City Council
Mayor John W. Minto
Vice Mayor Rob McNelis – District 1
Councilmember Ronn Hall – District 2
Councilmember Laura Koval – District 3
Councilmember Dustin Trotter – District 4
CITY OF SANTEE
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Santee City Council
Interim City Manager | Gary Halbert
City Attorney | Shawn D. Hagerty
City Clerk | James Jeffries
The City Council also sits as the Community Development Commission Successor Agency and the Santee Public Finance Authority. Any actions taken by these agencies are separate from the actions taken by City Council. For questions regarding this Agenda, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (619) 258-4100 x114.
MEETING INFORMATION
Wednesday, June 11, 2025
6:30 p.m.
Council Chamber | Building 2
10601 Magnolia Ave • Santee, CA 92071
TO WATCH LIVE:
AT&T U-verse channel 99 (SD Market) | Cox channel 117 (SD County) www.cityofsanteeca.gov
IN-PERSON ATTENDANCE
Members of the public who wish to view the Council Meeting live may watch the live taping of the in the Council Chamber on the meeting date and time listed above.
LIVE PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the public who wish to comment on matters on the City Council agenda or during Non-Agenda Public Comment may appear in person and submit a speaker slip before the item is called. Your name will be called when it is time to speak.
PLEASE NOTE: Public Comment will be limited to 3 minutes and speaker slips will only be accepted until the item is called. The timer will start when the participant begins speaking.
June 11, 2025 | 6:30 p.m.
2 ROLL CALL: Mayor John W. Minto
Vice Mayor Rob McNelis – District 1
Councilmember Ronn Hall – District 2
Councilmember Laura Koval – District 3
Councilmember Dustin Trotter – District 4
LEGISLATIVE INVOCATION:
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
CONSENT CALENDAR:
PLEASE NOTE: Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be approved by one motion with no separate discussion. The public, staff or Council Members may request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion or action. Speaker slips for this category must be submitted to the City Clerk at the start of the meeting. Speakers are limited to 3 minutes.
(1) Approval of Reading by Title Only and Waiver of Reading in Full of Ordinances and Resolutions on the Agenda. (City Clerk – Jeffries)
(2) Approval of Payment of Demands as Presented. (Finance – Jennings) (3) Adoption of a Resolution Awarding the Contract for Shadow Hill Park Playground Renovation to PlayCore Wisconsin, Inc., DBA Gametime, Utilizing the OMNIA Contract #2017001134 Awarded by US Communities Government Purchasing Alliance RFP #269-2017-028 for Playground and Outdoor Fitness Equipment, Site Accessories, Surfacing, and Related Products and Services. (Community Services – Chavez)
(4) Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing an Agreement for Urban Forestry Management Services with West Coast Arborists Incorporated per City of Rialto Contract RFB #24-025. (Community Services – Chavez) (5) Adoption of a Resolution Approving the Second Amendment to the Contract with Advanced Railway Innovations, DBA Advanced Electrical Innovations, for Electrical Repairs and Related Maintenance. (Community Services – Chavez) NON-AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENT (15 minutes):
Persons wishing to address the City Council regarding items not on the posted agenda may do so at this time. In accordance with State law, Council may not take action on an item not scheduled on the Agenda. If appropriate, the item will be referred to the City Manager or placed on a future agenda. This first Non-Agenda Public Comment period is limited to a total of 15 minutes. Additional Non-Agenda Public Comment will be heard prior to Council Reports.
June 11, 2025 | 6:30 p.m.
3 PUBLIC HEARING:
(6) Public Hearing for the Development of Fanita Ranch, to Consider Certifying Final Recirculated Revised Environmental Impact Report Including Second Recirculated Sections (ENV-2025-0003, AEIS 2022-4, AEIS 2017-11), and Approving the Fanita Ranch Development Plan and Development Review Permit (DR-2025-0001), Vesting Tentative Map (TM-2025-0001), and Conditional Use Permits for Public Parks (CUP2025-0001 and CUP-2025-0002), and a Fire Station (CUP-2025-0003). (Planning and Building – Sawa) Recommendation:
1. Conduct and close the Public Hearing; and
2. Certify the Final Recirculated Revised Environmental Impact Report Including Second Recirculated Sections (SCH #2005061118) for the Fanita Ranch Project; adopt Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program under CEQA; and approve the Project, per Resolution No. 072-2025; and
3. Approve Vesting Tentative Map (TM-2025-0001) per Resolution No. 073-2025; and
4. Approve Development Plan and Development Review Permit (DR-2025-0001) per Resolution No. 074-2025; and
5. Approve Conditional Use Permits CUP2025-0001, CUP2025-0002, and CUP2025-0003 per Resolution Nos. 075-2025, 076-2025, and 077-2025, respectively.
(7) Public Hearing on the Vacancy Rate Presented by Human Resources Pursuant to Assembly Bill 2561. (Human Resources – Freeman)
Recommendation:
Conduct the Public Hearing to receive vacancy information.
CONTINUED BUSINESS:
(8) Resolution Approving the Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Years 2026- 2030 and Adopting the Capital Improvement Program Budget for Fiscal Years 2025-26 and 2026-27. (City Manager/Finance – Halbert/Jennings) Recommendation:
Adopt the Resolution approving the Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Years 2026-2030 and adopting the Capital Improvement Program budget for Fiscal Years 2025-26 and 2026-27, including any changes as directed by the City Council.
June 11, 2025 | 6:30 p.m.
4 NEW BUSINESS:
(9) Review of the Proposed Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2025-26. (City Manager/Finance – Halbert/Jennings)
Recommendation:
Review and discuss the Proposed Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2025-26, and if applicable, provide direction to staff.
(10) Resolution Awarding the Construction Contract to Hazard Construction Engr.
LLC for the Citywide Pavement Repair and Rehabilitation Program 2025 (CIP 2025-01) Project and Determining the Project is Categorically Exempt from Environmental Review Under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(c). (Engineering – Schmitz) Recommendation:
Adopt the Resolution:
1. Awarding the construction contract for the Citywide Pavement Repair and Rehabilitation Program 2025 (CIP 2025-01) Project to Hazard Construction Engr.
