. The seismic risk in Santee is not considered significantly greater than that of the surrounding municipalities and the San Diego County area in general. Since no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones exist in Santee, no restrictions on development related to the Alquist-Priolo requirements occur.

IS/ND 39 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
IS/ND 40 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
According to the 2021 Geotechnical/Seismic Hazard Study prepared for the Safety-EJ Element, no active, potentially active, or inactive faults occur in Santee, and the City is not within an AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zone (Geocon, Inc. 2021). While no active or potentially active faults are known to occur in or adjacent to the City, the City is similar to other areas in California in that it is subject to periodic seismic shaking due to earthquakes along remote or regional active faults.

An active fault is defined by the California Geological Survey as a fault showing evidence for activity within the last 11,000 years.

The Rose Canyon Fault Zone, approximately 10 miles west of the City, is the closest known active fault. Earthquakes that might occur within the Rose Canyon Fault Zone or other faults in the Southern California and northern Baja California area are potential generators of significant ground motion in Santee. The Rose Canyon Fault Zone is the dominant source of potential ground motion in Santee (City of Santee 2003). Seismic parameters for the Rose Canyon Fault Zone include an estimated maximum earthquake magnitude of 6.9.

According to the California Department of Conservation Geologic Map of California (2022), the southern area of the City is underlain with Mesozoic plutonic granite, quaternary deposits of alluvium, and tertiary sedimentary rocks of Eocene nonmarine sandstone. Areas underlain with alluvium and sandstone would have a moderate paleontological potential (County of San Diego 2009).

The following Safety policies in the Safety-EJ Element apply to geology and soils:

Policy 2.1: Utilize existing and evolving geologic, geophysical, and engineering knowledge to distinguish and delineate those areas that are particularly susceptible to damage from landslides and slope instability, liquefaction, and dam inundation.

Policy 2.2: For projects proposed in areas identified in the geologic hazard category area, the geologic/geotechnical consultant shall establish either that the unfavorable conditions do not exist in the specific area in question or that they can be mitigated though proper design and construction.

Policy 2.3: As shown in Table A-1, Determination of Geotechnical Studies Required, of the Geotechnical/Seismic Hazard Study Group II, III, and IV facilities require a Geotechnical Investigation, a Geologic Investigation, and a Seismic Hazard Study specific to the project.

Additionally, the State of California require reports for public schools, hospitals, and other critical structures to be reviewed by the State Architect.

According to the 2021 Geotechnical/Seismic Hazard Study prepared for the Safety-EJ Element, no active, potentially active, or inactive faults occur in Santee, and the City is not within an AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zone (Geocon, Inc. 2021). While no active or potentially active faults are known to occur in or adjacent to the City, the City is similar to other areas in California in that it is subject to periodic seismic shaking due to earthquakes along remote or regional active faults.

An active fault is defined by the California Geological Survey as a fault showing evidence for activity within the last 11,000 years.

The following Safety policies in the Safety-EJ Element apply to geology and soils:

Policy 2.3: As shown in Table A-1, Determination of Geotechnical Studies Required, of the Geotechnical/Seismic Hazard Study Group I, Il, and IV facilities require a Geotechnical Investigation, a Geologic Investigation, and a Seismic Hazard Study specific to the project.

Additionally, the State of California require reports for public schools, hospitals, and other critical structures to be reviewed by the State Architect.

IS/ND 40 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
IS/ND 41 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
Impact Analysis
a. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

Less Than Significant Impact. No known or suspected fault traces are in the Santee area. As described above, the Rose Canyon Fault Zone, approximately 10 miles west of the City, is the closest known active fault. Additionally, the City is not subject to the provisions of the AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. The closest fault systems could produce earthquakes that cause substantial ground motion resulting in serious injuries or deaths and significant property damage due to the seismic activity of the region as a whole. However, the Safety-EJ Element does not propose specific development and, therefore, would not expose people to the risk of loss, injury, or death from rupture of an earthquake fault. Nevertheless, the Safety-EJ Element may facilitate minor development and infrastructure projects, such as transportation and utility improvements and recreational spaces/community centers (refer to Section 1.4, Proposed Element, for further discussion of the types of projects that may be facilitated under the Safety-EJ Element).

Future projects facilitated under implementation of the Safety-EJ Element would require subsequent project-specific CEQA review and would be required to comply with the CBC, which would reduce exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects from seismic ground shaking. Any proposed construction would require the adoption of appropriate engineering design in conformance with the recommended geotechnical standards for construction.

Additionally, the proposed Safety-EJ Element would incorporate the updated Geotechnical / Seismic Hazard Study (2021), which includes the following objectives and policies to address seismic shaking and other geologic hazards in Santee:

Objective 2: Increase awareness of geotechnical and seismic hazards to avoid or minimize the effects of hazards during the planning process for new development or redevelopment and to mitigate the risks for existing development.
• Policy 2.1: Utilize existing and evolving geologic, geophysical, and engineering knowledge to distinguish and delineate those areas that are particularly susceptible to damage from landslides and slope instability, liquefaction, and dam inundation. • Policy 2.2: For projects proposed in areas identified in the geologic hazard category area, the geologic/geotechnical consultant shall establish either that the unfavorable conditions do not exist in the specific area in question or that they can be mitigated though proper design and construction.