LLC for a total amount of $2,017,437.90; and
2. Authorizing the City Manager to execute all necessary documents to execute the contract on behalf of the City; and
3. Authorizing the Director of Engineering/City Engineer to approve change orders in a total amount not to exceed $504,359.00; and
4. Determining this action is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Section 15301(c), Existing Facilities, of the CEQA Guidelines.
NON-AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENT (Continued):
All public comment not presented within the first Non-Agenda Public Comment period above will be heard at this time.
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS:
CITY MANAGER REPORTS:
CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS:
CLOSED SESSION:
(11) Conference with Legal Counsel—Anticipated Litigation (Government Code section 54956.9(d)(2))
Significant exposure to litigation: Twelve potential cases related to the retail cannabis business selection process
June 11, 2025 | 6:30 p.m.
5 (12) Conference with Legal Counsel—Anticipated Litigation (Government Code section 54956.9(d)(4))
Initiation of litigation: One potential case related to the City’s electronic permitting software contract
ADJOURNMENT:
June 11, 2025 | 6:30 p.m.
6 June 04 Santee Park and Recreation Committee Council Chamber June 09 Community Oriented Policing Committee Council Chamber June 11 Council Meeting Council Chamber
June 25 Council Meeting Council Chamber
July 02 Santee Park and Recreation Committee Canceled Council Chamber July 14 Community Oriented Policing Committee Council Chamber July 09 Council Meeting Council Chamber
July 23 Council Meeting Canceled Council Chamber
The Santee City Council welcomes you and encourages your continued interest and involvement in the City’s decision-making process.
For your convenience, a complete Agenda Packet is
available for public review at City Hall and on the
City’s website at www.CityofSanteeCA.gov.
The City of Santee complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Upon request, this agenda will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with disabilities, as required by Section 12132 of the American with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 USC § 12132). Any person with a disability who requires modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should direct such a request to the City Clerk’s Office at (619) 258-4100, ext. 114 at least 48 hours before the meeting, if possible.
BOARDS, COMMISSIONS & COMMITTEES
JUNE AND JULY MEETINGS
2 Payment of Demands
Summary of Payments Issued
Date Description Amount
05/15/25 Accounts Payable $ 80,991.36
05/21/25 Accounts Payable 489,691.54
05/28/25 Accounts Payable 167,343.69
05/28/25 Accounts Payable 1,898,113.07
05/29/25 Payroll 514,179.86
05/29/25 Accounts Payable 17,003.07
05/30/25 Accounts Payable 78,273.75
06/02/25 Retiree Health 5,203.00
06/03/25 Accounts Payable 152,513.22
TOTAL $ 3,403,312.56
I hereby certify to the best of my knowledge and belief that the foregoing demands listing is correct, just, conforms to the approved budget, and funds are available to pay said demands.
Heather Jennings, Director of Finance
vchlist
05/20/2025 3:57:23PM
Bank code : ubqen
Voucher
798725
798770
Date Vendor
5/15/2025 10482 TRI STAR RISK MANAGEMENT
5/15/2025 10482 TRI STAR RISK MANAGEMENT
2 Vouchers for bank code: ubgen
2 Vouchers in this report
Prepared by:_�_,__-==,,,,,_�-'-<::::=_,_.£_J2"'----'--'<--1/1b,-.;-"----'---- Date: 5. 'J.O -.��s5i��-'1✓.s
Approved by: _______ ....,_.,,......,� '-=--"F----,r--- Date:
Voucher List
CITY OF SANTEE
Invoice
122425
122429
PO# Description/Account
WORKERS COMP LOSSES; APR25
Total:
MAY PREFUNDING
Total:
Bank total:
Total vouchers
Amount
15,329.19
15,329.19
65,662.17
65,662.17
80,991.36
80,991.36
vchlist
05/21/2025 12:17:41PM
Bank code: ubqen
Voucher Date Vendor
139317 5/21/2025 11139 ACE UNIFORMS, LLC - SAN DIEGO
139318 5/21/2025 13321 ALPHA PROJECT FOR THE
139319 5/21/2025 10510 AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC
139320 5/21/2025 11445 AMERICAN MESSAGING
139321 5/21/2025 15380 ANDERSON, MARK
139322 5/21/2025 14363 ANGUS ASPHALT INC
139323 5/21/2025 10412 AT&T
139324 5/21/2025 10017 BAY CIT Y ELECTRIC WORKS