Impact Analysis
a. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

Objective 2: Increase awareness of geotechnical and seismic hazards to avoid or minimize the effects of hazards during the planning process for new development or redevelopment and to mitigate the risks for existing development.
e Policy 2.1: Utilize existing and evolving geologic, geophysical, and engineering knowledge to distinguish and delineate those areas that are particularly susceptible to damage from landslides and slope instability, liquefaction, and dam inundation. e Policy 2.2: For projects proposed in areas identified in the geologic hazard category area, the geologic/geotechnical consultant shall establish either that the unfavorable conditions do not exist in the specific area in question or that they can be mitigated though proper design and construction.

IS/ND 41 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
IS/ND 42 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
• Policy 2.3: As shown in Table A-1, Determination of Geotechnical Studies Required, of the Geotechnical/Seismic Hazard Study Group II, III, and IV facilities require a Geotechnical Investigation, a Geologic Investigation, and a Seismic Hazard Study specific to the project. Additionally, the State of California require reports for public schools, hospitals, and other critical structures to be reviewed by the State Architect.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less Than Significant Impact. Ground shaking is responsible for most of the damage from earthquakes and can damage or destroy buildings. Shaking intensity depends on the type of fault, distance to the epicenter, magnitude of the earthquake, and subsurface geology. The closest fault systems could produce earthquakes that cause substantial ground motion that could result in serious injuries or deaths and significant property damage due to the seismic activity of the region as a whole. However, the Safety-EJ Element does not propose specific development. Future projects facilitated under implementation of the Safety-EJ Element would require subsequent project-specific CEQA review and would be required to comply with the CBC, which would reduce exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects from seismic ground shaking. Any proposed construction would require the adoption of appropriate engineering design in conformance with the recommended geotechnical standards for construction. Additionally, the proposed Safety-EJ Element would incorporate the updated Geotechnical / Seismic Hazard Study (2021). Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact. Liquefaction results when water-saturated, sandy, unstable soils are subject to intense shaking, such as that caused by an earthquake. These soils lose cohesiveness, causing unreinforced structures to fail. According to the Santee General Plan Safety Element, portions of the City are within a liquefaction hazard area. The Safety-EJ Element does not propose specific development. However, future development facilitated under implementation of the Safety-EJ Element may have the potential to expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects from liquefaction. Future projects proposed as a result of the Safety-EJ Element would require subsequent project-specific CEQA review and would be required to comply with all relevant federal and state regulations and building standards, including the preparation of a projectspecific Geotechnical Investigation Report. Future projects would require the adoption of appropriate engineering design in conformance with the recommended geotechnical standards for construction. Additionally, the Safety-EJ Element would incorporate Policy 2.1 to address vulnerabilities to landslides and slope instability, liquefaction, and dam inundation. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
e Policy 2.3: As shown in Table A-1, Determination of Geotechnical Studies Required, of the Geotechnical/Seismic Hazard Study Group II, II, and IV facilities require a Geotechnical Investigation, a Geologic Investigation, and a Seismic Hazard Study specific to the project. Additionally, the State of California require reports for public schools, hospitals, and other critical structures to be reviewed by the State Architect.

IS/ND 42 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
IS/ND 43 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
iv. Landslides?
Less Than Significant Impact. The nearest earthquake fault within the vicinity of the City is the Rose Canyon Fault Zone, which is approximately 10 miles west of the City. An earthquake large enough to result in moderate ground shaking is possible. Seismic risks are significantly higher in areas closer to the region’s major faults, and a moderate or major earthquake could result in potentially damaging ground shaking. Development on the hillside areas where steep slopes are present can exacerbate landslide hazards. The Safety-EJ Element does not propose specific development. Future projects proposed as a result of the Safety-EJ Element would require subsequent CEQA review. Future development facilitated under implementation of the Safety-EJ Element would be required to comply with the CBC and the recommendations of the projectspecific Geotechnical Investigation Report, including engineered site preparation and adequate structural design, which would reduce potential adverse impacts from landslides. Additionally, the Safety-EJ Element would incorporate Policy 2.1 to address vulnerabilities to landslides and slope instability, liquefaction, and dam inundation. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. b. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact. The Safety-EJ Element does not propose specific development plans.

Therefore, the nature of construction activities for future individual projects, such as the amount of grading, excavation, and vegetation removal, is unknown. If a project proposes to disturb more than one acre of soil, it is required by the state to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which would include best management practices (BMPs) for erosion and sedimentation control. BMP examples include an effective combination of erosion and sediment controls, which include barriers such as silt fences, hay bales, drain inlet protection, and gravel bags. Existing vegetation should be preserved as much as possible. Additionally, Santee Municipal Code, Section

11.40.300(B)(5), requires development projects to design ground cover to provide 100 percent coverage within nine months after planting or to provide additional landscaping to meet this standard.