139325 5/21/2025 10876 CANON SOLUTIONS AMERICA INC
139326 5/21/2025 15632 CHAFFIN, JOAN OR DEREK
139327 5/21/2025 10569 CHARLENE'S DANCE N CHEER
139328 5/21/2025 10032 CINTAS CORPORATION 694
Voucher List
CITY OF SANTEE
Invoice PO#
SD0221711 54825
SD0222376 54825
0010058-IN 55105
606561
L 1072898ZE
2504
4-225059 55189
000023371268
W312243 55024
4040954052 54839
ACID 20907
415
4228860513 54844
Description/Account
WEARING APPAREL
WEARING APPAREL
Total:
ENCAMPMENT CLEANUPS
Total:
AMAZON CLOUD SERVICES
Total:
FD PAGER SERVICE
Total:
INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT
Total:
STATION 20 ASPHALT PAD INSTALL
Total:
TELEPHONE
Total:
GENERATOR MAINT & REPAIRS (01
Total:
PLOTTER MAINTENANCE & USAGE
Total:
REFUND - AMBULANCE BILLING
Total:
INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT
Total:
MISC SHOP RENTALS
Total:
Amount
80.80 297.65
378.45
1,491.60
1,491.60
100.00
100.00
219.44
219.44
144.00
144.00
20,413.62
20,413.62
927.80
927.80
205.00
205.00
159.35
159.35
100.00
100.00
11,769.90
11,769.90
74.14 74.14
vchlist Voucher List
05/21/2025 12:17:41 PM CITY OF SANTEE
Bank code : ubqen
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
139329 5/21/2025 15468 CLARK, JESSICA S01111
139330 5/21/2025 10161 CORE SERVICES INC 91270
139331 5/21/2025 10171 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO AUDITOR & 04/2025 AGENCY REV 04/2025 OMV REVENUE
04/2025 PHOENIX REV
139332 5/21/2025 10358 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 25CTOFSAN10
25CTOFSASN10
139333 5/21/2025 10333 COX COMMUNICATIONS 052335901; MAY25 139334 5/21/2025 13129 DAVID TURCH AND ASSOCIATES 042425 139335 5/21/2025 15628 DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, F ACID 13971 139336 5/21/2025 14811 DIGITECH COMPUTER LLC 60007452
139337 5/21/2025 15633 DUANE STANLEY ELY LIVING TRUST, OR ACID 20705 139338 5/21/2025 14609 FELD FIRE, INC INV8987
139339 5/21/2025 10490 HARRIS & ASSOCIATES INC 67131
139340 5/21/2025 10144 HDL COREN & CONE SIN049884
PO# Description/Account
EMPLOYEE REIMBURSEMENT
Total:
54916 CUSTODIAL SERVICES - OFFICES
Total:
04/2025 AGENCY PARK CITE REPT
04/2025 OMV PARK CITE REPT
04/2025 PHOENIX CITE REV REPT
Total:
54987 SHERIFF RADIOS
54908 800 MHZ ACCESS FEES
Total:
8950 COTTONWOOD AVE
Total:
54881 HIGHWAY 52 COALITION
Total:
REFUND - AMBULANCE BILLING
Total:
54998 SLEMSA BILLING CONTRACT SER\
Total:
REFUND - AMBULANCE BILLING
Total:
55111 FIREFIGHTING EQUIPMENT
Total:
55159 PROFESSIONAL SVS - FANITA RAN
Total:
54875 FY 24/25 PROP TAX AUDIT & INFO �
Amount
235.98
235.98
5,043.39
5,043.39
448.50
478.50
1,357.75
2,284.75
2,714.00
2,271.50
4,985.50
196.48
196.48
5,000.00
5,000.00
176.20
176.20
26,571.74
26,571.74
200.00
200.00
3,418.00
3,418.00
5,033.75
5,033.75
4,987.50
vchlist
05/21/2025 12:17:41 PM
Bank code: ubqen
Voucher Date Vendor
139340 5/21/2025 10144 10144 HDL COREN & CONE
139341 5/21/2025 10612 HOME OF GUIDING HANDS CORP
139342 5/21/2025 12386 HORIZONS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
139343 5/21/2025 15440 IOI Q
139344 5/21/2025 15316 JD ANIMAL REMOVAL INC
139345 5/21/2025 13231 JENNINGS, HEATHER
139346 5/21/2025 14956 JET ADVERTISING LLC
139347 5/21/2025 15015 KAISER
139348 5/21/2025 10120 KEARNY PEARSON FORD
139349 5/21/2025 15634 KNAPP, CELESTIA
139350 5/21/2025 10204 LIFE ASSIST INC
139351 5/21/2025 15578 LISZKO, ANITA
Voucher List
CITY OF SANTEE
Invoice PO#
(Continued)
032014001 55160
1-CIP2024-38 55192
GIP 2024-38-RET
INV-IDIO42819
1872 54805
51225
12593 54953
ACID 14446
ACID 6786
ACID 9984
2042374 54887
ACID 24441
1593645 54807
1593952 54807
1595347 54807
ACID 19195
Description/Account
Total:
FY24/25 CDBG SUBRECIPIENT - PL
Total:
PROGRESS PAYMENT #1 - APP BA'
RETENTION-PROGRESS PAYMENT
Total:
ID PROTECTION
Total:
DEAD ANIMAL REMOVAL SERVICE
Total:
EMPLOYEE REIMBURSEMENT
Total:
WEBSITE CONSULTANT UPDATES
Total:
REFUND - AMBULANCE BILLING
REFUND - AMBULANCE BILLING
REFUND - AMBULANCE BILLING
Total:
VEHICLE REPAIR PARTS
Total:
REFUND -AMBULANCE BILLING
Total:
EMS SUPPLIES
EMS SUPPLIES
EMS SUPPLIES
Total:
REFUND - AMBULANCE BILLING
Amount
4,987.50
2,449.92
2,449.92
237,404.88
-11,870.24
225,534.64
572.40
572.40
1,440.00
1,440.00
643.50
643.50
2,437.50
2,437.50
3,091.00
1,515.00
1,201.00
5,807.00
172.90
172.90
50.00 50.00
6,507.00
37.95 68.93