Future development facilitated by implementation of the Safety-EJ Element would be subject to these conditions for a construction permit. Following construction, implementation of individual projects that may be facilitated under the Safety-EJ Element would not increase the potential for soils to be subject to wind or water erosion. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. iv. Landslides?
Less Than Significant Impact. The nearest earthquake fault within the vicinity of the City is the Rose Canyon Fault Zone, which is approximately 10 miles west of the City. An earthquake large enough to result in moderate ground shaking is possible. Seismic risks are significantly higher in areas closer to the region’s major faults, and a moderate or major earthquake could result in potentially damaging ground shaking. Development on the hillside areas where steep slopes are present can exacerbate landslide hazards. The Safety-EJ Element does not propose specific development. Future projects proposed as a result of the Safety-EJ Element would require subsequent CEQA review. Future development facilitated under implementation of the Safety-EJ Element would be required to comply with the CBC and the recommendations of the projectspecific Geotechnical Investigation Report, including engineered site preparation and adequate structural design, which would reduce potential adverse impacts from landslides. Additionally, the Safety-EJ Element would incorporate Policy 2.1 to address vulnerabilities to landslides and slope instability, liquefaction, and dam inundation. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. b. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact. The Safety-EJ Element does not propose specific development plans.

11.40.300(B)(5), requires development projects to design ground cover to provide 100 percent coverage within nine months after planting or to provide additional landscaping to meet this standard.

IS/ND 43 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
IS/ND 44 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
c. Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Less Than Significant Impact. Development on hillside areas when steep slopes are present can increase rates of erosion and exacerbate landslide hazards, lateral spreading, liquefaction, or collapse, which may threaten structures. Portions of the City have areas where slopes exceed 15 percent. The development on slopes with this degree of inclination is difficult and should be avoided, if possible, to prevent property damage resulting from slope failure. Policy 2.2 of the existing Santee General Plan Safety Element addresses impacts related to slope instability and steep slopes (e.g., hillside areas). The Safety-EJ Element would retain these existing policies and actions.

The Safety-EJ Element does not propose specific development. Future projects proposed as a result of the Safety-EJ Element would require subsequent CEQA review and would be required to adhere to the CBC, the Santee Municipal Code, and other standards and regulations for building designs.

Additionally, the Safety-EJ Element would incorporate Policy 2.2, which would require geotechnical studies for development proposed on seismically and/or geologically hazardous sites.

Impacts resulting from unstable geologic units or soil would be reduced through compliance with the Santee General Plan and existing codes and adherence to the recommendations of the projectspecific Geotechnical Investigation Report, including engineered site preparation and adequate structural design. Any proposed construction would require the adoption of appropriate engineering design in conformance with the recommended geotechnical standards for construction. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. d. Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Less Than Significant Impact. Certain types of clay soils expand when they are saturated and shrink when dried. These are called expansive soils and can pose a threat to the integrity of structures built on them without proper engineering. Expansion and contraction of soils in response to changes in moisture content could lead to differential and cyclical movements that could cause damage or distress to structures and equipment. Thus, they are less suitable for development compared to non-expansive soils.

Additionally, the Safety-EJ Element would incorporate Policy 2.2, which would require geotechnical studies for development proposed on seismically and/or geologically hazardous sites.

Future development consistent with the Safety-EJ Element would have the potential to be adversely impacted by expansive soils; however, the Safety-EJ Element does not propose specific development. Future projects that may be facilitated under implementation of the Safety-EJ Element would require subsequent project-specific CEQA review. Any future development that is supported by the Safety-EJ Element would be required to adhere to the CBC, the Santee Municipal Code, and other standards and regulations for building designs. Impacts resulting from expansive soils would be reduced through compliance with existing codes and adherence to the IS/ND 44 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
IS/ND 45 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
recommendations of the project-specific Geotechnical Investigation Report, including engineered site preparation and adequate structural design. Any proposed construction would require the adoption of appropriate engineering design in conformance with the recommended geotechnical standards for construction. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. e. Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Less Than Significant Impact. Future development that may be facilitated under implementation of the Safety-EJ Element may include septic tanks for wastewater disposal. Soils incapable of supporting septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems are subject to provisions of the Santee Municipal Code, which require soils engineering investigations, including soil bearing capacity and soil expansion. The Santee General Plan Safety Element requires projects to complete soil and geologic/geotechnical investigations in hazard areas as identified by federal, state, and regional agencies. Sites would be required to be developed in accordance with recommendations from geological investigations. Therefore, with compliance with the Santee Municipal Code and the proposed Safety-EJ Element policies, impacts would be less than significant. f. Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Safety-EJ Element does not propose specific development.