6,613.88
25.00
vchlist
05/21/2025 12:17:41 PM
Bank code: ubqen
Voucher Date Vendor
139351 5/21/2025 15578 15578 LISZKO, ANITA
139352 5/21/2025 15635 LOUIS, LURALEA
139353 5/21/2025 15637 MORRISON, NANCY
139354 5/21/2025 10083 MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES L
139355 5/21/2025 15620 MURG, AARON
139356 5/21/2025 15342 NAPA AUTO PARTS
139357 5/21/2025 10344 PADRE DAM MUNICIPAL WATER DIST
139358 5/21/2025 14614 PARADIGM MECHANICAL CORP
139359 5/21/2025 15636 PEREZ, ANDREA
139360 5/21/2025 15140 PRECISION GARAGE DOOR SERVICE
139361 5/21/2025 12062 PURETEC INDUSTRIAL WATER
139362 5/21/2025 10228 QUESTYS SOLUTIONS
139363 5/21/2025 10095 RASA
Voucher List
CITY OF SANTEE
Invoice PO#
(Continued)
ACID 23459
ACID 21344
IN2248766 54862
04242025
958904 55003
29700015; APR25
90000366; APR25
110890 54821
110891 54821
ACID 23060
188769536 55134
2292415 55042
0000665
5854 54976
Description/Account
Total:
REFUND - AMBULANCE BILLING
Total:
REFUND - AMBULANCE BILLING
Total:
SAFETY APPAREL
Total:
CA FIRE PREVENTION INSTITUTE
Total:
VEHICLE REPAIR PARTS
Total:
CONSTRUCTION METER
GROUP BILL
Total:
HVAC MAINT & REPAIRS
HVAC MAINT & REPAIRS
Total:
REFUND - AMBULANCE BILLING
Total:
AUTOMATIC GATE SERVICE & REP,
Total:
DEIONIZED WATER SERVICE - PSC
Total:
FY25-26 QUESTYS SOFTWARE REI
Total:
MAP CHECK - GRAVES LOT MERGE
Amount
25.00 200.00
200.00
200.00
200.00
552.22
552.22
246.00
246.00
366.07
366.07
271.20
42,936.32
43,207.52
115.86
273.26
389.12
10.00 10.00
1,821.62
1,821.62
16.70 16.70
4,827.96
4,827.96
875.00
vchlist Voucher List
05/21/2025 12:17:41PM CITY OF SANTEE
Bank code : Ub!=Jen
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount 139363 5/21/2025 10095 10095 RASA (Continued) Total: 875.00 139364 5/21/2025 13061 SAN DIEGO HUMANE SOCIETY & MAY-25 54959 ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES 38,674.00 Total: 38,674.00
139365 5/21/2025 10768 SANTEE SCHOOL DISTRICT 9691 54810 TEEN BUS TRANSPORTATION 89.60 9693 54923 FIELD LIGHTING 1,115.10
Total: 1,204.70
139366 5/21/2025 10768 SANTEE SCHOOL DISTRICT 9692 55044 JOINT USE FIELDS - RIO SECO 348.47 Total: 348.47
139367 5/21/2025 15021 SHARP HEALTH PLAN ACID 15933 REFUND - AMBULANCE BILLING 666.52 Total: 666.52
139368 5/21/2025 10585 SHARP REES-STEALY MEDICAL ACID 11653 REFUND - AMBULANCE BILLING 403.58 ACID 12964 REFUND - AMBULANCE BILLING 361.21
Total: 764.79
139369 5/21/2025 12223 SITEONE LANDSCAPE SUPPLY LLC 152929016-001 54925 IRRIGATION PARTS 556.34 Total: 556.34
139370 5/21/2025 10837 SOUTHWEST TRAFFIC SIGNAL 84264 54948 TRAFFIC SIGNAL - MARKOUT REPC 225.00 84265 54948 TRAFFIC SIGNAL - SERVICE CALLE 5,672.15
84266 54955 TRAFFIC SIGNAL - DIG ALERTS 355.71
84267 54955 TRAFFIC SIGNAL - SERVICE CALLE 92.79
84268 54955 TRAFFIC SIGNAL - SERVICE CALLE 175.27
84269 54955 TRAFFIC SIGNAL - MISC TASK - MA 1,098.52
84270 54955 TRAFFIC SIGNAL - SERVICE CALL - 2,804.72
Total: 10,424.16
139371 5/21/2025 11910 SPECTRUM GAS PRODUCTS 00874823 55028 OXYGEN CYLINDER RENTAL 168.00 00874824 55028 OXYGEN CYLINDER RENTAL 94.50
Total: 262.50
139372 5/21/2025 10217 STAPLES ADVANTAGE 6030059448 55122 FY 24/25 OFFICE SUPPLIES 85.10 6030382979 54869 FY 24/25 OFFICE SUPPLIES - FINAt 456.07 6030546635 54869 FY 24/25 OFFICE SUPPLIES - FINAt 297.41
vchlist
05/21/2025 12:17:41PM
Bank code: ubqen
Voucher Date Vendor
139372 5/21/2025 10217 STAPLES ADVANTAGE
139373 5/21/2025 10027 STATE OF CALIFORNIA
139374 5/21/2025 11947 SWARCO MCCAIN INC
139375 5/21/2025 10250 THE EAST COUNTY
139376 5/21/2025 15120 THE WATCHLIGHT CORPORATION
139377 5/21/2025 15621 TRAILERSPLUS
139378 5/21/2025 10482 TRI STAR RISK MANAGEMENT
139379 5/21/2025 10133 UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT
139380 5/21/2025 12480 UNITED SITE SERVICES
139381 5/21/2025 10475 VERIZON WIRELESS
65 Vouchers for bank code ubgen
65 Vouchers in this report
Voucher List
CITY OF SANTEE
Invoice PO#
(Continued)
6031079913 54869
814797
INV0286449 55195
00152341
882067 54912
884825 54912
884931 54912
4RAVS2023SK106671 55233
121597 55095
24-253720 54871
420250710 54871
114-14046633 55056
6113193726
Description/Account
FY 24/25 OFFICE SUPPLIES - FINAt
Total:
FINGERPRINT APPS
Total:
TRAFFIC SIGNAL BATTERY BACKU
Total:
NOi - TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEG.
Total:
SECURITY ALARM SERVICES
SECURITY ALARM SERVICES
SECURITY ALARM SERVICES
Total:
ENCLOSED TRAILERS
Total:
WORKERS COMP ADMINISTRATIOI
Total:
DIG ALERTS - STATE FEE
DIG ALERT - MONTHLY TICKETS
Total:
PORTA POTTIES
Total:
CELL PHONE SERVICE
Total:
Bank total:
Total vouchers :
Amount
105.94
944.52
32.00 32.00
16,043.98
16,043.98
504.00
504.00
110.00
1,441.19
110.00
1,661.19
12,658.56
12,658.56
11,287.50
11,287.50
53.60 167.25
220.85
323.25
323.25
538.67
538.67
489,691.54
489,691.54
vchlist
05/21/2025 12:17:41PM
Bank code : ubqen
Voucher
Voucher List
CITY OF SANTEE
Date -----------------
Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount
--------- ------ ----'---------- -----
-.--- (h A
Prepared by: �\Yj/
Date: ?-�1-P5_ ��. -
Approved by:--------�='---�-+--__
5/u/2,S Date: _________ _
vchlist
05/28/2025 2:18:33PM
Bank code : ubqen
Voucher
81572
81586
Date Vendor
5/28/2025 10956 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD
5/28/2025 10955 DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
2 Vouchers for bank code : ubgen
2 Vouchers in this report
Voucher List
CITY OF SANTEE
Invoice
PPE 5/21/25
PPE 5/21/25
PO# Description/Account
CA STATE TAX WITHHELD
Total:
FEDERAL WITHHOLDING TAX
Total:
Bank total:
Total vouchers
Amount
41,741.03
41,741.03
125,602.66
125,602.66
167,343.69
167,343.69
vchlist
05/28/2025 3:45:39PM
Bank code: ubqen
Voucher Date Vendor
139382 5/28/2025 14954 ADVANCED ELECTRICAL INNOVATION
139383 5/28/2025 10292 ALL STAR FIRE EQUIPMENT INC
139384 5/28/2025 11419 ANALYTICAL CHEMISTS INC
139385 5/28/2025 14306 AZTEC LANDSCAPING INC
139386 5/28/2025 10020 BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
139387 5/28/2025 11402 CARROLL, JUDI
139388 5/28/2025 10032 CINTAS CORPORATION 694
139389 5/28/2025 11409 CLAYTON, SYLVIA
139390 5/28/2025 15152 COAR DESIGN GROUP
139391 5/28/2025 10486 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
139392 5/28/2025 10333 COX COMMUNICATIONS
139393 5/28/2025 14999 DAVE'S SPORT SALES
Voucher List
CITY OF SANTEE
Invoice PO#
643 54873
264203 55074
45668 54831
J2018 54798
J2043 54798
LEGAL APRIL 2025
06012025-96
4229572110 54844
06012025-340
22832 54666
05052025
063453006; MAY25
064114701; MAY25
2772 55226
Description/Account
ELECTRICAL REPAIRS & MAINT
Total:
STRUCTURAL TURNOUTS
Total:
EQUIPMENT TESTING
Total:
PRIVATE EVENT RENTAL SUPPORl
CUSTODIAL SERVICES - PARKS
Total:
LEGAL SVCS APRIL 2025
Total:
MEADOWBROOK HARDSHIP PRO(
Total:
MISC SHOP RENTALS
Total:
MEADOWBROOK HARDSHIP PRO(
Total:
NEW FIRE STATION CITY OPERATII
Total:
NOE - CITYWIDE PAVEMENT REPAI
Total:
9534 VIA ZAPADOR
8115 ARLETTE ST
Total:
CITY POLOS AND JACKETS
Amount
21,309.99
21,309.99
66,226.17
66,226.17
167.00
167.00
182.38
4,972.43
5,154.81
114,150.29
114,150.29
147.64
147.64
90.78 90.78
154.50
154.50
17,610.00
17,610.00
50.00 50.00
97.63 195.86
293.49
2,354.55
vchlist
05/28/2025 3:45:39PM
Bank code : ubqen
Voucher Date Vendor
139393 5/28/2025 14999 14999 DAVE'S SPORT SALES
139394 5/28/2025 14675 EAST COUNTY TRANSITIONAL
139395 5/28/2025 11196 HD SUPPLY FACILITIES
139396 5/28/2025 10600 HINDERLITER DE LLAMAS & ASSOC
139397 5/28/2025 10105 HI-WAY SAFETY INC
139398 5/28/2025 15640 IQ TOTAL SOURCE LLC
139399 5/28/2025 14504 JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
139400 5/28/2025 14504 JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
139401 5/28/2025 14504 JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC
139402 5/28/2025 13558 KIFER HYDRAULICS CO, INC
139403 5/28/2025 10204 LIFE ASSIST INC
139404 5/28/2025 13155 LIFETIME DOG TRAINING, LLC
Voucher List
CITY OF SANTEE
Invoice
(Continued)
20250507C
9236741165
9236805656
SIN049984(A)
SIN049984(B)
171175
WO-7651049-1
WO-7654091-1
W 0-7656397 -1
050525-1
050525-2
050525-3
85633
1596748
1596839
5014
PO#
54681
54803
54803
54907
54863
54888
54807
54807
Description/Account
Total:
ARPA FUNDED SHELTER SERVICE!