However, future development that may be facilitated under implementation of the Safety-EJ Element would have the potential to (directly or indirectly) destroy a unique paleontological resource or site if located in the southern area of the City where the surface is underlain with alluvium and sandstone (County of San Diego 2009). Future development projects proposed as a result of the Safety-EJ Element would require subsequent project-specific CEQA review to identify the potential for significant impacts to paleontological resources. If resources are encountered on an unknown site, the Santee Municipal Code requires that grading cease until the resource can be evaluated. Santee Municipal Code, Title 11, Chapter 40, Article 5, Archaeological and Paleontological Resources, states, “If any archaeological or paleontological resources are discovered during grading operations, the permittee must immediately cease all grading operations and notify the City Engineer of the discovery. Grading operations must not recommence until the permittee has received written authority from the City Engineer to do so.” Future projects facilitated under implementation of the Safety-EJ Element would be required to comply with applicable policies to protect paleontological resources. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
The analysis completed for this section indicates that no significant impacts would result from implementation of the proposed Safety-EJ Element. As a result, no mitigation measures are required. recommendations of the project-specific Geotechnical Investigation Report, including engineered site preparation and adequate structural design. Any proposed construction would require the adoption of appropriate engineering design in conformance with the recommended geotechnical standards for construction. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. e. Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Less Than Significant Impact. Future development that may be facilitated under implementation of the Safety-EJ Element may include septic tanks for wastewater disposal. Soils incapable of supporting septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems are subject to provisions of the Santee Municipal Code, which require soils engineering investigations, including soil bearing capacity and soil expansion. The Santee General Plan Safety Element requires projects to complete soil and geologic/geotechnical investigations in hazard areas as identified by federal, state, and regional agencies. Sites would be required to be developed in accordance with recommendations from geological investigations. Therefore, with compliance with the Santee Municipal Code and the proposed Safety-EJ Element policies, impacts would be less than significant. f. Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Safety-EJ Element does not propose specific development.

IS/ND 45 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
IS/ND 46 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element

2.4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions
of greenhouse gases?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Environmental Setting
GHGs trap heat in the atmosphere and occur from natural processes and human activities. Human activities that produce GHGs are the burning of fossil fuels (e.g., coal, oil, and natural gas for heating and electricity, gasoline and diesel for transportation), decaying of landfill waste and raising of livestock (which produce methane [CH4]), deforestation activities, and some agricultural practices. Scientific evidence indicates a correlation between the worldwide proliferation of GHG emissions by humankind over the past century and increasing global temperatures (IPCC 2014).

The following are the principal GHGs that enter the atmosphere because of human activities:
• Carbon dioxide (CO2) enters the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal), agriculture, irrigation, and deforestation, as well as the manufacturing of cement.
• CH4 is emitted through the production and transportation of coal, natural gas, and oil, as well as from livestock. Other agricultural activities (e.g., ranching, dairy production, and fertilizer) influence CH4 emissions and the decay of waste in landfills. • Nitrous oxide (N2O) is released most often during the burning of fuel at high temperatures. This GHG is caused mostly by motor vehicles, which also include non-road vehicles, such as those used for agriculture.
• Fluorinated gases are emitted primarily from industrial sources, which often include hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Although they are often released in smaller quantities, they are referred to as high global warming potential gases because of their ability to cause global warming.

These gases have different global warming potentials for trapping heat in the atmosphere. For example, one pound of CH4 has 21 times more heat capturing potential than one pound of CO2.

When dealing with an array of emissions, GHG emissions are typically reported in terms of pounds or metric tons of CO2 equivalent (CO2e) per year for comparison purposes.

2.4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Less Than
Potentially | Significant with | Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either CO CO CO
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation LJ CJ LI adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions
of greenhouse gases?
Environmental Setting
GHGs trap heat in the atmosphere and occur from natural processes and human activities. Human activities that produce GHGs are the burning of fossil fuels (e.g., coal, oil, and natural gas for heating and electricity, gasoline and diesel for transportation), decaying of landfill waste and raising of livestock (which produce methane [CH4]), deforestation activities, and some agricultural practices. Scientific evidence indicates a correlation between the worldwide proliferation of GHG emissions by humankind over the past century and increasing global temperatures (IPCC 2014).

The following are the principal GHGs that enter the atmosphere because of human activities:
e Carbon dioxide (CO2) enters the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal), agriculture, irrigation, and deforestation, as well as the manufacturing of cement.
e CHzg is emitted through the production and transportation of coal, natural gas, and oil, as well as from livestock. Other agricultural activities (e.g., ranching, dairy production, and fertilizer) influence CH4 emissions and the decay of waste in landfills. e Nitrous oxide (N20) is released most often during the burning of fuel at high temperatures. This GHG is caused mostly by motor vehicles, which also include non-road vehicles, such as those used for agriculture.
e Fluorinated gases are emitted primarily from industrial sources, which often include hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Although they are often released in smaller quantities, they are referred to as high global warming potential gases because of their ability to cause global warming.

These gases have different global warming potentials for trapping heat in the atmosphere. For example, one pound of CH, has 21 times more heat capturing potential than one pound of CO2.