Total:
STATION SUPPLIES
STATION SUPPLIES
Total:
FY 24/25 QRTLY SALES TAX PREP
SALES TAX AUDIT SVCS Q4/2024
Total:
FY24/25 TRAFFIC SIGNS & SUPPLII
Total:
OFFICE SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
Total:
MTS TRAINING
Total:
MTS TRAINING
Total:
MTS TRAINING
Total:
VEHICLE REPAIR PARTS
Total:
EMS SUPPLIES
EMS SUPPLIES
Total:
INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT
Amount
2,354.55
6,960.00
6,960.00
2,569.60
120.53
2,690.13
2,400.00
5,930.96
8,330.96
3,495.33
3,495.33
215.13
155.13
310.26
680.52
166.00
166.00
166.00
166.00
166.00
166.00
139.14
139.14
2,518.99
2,748.18
5,267.17
4,500.00
vchlist Voucher List
05/28/2025 3:45:39PM CITY OF SANTEE
Bank code: ubqen
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
139404 5/28/2025 13155 13155 LIFETIME DOG TRAINING, LLC (Continued) 139405 5/28/2025 11285 MGT OF AMERICA CONSULTING LLC 62407 139406 5/28/2025 13369 NATIONWIDE MEDICAL IN44311
139407 5/28/2025 10308 O'REILLY AUTO PARTS CR-2968-283729 139408 5/28/2025 10308 O'REILLY AUTO PARTS 2968-284665
139409 5/28/2025 10344 PADRE DAM MUNICIPAL WATER DIST 90000367; MAY25 139410 5/28/2025 12904 PAT DAVIS DESIGN GROUP INC 8238
139411 5/28/2025 11442 PATTERSON, EDWARD 06012025-225
139412 5/28/2025 10241 PETTY CASH 05162025
10012024
139413 5/28/2025 15140 PRECISION GARAGE DOOR SERVICE 193113542 139414 5/28/2025 12062 PURETEC INDUSTRIAL WATER 2294015 139415 5/28/2025 10830 SAN DIEGO COMMUNITY COLLEGE 22802 139416 5/28/2025 10606 SD COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT MARCH 2025 SHERIFF PO# Description/Account
Total :
54877 FY 24/25 STATE MANDATE COST Cl
Total:
54808 EMS SUPPLIES
Total:
54864 CR-REPAIR PART EXCHANGE
Total :
54864 VEHICLE SUPPLIES
Total:
GROUP BILL
Total:
54893 GRAHIC ARTIST FEES
Total:
MEADOWBROOK HARDSHIP PROC:
Total:
PETTY CASH REIMB - PSD
PETTY CASH REIMB - CSD
Total:
55232 PSD SOUTH AUTOMATIC GATE REF
Total:
55043 DEIONIZED WATER SERVICE
Total:
55229 ANNUAL FTES ENROLLMENT
Total:
MARCH 2025 LAW ENFORCEMENT
Total:
Amount
4,500.00
2,875.00
2,875.00
446.34
446.34
35.05 35.05
9.77 9.77
39,909.21
39,909.21
7,987.00
7,987.00
142.45
142.45
6.18 134.77
140.95
3,674.31
3,674.31
234.85
234.85
4,968.00
4,968.00
1,468,332.47
1,468,332.47
vchlist Voucher List
05/28/2025 3:45:39PM CITY OF SANTEE
Bank code : ubqen
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
139417 5/28/2025 10407 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC 34223805628;MAY25 43940205509;MAY25
79900685777;MAY25
85097421694;MAY25
139418 5/28/2025 10407 SAN DIEGO GAS ELECTRIC 2100016967210;MAY25 139419 5/28/2025 15315 SAN DIEGO PACIFIC CREST SVCS M17078 139420 5/28/2025 10677 SANTEE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 01
139421 5/28/2025 10110 SECTRAN SECURITY INC 25050626
139422 5/28/2025 10585 SHARP REES-STEALY MEDICAL 102899 139423 5/28/2025 12223 SITEONE LANDSCAPE SUPPLY LLC 152440933-004 152628689-001
153078083-001
139424 5/28/2025 15639 SONIA'S HEALTH CORNER 1050
139425 5/28/2025 11403 ST JOHN, LYNNE 06012025-78
139426 5/28/2025 10217 STAPLES ADVANTAGE 6029890495
6031531379
6031600021
6031600022
PO# Description/Account
ROW / MEDIANS (GAS)
LMD
BALLFIELDS; FACILITIES; PARKS
CITY HALL GROUP BILL
Total:
8626 MAST BLVD
Total:
54911 VEHICLE TESTING
Total:
55245 MISS SANTEE PROGRAM SPONSO
Total:
54924 FY 24/25 ARMORED CAR TRANSPC
Total:
POST ACCIDENT TESTING
Total:
54925 IRRIGATION PARTS
54925 IRRIGATION PARTS
54925 IRRIGATION PARTS
Total:
WELLNESS EVENT
Total:
MEADOWBROOK HARDSHIP PROC:
Total:
OFFICE SUPPLIES
55122 FY 24/25 OFFICE SUPPLIES
54897 OFFICE SUPPLIES
54897 OFFICE SUPPLIES
Total:
Amount
264.22
1,975.42
19,513.27
8,939.61
30,692.52
14.11 14.11
130.00
130.00
1,500.00
1,500.00
180.24
180.24
93.00 93.00
1,246.61
1,037.14
290.22
2,573.97
250.00
250.00
147.93
147.93
238.64
59.36 6.92
46.97 351.89
vchlist
05/28/2025 3:45:39PM
Bank code : ubqen
Voucher Date Vendor
139427 5/28/2025 10119 STEVEN SMITH LANDSCAPE INC
139428 5/28/2025 11587 STRYKER SALES CORPORATION
139429 5/28/2025 10572 SUNBELT RENTALS INC
139430 5/28/2025 10741 TARGET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS
139431 5/28/2025 10316 TCB EMBROIDERY
139432 5/28/2025 10250 THE EAST COUNTY
139433 5/28/2025 15621 TRAILERSPLUS
139434 5/28/2025 14354 TRILOGY MEDWASTE WEST, LLC
139435 5/28/2025 10550 UNIFORMS PLUS INC
139436 5/28/2025 15631 UTI CUSTOMS
139437 5/28/2025 10537 WETMORE'S
Voucher List
CITY OF SANTEE
Invoice PO#
3495 54900
3530 54901
9209218562 54813
168614743-0001 54814
INVP501802382 55199
19906 54938
00152656
00152673
TRPL31-45896 55233
TRPL31-45897 55233
55233
1734328 54913
1734329 54913
5625 54914
5725 54914
013025
06P108901 54905
Description/Account
A 2 LANDSCAPE SERVICES
A 3 LANDSCAPE SERVICES
Total:
EMS SUPPLIES
Total:
EQUIPMENT RENTAL
Total:
HERBICIDE & ANTI FOAM PURCHM
Total:
PSD UNIFORM APPAREL
Total:
NOTICE OF CONTINUED PUBLIC HI
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING - CUI
Total:
ENCLOSED TRAILERS
ENCLOSED TRAILERS
Total:
BIOMEDICAL WASTE DISPOSAL
BIOMEDICAL WASTE DISPOSAL
Total:
WEARING APPAREL
WEARING APPAREL
Total:
FLEET WEARING APPAREL
Total:
VEHICLE REPAIR PARTS
Amount
21,760.00
11,482.00
33,242.00
765.49
765.49
463.36
463.36
3,466.12
3,466.12
2,803.66
2,803.66
245.00
276.50
521.50
12,658.56
12,658.56
25,317.12
236.14
236.12
472.26
1,161.45
1,142.96
2,304.41
508.91
508.91
21.05
vchlist
05/28/2025 3:45:39PM
Bank code : ubqen
Voucher
139437
139438
Date Vendor
5/28/2025 10537 10537 WETMORE'S
5/28/2025 10318 ZOLL MEDICAL CORPORATION
57 Vouchers for bank code : ubgen
57 Vouchers in this report
Prepared by:.___,,.,_,�=---1\d"--"'-LJ.c-"'-->"-'-�""-- --=-------- Date: ___ f;5::r-'-.2...,....@_:,--� ----
Approved by:-----����----,--+--
Date: _ $j-#/zs
Voucher List
CITY OF SANTEE
Invoice
(Continued)
3786536
4197357
PO# Description/Account
Total:
54817 EMS SUPPLIES
54817 EMS SUPPLIES
Total:
Bank total:
Total vouchers
Amount
21.05 3,067.64
200.02
3,267.66
1,898,113.07
1,898,113.07
PyBatch
05/27/2025
Type
Grand..-Totals
ir� a�co�
acrt
acrtnp
adtk
'"'filtn_p;
atkn
caco
cacs
coun
ctkn
detd
detu
flsa
htkn
lwop
mayr
mentor
otsb
otth
pth
stdb
stkn
stknpt
ststkn
unif
unifp
vacp
vtkn
went
Grand
Totals
8:21:07AM
EARNINGS SECTION
Hours/units Rate
24.00 126.25
171.00
96.00 38.00
.. 96.00
676.50
89.00 8.00
186.75
126.50
5.00 25.00
83.75 72.00
26.00 1,724.25
1,1.98.25
10,739.00
192.75
10.00 24.00
571.22
371.25
216.00
16,896.47
Amount Src Plan
•. 8.9p�
Employees:
bnvl
.22.,.. catax
1,378.78 chdsp1
799.80 chdsp2
3,042.81
chdsp5 {l.4.9.0.88�
30,708.13 ct1cs1
fedtax
3,55lso icma
icmaln
7,364;97 medtax
5,290.29 mt1cs1 194.89
6,516.18 mt2cs1
922.55 pars
per625
1,498.06 pers
624.99 pert2m 1,339.49 pert2s
95,843.47 pert3s 38,790.81
492,747.13 rhsa2%
450.00 rhsabc
9,257.60 roth
223.58, sb-1
935.37 sb-3
550.00 sffa
675.00 sffapc 65,866.70
23,640.12 st1cs3
8,739.08 st2cs3
vision
voldis
813,378.46
Payroll Processing Report
CITY OF SANTEE
5/8/2025 to 5/21/2025-3 Cycle b
DEDUCTIONS SECTION
Base Wages Deduction
193
108.57
686,810.59 41 .741.03
260.30
449.53
641.53
36,057.47 360.60
686,810.59 102,432.08
224,984.33 54,591.14
7,839.27 4,726.13
798,974.65 11,585.29
104,864.24 1,048.63
28,573.46 285.75
19,816.93 743.19
211,180.93 16,366.55
222,437.31 18,970.73
28,573.46 2,000.13
15,934.38 1,434.10
131,207.02 19,025.06
220,835.32
29,883.73 597.67
124,934.75 13,942.14
91.14 72.08
3,639.68
1,037.29
81,515.60 2,445.47
15,934.38 478.03
15,983.90
124.76
299,198.60
Benefit/Cont
-360.60
11,585.29
-1,048.63
-285.75
743.19
16,619.94
51,248.23
3,394.53
3,977.22
19,313.69
4,416.67
-2,445.47
-478.03
106,680.28
LvPlan
a-fire
afir40
c-fire
c-misc
comp
exadm
gen
m-fhol
mdadm
s-bc's
s-fchf
s-fire
s-misc
s-pth
sfir40
sradmi
v-exec
v-mgmt
LEAVE SECTION
Accrued
644.62
6.46 228.83
22.14 4.52
339.48
324.73
3.69 37.87
145.22
Gross:
Net:
Taken
673.50
3.00 174.25
12.50 2.00
103.75
25.00 5.00
24.00 168.75
10.00 31.00
46.00 792.72
813,378.46
514,179.86
Banked
107.25
30.26 4.00
<< No Errors/ 8 Warnings >>
Lost
7.70
vchlist
05/29/2025 11:04:41AM
Bank code : ubqen
Voucher Date Vendor
139439 5/29/2025 12724 AMERICAN FIDELITY ASSURANCE
139440 5/29/2025 10508 LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF
139441 5/29/2025 14452 MEDICAL AIR SERVICES ASSC
139442 5/29/2025 14458 METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE
139443 5/29/2025 10424 SANTEE FIREFIGHTERS
139444 5/29/2025 10776 STATE OF CALIFORNIA
139445 5/29/2025 10776 STATE OF CALIFORNIA
139446 5/29/2025 14467 TEXAS LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
139447 5/29/2025 10001 US BANK
139448 5/29/2025 14600 WASHINGTON STATE SUPPORT
10 Vouchers for bank code : ubgen
10 Vouchers in this report
Voucher List
CITY OF SANTEE
Invoice PO# Description/Account
D850097 VOLUNTARY LIFE INS-AM FIDELITY
Total:
May 2025 LIFE/LTD INSURANCE
Total:
May 2025 MEDICAL AIR TRANSPORT SVCS
Total:
85808844 VOLUNTARY LEGAL
Total:
PPE 5/21/25 DUES/PEC/BENEVOLENT
Total:
PPE 5/21/25 WITHHOLDING ORDER
Total:
PPE 5/21/25 WITHHOLDING ORDER
Total:
SM0F0U20250514001 VOLUNTARY INS RIDERS
Total:
PPE 5/21/25 PARS RETIREMENT
Total:
PPE 5/21/25 WITHHOLDING ORDER
Total:
Bank total :
Total vouchers
Amount
4,804.92
4,804.92
3,231.52
3,231.52
151.00
151.00
693.00
693.00
4,785.54
4,785.54
449.53
449.53
260.30
260.30
499.35
499.35
1,486.38
1,486.38
641.53
641.53
17,003.07
17,003.07
vchlist
05/29/2025 11 :04:41AM
Bank code : ubqen
Voucher
Voucher List
CITY OF SANTEE
-----
Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount ---- ----------------- --------- ------ __ ...;_ __________ ------
vchlist
05/30/2025 10:13:21AM
Bank code : ubqen
Voucher
6687570
6901172
Date Vendor
5/30/2025 14705 RHS MISSIONSQUARE
5/29/2025 14704 457 MISSIONSQUARE
2 Vouchers for bank code : ubgen
2 Vouchers in this report
Pcepacedby, �.-:'.