When dealing with an array of emissions, GHG emissions are typically reported in terms of pounds or metric tons of CO2 equivalent (CO2e) per year for comparison purposes.

IS/ND 46 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
IS/ND 47 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
Proposed Policies
The following EJ policy in the Safety-EJ Element apply to GHG emissions:

Policy 14.2: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions, increase renewable energy, and promote energy efficiency through implementation of the Sustainable Santee Plan.

Impact Analysis
a. Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact. The greatest source of GHG emissions associated with development projects in California is vehicular emissions. The second greatest source is emissions from energy consumption (both natural gas and electrical) (California Air Resources Board 2018).

The Safety-EJ Element would not authorize specific development project. As such, its adoption and implementation would not directly generate any GHG emissions. The Safety-EJ Element may, however, facilitate minor development and infrastructure projects, such as transportation and utility improvements, new or renovated fire stations, healthcare facilities, and recreational spaces/community centers (refer to Section 1.4, Proposed Element, for further discussion of the types of projects that may be facilitated under the Safety-EJ Element). As described in Section

2.4.6, Energy, future development facilitated by the proposed Safety-EJ Element would be designed and constructed in compliance with Title 24 energy efficiency requirements of the CBC, Building Energy Efficiency Standards, CALGreen, and any other requirements included as part of the Santee General Plan and the Sustainable Santee Plan (City of Santee 2019). For example, the Sustainable Santee Plan identifies goals, measures, and actions that will contribute to better air quality in Santee. Sustainable Santee Plan goals that reduce GHG emissions include increasing energy efficiency in existing and new residential and commercial units (Goals 1–4), decreasing energy demand through reducing urban heat island effect (Goal 5), reducing VMT (Goal 6), increasing the use of electric vehicles (Goal 7), improving traffic flow (Goal 8), reducing solid waste generation (Goal 9), and increasing clean energy use (Goal 10). Compliance with these proposed policies and actions would further increase energy efficiency in new buildings, reducing total energy demand and the level of GHG emissions generated from coal, natural gas, and oilbased energy sources. The Safety-EJ Element would not include any policies that would encourage inefficient building practices that could affect the volume of GHG emissions. The Safety-EJ Element would be consistent with the City’s overall efforts for energy and conservation policies to reduce GHGs; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Proposed Policies
The following EJ policy in the Safety-EJ Element apply to GHG emissions:

Policy 14.2: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions, increase renewable energy, and promote energy efficiency through implementation of the Sustainable Santee Plan.

2.4.6, Energy, future development facilitated by the proposed Safety-EJ Element would be designed and constructed in compliance with Title 24 energy efficiency requirements of the CBC, Building Energy Efficiency Standards, CALGreen, and any other requirements included as part of the Santee General Plan and the Sustainable Santee Plan (City of Santee 2019). For example, the Sustainable Santee Plan identifies goals, measures, and actions that will contribute to better air quality in Santee. Sustainable Santee Plan goals that reduce GHG emissions include increasing energy efficiency in existing and new residential and commercial units (Goals 1-4), decreasing energy demand through reducing urban heat island effect (Goal 5), reducing VMT (Goal 6), increasing the use of electric vehicles (Goal 7), improving traffic flow (Goal 8), reducing solid waste generation (Goal 9), and increasing clean energy use (Goal 10). Compliance with these proposed policies and actions would further increase energy efficiency in new buildings, reducing total energy demand and the level of GHG emissions generated from coal, natural gas, and oilbased energy sources. The Safety-EJ Element would not include any policies that would encourage inefficient building practices that could affect the volume of GHG emissions. The Safety-EJ Element would be consistent with the City’s overall efforts for energy and conservation policies to reduce GHGs; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

IS/ND 47 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
IS/ND 48 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
Additionally, the Safety-EJ Element would improve energy efficiency, reduce energy demand, and reduce GHG emissions in Santee with the following new policies and actions addressing GHG emissions from energy use and transportation:

Policy 2.2: Remove particulate matter from mobile source emissions through implementation of the Sustainable Santee Plan’s public transit, active transportation, and electrification strategies.

Policy 3.4: Encourage the use of alternative transportation modes, such as walking, cycling, and public transit. Maintain and implement the policies and recommendations of the Active Santee Plan and the San Diego Association of Governments San Diego Regional Safe Routes to School Strategic Plan to improve safe bicycle and pedestrian access to major destinations.

Policy 3.5: Coordinate with the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System and San Diego Association of Governments to provide efficient, cost-effective, and responsive systems; multimodal support facilities; and adequate access near and to and from transit stops for bicyclists and pedestrians, including children and youth, older adults, and people with disabilities.

Policy 3.6: Encourage and provide ridesharing, park and ride, and other similar commuter programs that eliminate vehicles from freeways and arterial roadways. Encourage businesses to provide flexible work schedules for employees and employers to offer shared commute programs and/or incentives for employees to use public transit.

Policy 3.7: Work to increase public transit ridership among transit-dependent populations by providing greater access to public transit throughout Santee.

Policy 5.5: Continue to increase sidewalks, crosswalks, and safety for people who walk and/or use mobility devices, such as wheelchairs.

Policy 5.6: Implement the Complete Streets Policy in the Santee General Plan Mobility Element.

Policy 5.7: Continue to plan for and implement a comprehensive network of safe pedestrian facilities to promote pedestrian travel.

Policy 5.8: Continue to design pedestrian walkways in a way that promotes walking by providing a safe, aesthetically pleasing path of travel.

Additionally, the Safety-EJ Element would improve energy efficiency, reduce energy demand, and reduce GHG emissions in Santee with the following new policies and actions addressing GHG emissions from energy use and transportation:

Policy 2.2: Remove particulate matter from mobile source emissions through implementation of the Sustainable Santee Plan’s public transit, active transportation, and electrification strategies.

Policy 3.7: Work to increase public transit ridership among transit-dependent populations by providing greater access to public transit throughout Santee.

Policy 5.5: Continue to increase sidewalks, crosswalks, and safety for people who walk and/or use mobility devices, such as wheelchairs.

Policy 5.6: Implement the Complete Streets Policy in the Santee General Plan Mobility Element.

Policy 5.7: Continue to plan for and implement a comprehensive network of safe pedestrian facilities to promote pedestrian travel.

Policy 5.8: Continue to design pedestrian walkways in a way that promotes walking by providing a safe, aesthetically pleasing path of travel.

IS/ND 48 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
IS/ND 49 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
Policy 5.9: Maintain access for pedestrian travel where it already exists and provide it where it does not to prevent or eliminate barriers to pedestrian travel.

Policy 7.5: Continue and expand the City of Santee’s community garden program and provide information on how existing community gardens operate and how residents can get involved.

Policy 7.6: Assess and, if feasible, develop open land for community gardens.

Policy 7.7: Identify and implement opportunities to incorporate open spaces suitable for community gardens into larger development projects.

Policy 11.5: Continue to educate and/or provide resources and weatherization (i.e., weatherproofing) measures that can improve housing conditions and reduce energy costs.

Policy 14.2: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions, increase renewable energy, and promote energy efficiency through implementation of the Sustainable Santee Plan.

As such, implementation of the Safety-EJ Element would result in beneficial impacts related to reduction of GHG emissions in Santee.
b. Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Safety-EJ Element does not propose specific development. As such, its adoption would not directly generate GHG emissions. However, future development that may be facilitated under implementation of the Safety-EJ Element would have the potential to generate short-term construction and long-term operational GHG emissions.

Policy 5.9: Maintain access for pedestrian travel where it already exists and provide it where it does not to prevent or eliminate barriers to pedestrian travel.

Policy 7.5: Continue and expand the City of Santee’s community garden program and provide information on how existing community gardens operate and how residents can get involved.

Policy 7.6: Assess and, if feasible, develop open land for community gardens.

Policy 7.7: Identify and implement opportunities to incorporate open spaces suitable for community gardens into larger development projects.

Policy 11.5: Continue to educate and/or provide resources and weatherization (i.e., weatherproofing) measures that can improve housing conditions and reduce energy costs.

Policy 14.2: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions, increase renewable energy, and promote energy efficiency through implementation of the Sustainable Santee Plan.

IS/ND 49 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
IS/ND 50 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
The City adopted its Sustainable Santee Plan in January 2020 to present the City’s GHG inventory, identify the effectiveness of California initiatives to reduce GHG emissions, and identify local measures to reduce citywide GHG emissions to achieve the City’s GHG reduction target. The Sustainable Santee Plan allows developers to demonstrate that their projects are consistent with the plan by demonstrating compliance with the Sustainable Santee Action Plan CEQA Project Consistency Checklist. The checklist allows developers to streamline CEQA review and bypass a complete GHG analysis on their own for CEQA processing, if applicable. Emissions associated with projects that are consistent with the Sustainable Santee Plan are considered less than significant, and their contributions to cumulative emissions are not considered cumulatively considerable.

Future projects under the Safety-EJ Element would be required to demonstrate consistency with the Sustainable Santee Plan through project-specific CEQA review and to implement mitigation measures as needed; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

The City adopted its Sustainable Santee Plan in January 2020 to present the City’s GHG inventory, identify the effectiveness of California initiatives to reduce GHG emissions, and identify local measures to reduce citywide GHG emissions to achieve the City’s GHG reduction target. The Sustainable Santee Plan allows developers to demonstrate that their projects are consistent with the plan by demonstrating compliance with the Sustainable Santee Action Plan CEQA Project Consistency Checklist. The checklist allows developers to streamline CEQA review and bypass a complete GHG analysis on their own for CEQA processing, if applicable. Emissions associated with projects that are consistent with the Sustainable Santee Plan are considered less than significant, and their contributions to cumulative emissions are not considered cumulatively considerable.

IS/ND 50 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
IS/ND 51 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element

2.4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e. For a project located within an airport land-use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for
people residing or working in the project area?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
g. Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Environmental Setting
The California Health and Safety Code defines a hazardous material as “any material that because of its quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety or to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment.” Thus, the term “hazardous material” is a broad term for all substances that may be hazardous, specifically including hazardous substances and hazardous waste. Substances that are flammable, corrosive, reactive, oxidizers, radioactive, combustible, or toxic are considered hazardous.

Hazardous materials in Santee are transported through the City using the area’s primary transportation routes—SR‐52, SR‐67, and SR‐125.

2.4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Less Than
Potentially | Significant with | Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the LJ LJ LO environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the LJ CJ L] environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or LJ CJ LI acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of LJ CJ L] hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
e. Fora project located within an airport land-use plan LJ LJ L] or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for
people residing or working in the project area?
f. — Impair implementation of or physically interfere with CO CO CO an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
g. Expose people or structures, either directly or LJ LJ L] indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Environmental Setting
The California Health and Safety Code defines a hazardous material as “any material that because of its quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety or to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment.” Thus, the term “hazardous material” is a broad term for all substances that may be hazardous, specifically including hazardous substances and hazardous waste. Substances that are flammable, corrosive, reactive, oxidizers, radioactive, combustible, or toxic are considered hazardous.

Hazardous materials in Santee are transported through the City using the area’s primary transportation routes—SR-52, SR-67, and SR-125.

IS/ND 51 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
IS/ND 52 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
Hazardous materials sites in Santee include EnviroStor cleanup sites as identified and regulated by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control in Table 1, City of Santee EnviroStor Cleanup Sites.

Table 1. City of Santee EnviroStor Cleanup Sites
Facility Name Address Program Type Status
Coneen Property 8656 Cuyamaca Street Evaluation Refer: 1248 Local Agency Dave’s Auto Service 10438 Mission Gorge Road State Response Certified El Capitan Quarry/El Cajon Mountain
Mill Site
16820 El Monte Road State Response Certified
Ketema Process Equipment Co., C/O
Baker Process
9484 Mission Park Place Tiered Permit No Action Required Marine Parachute School La Mesa In El Cajon, about 12 miles northeast of downtown San Diego
Military Evaluation No Further Action
Montes Metal Finishing 10039 Prospect Avenue, K Tiered Permit No Further Action Quiroz Recycling 8514 Mast Avenue, Suite B Inspection No Action Santee Army Camp — Military Evaluation Inactive – Needs Evaluation Source: DTSC 2022.

The Santee Fire Department is responsible for hazardous material incident management in Santee.

The City also belongs to the San Diego County Joint Powers Authority Hazardous Materials Response Team, which assists with major incidents (City of Santee 2003).

The San Diego County Hazardous Waste Management Plan is the primary planning document providing overall policy on hazardous waste management in San Diego County. The plan describes how the San Diego County’s hazardous waste stream can be safely managed and serves as the guide for local decisions regarding hazardous waste management (City of Santee 2003).

The Hazardous Materials Division of the County of San Diego’s Department of Environmental Health and Quality protects the health and safety of the public and the environment by ensuring that hazardous materials and biomedical waste are properly handled and stored. The Hazardous Materials Division assists regulated businesses in Santee in developing their business plans and an area plan for hazardous material emergency response coordination in Santee and San Diego County (City of Santee 2003).

The City also provides residential curbside pickup of waste automotive oil and filters in addition to participating in a Household Hazardous Waste Program, which allows residents to safely dispose of any unused or leftover portions of products containing toxic chemicals. Residents can bring these types of materials to one of two collection facilities in their original containers for nocost, safe disposal (City of Santee 2003).

Hazardous materials sites in Santee include EnviroStor cleanup sites as identified and regulated by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control in Table 1, City of Santee EnviroStor Cleanup Sites.

Table 1. City of Santee EnviroStor Cleanup Sites
Facility Name Address Program Type Status
Coneen Property 8656 Cuyamaca Street Evaluation Refer: 1248 Local Agency Dave's Auto Service 10438 Mission Gorge Road State Response Certified El Capitan Quarry/El Cajon Mountain | 16820 El Monte Road State Response Certified Mill Site
Ketema Process Equipment Co., C/O 9484 Mission Park Place Tiered Permit No Action Required Baker Process
Marine Parachute School La Mesa In El Cajon, about 12 miles Military Evaluation No Further Action northeast of downtown San Diego
Montes Metal Finishing 10039 Prospect Avenue, K Tiered Permit No Further Action Quiroz Recycling 8514 Mast Avenue, Suite B Inspection No Action Santee Army Camp — Military Evaluation Inactive — Needs Evaluation Source: DTSC 2022.

The Santee Fire Department is responsible for hazardous material incident management in Santee.

The City also belongs to the San Diego County Joint Powers Authority Hazardous Materials Response Team, which assists with major incidents (City of Santee 2003).

IS/ND 52 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
IS/ND 53 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
Proposed and Existing Policies
The following Safety policies in the Safety-EJ Element apply to hazards and hazardous materials:

Policy 7.1: Continue reviewing all development proposed in the Gillespie Field Airport Influence Areas using the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, which provides guidance on appropriate land uses surrounding airports to protect the health and safety of people and property within the vicinity of an airport. Ensure consistency determinations are received from the Airport Land Use Commission to ensure that design features are incorporated into the site plan to address identified aircraft safety and noise hazards.

Policy 7.2: Continue to discourage the establishment of additional high-risk uses, including schools, hospitals, nursing homes, and daycare centers in Airport Safety Zones and receive consistency determinations from the Airport Land Use Commission.

Policy 7.3: Receive final airspace determination from the Federal Aviation Administration for projects in Airport Influence Areas in accordance with Code of Federal Regulations, Title 14, Part 77, Safe, Efficient Use, and Preservation of the Navigable Airspace.

Policy 8.1: Continue to hold periodic disaster exercises in cooperation with the appropriate state and federal agencies.

Policy 8.2: Update the adopted Santee Emergency Operations Plan periodically to ensure the safety of residents, employees, and visitors in times of natural or human-caused disaster.

Policy 8.3: Maintain an Emergency Operations Center to coordinate resources, information, and communication, which would strengthen the City of Santee’s ability to detect and respond to threats.

Policy 9.1: Continue to implement the County of San Diego’s Hazardous Waste Management Plan or develop and implement an equivalent plan.

Policy 9.2: Continue to participate in the San Diego County Joint Powers Authority Hazardous Materials Response Team in dealing with hazardous materials incidents.

Policy 9.3: Require that any potential hazardous materials issues be fully investigated at the environmental review stage prior to project approval.

Policy 9.4: Review any proposed uses involving the use, transport, storage, or handling of hazardous waste to ensure that such uses will not represent a significant risk to surrounding uses or the environment.

Policy 9.5: Continue to provide for a household hazardous waste collection program for Santee residents as part of the contract with the City of Santee trash franchisee.

Proposed and Existing Policies
The following Safety policies in the Safety-EJ Element apply to hazards and hazardous materials:

Policy 8.1: Continue to hold periodic disaster exercises in cooperation with the appropriate state and federal agencies.

Policy 8.2: Update the adopted Santee Emergency Operations Plan periodically to ensure the safety of residents, employees, and visitors in times of natural or human-caused disaster.

Policy 8.3: Maintain an Emergency Operations Center to coordinate resources, information, and communication, which would strengthen the City of Santee’s ability to detect and respond to threats.

Policy 9.1: Continue to implement the County of San Diego’s Hazardous Waste Management Plan or develop and implement an equivalent plan.

Policy 9.2: Continue to participate in the San Diego County Joint Powers Authority Hazardous Materials Response Team in dealing with hazardous materials incidents.

Policy 9.3: Require that any potential hazardous materials issues be fully investigated at the environmental review stage prior to project approval.

Policy 9.5: Continue to provide for a household hazardous waste collection program for Santee residents as part of the contract with the City of Santee trash franchisee.

IS/ND 53 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
IS/ND 54 October 2024
City of Santee Safety-Environmental Justice Element
Policy 9.6: Control the location, manufacture, storage, or use of hazardous materials in Santee through Zoning Ordinance implementation and the development review process.

Policy 9.7: Encourage safe and proper disposal of household hazardous waste.

Policy 9.8: Promote safe, environmentally sound means of solid waste disposal for the community.

Policy 9.9: Investigate ways to encourage businesses to recycle their waste.

Policy 9.10: Continue to implement the Construction and Demolition Diversion Ordinance as required by Cal Recycle.

Policy 10.2: Ensure that emergency management activities are conducted equitably and are responsive to the needs of all community members, primarily by communicating emergency plans in many different formats and in multiple languages, as appropriate, and conducting outreach with and to seek feedback from members of the community who face equity issues.

Policy 10.3: Continue to collaborate with local and regional partners to support business resiliency through preparedness education, trainings, and resources.

Policy 10.4: Collaborate with local, regional, state, and federal partners to provide communitywide outreach to educate people on how to prepare for and recover from climate change effects.

The following EJ policies in the Safety-EJ Element apply to hazards and hazardous materials:

Policy 11.2: Continue to prioritize and enforce the existing Buildings and Construction Code based on safety and blight as required through existing—and, if necessary, expanded—code enforcement efforts. Continue to use the City of Santee’s Code Compliance Program to bring substandard units into compliance with City of Santee codes and to improve overall housing quality and neighborhood conditions in Santee.

Policy 14.3: Prioritize disproportionately vulnerable populations for adaptation and mitigation investments identified in the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan.

Policy 14.4: Plan responsive measures to wildfire events. Provide public information on emergency preparedness, evacuation, shelters, food, water, and recovery in both Spanish and English. Use the City of Santee’s social media and newsletter to provide information for climate-related hazards.

Policy 9.6: Control the location, manufacture, storage, or use of hazardous materials in Santee through Zoning Ordinance implementation and the development review process.