A
Date� ppm,
ed;;· Date: {,,. -
Voucher List
CITY OF SANTEE
Invoice
PPE 5/21/25
PPE 5/21/25
------ PO# Description/Account
RETIREE HSA
Total:
ICMA-457
Total:
Bank total:
Total vouchers :
Amount
5,014.34
5,014.34
73,259.41
73,259.41
78,273.75
78,273.75
PyBatch
06/02/2025 12:45:25PM
EARNINGS SECTION
Type Hours/units
Grand Totals
reth
Grand
Totals
0.00 Rate Amount Src Plan
Payroll Processing Report
CITY OF SANTEE
6/1/2025 to 6/30/2025-1 Cycle m
DEDUCTIONS SECTION
Base Wages Deduction BenefiUCont LvPlan
5,460.00
Employees: 30
catax 5,460.00
5,460.00
46.00 fedtax 211.00
5,460.00 257.00 0.00
LEAVE SECTION
Accrued
Gross:
Net:
Taken
5,460.00
5,203.00
Banked
<< No Errors I No Warnings >>
Lost
vchlist
06/03/2025 9:16:13AM
Bank code : ubqen
Voucher
5254
Date Vendor
6/3/2025 10353 PERS
1 Vouchers for bank code : ubgen
1 Vouchers in this report
Prepared by: \.,. 1{�/
Date �� App,o,ed bY' ;; Date: �
Voucher List
CITY OF SANTEE
Invoice
05 25 4
------ PO# Des cri pti on/Account
RETIREMENT PAYMENT
Total:
Bank total:
Total vouchers
Amount
152,513.22
152,513.22
152,513.22
152,513.22
RESOLUTION NO. __________
RESOLUTION AWARDING THE CONTRACT FOR SHADOW HILL PARK PLAYGROUND RENOVATION TO PLAYCORE WISCONSIN, INC., DBA GAMETIME, UTILIZING THE OMNIA CONTRACT #2017001134 AWARDED BY US COMMUNITIES GOVERNMENT PURCHASING ALLIANCE RFP #269-2017-028 FOR PLAYGROUND AND OUTDOOR
FITNESS EQUIPMENT, SITE ACCESSORIES, SURFACING, AND RELATED PRODUCTS
AND SERVICES
WHEREAS, The current playground equipment at Shadow Hill Park was installed in 1998 and has exceeded its useful life and is in need of replacement; and WHEREAS, Santee Municipal Code Section 3.24.130 (A) authorizes the City to join with other public jurisdictions in cooperative purchasing plans or programs when determined by the purchasing agent to be in the City’s best interest; and WHEREAS, PlayCore Wisconsin, Inc., dba Gametime was awarded OMNIA Contract #2017001134 by US Communities Government Purchasing Alliance RFP #269-2017-028 for Playground and Outdoor Fitness Equipment, Site Accessories, Surfacing, and Related Products and Services; and
WHEREAS, the Contractor was selected by State of California Department of General Services, pursuant to its California Multiple Award Schedule (CMAS) Contract 4-20-00-0092B, Supplement #3 which is based on OMNIA Contract #2017001134; and WHEREAS, the City’s purchasing agent finds that utilization of Contract #2017001134 would be in the City’s best interest.
WHEREAS, the City has funds available from various sources described herein to meet this contractual commitment; and
WHEREAS, the City received a Neighborhood Reinvestment Program grant from County Supervisor Joel Anderson’s office in the amount of $200,000.00 to be used towards the Shadow Hill Park Playground Renovation Project; and
WHEREAS, staff recommends authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract for the Shadow Hill Park Playground Renovation Project with PlayCore Wisconsin, Inc., dba Gametime, utilizing the above mentioned cooperative purchasing plan for an amount not to exceed $442,710.00; and
WHEREAS, staff recommends authorizing the City Manager to approve change orders up to $44,270.00; and
WHEREAS, staff recommends authorizing the Director of Community Services to execute Notices of Completion and authorizing the City Clerk to file said notices upon satisfactory completion of work; and
WHEREAS, this item is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Section 15302 of the CEQA Guidelines (replacement or reconstruction of existing structures and facilities).
RESOLUTION NO. __________
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santee, California, that it hereby:
SECTION 1. Authorizes the transfer and appropriation of $149,880.00 from the General Fund, Community Services Department operating budget to CIP Shadow Hill Park Playground Renovation.
SECTION 2. Authorizes the transfer and appropriation of $20,000.00 from General Park Improvements to the Shadow Hill Park Playground Renovation CIP Project.
SECTION 3. Authorizes the transfer and appropriation of $50,000.00 from the Park in Lieu fund to the Shadow Hill Park Renovation CIP Project
SECTION 4. Authorizes the transfer and appropriation of $98,000.00 from the Recreation Revolving unrestricted fund balance to CIP Shadow Hill Park Playground Renovation.
SECTION 5. Authorizes the City Manager to execute the contract for Shadow Hill Park Playground Renovation with PlayCore Wisconsin, Inc., dba Gametime, for an amount not to exceed $442,710.00.
SECTION 6. Authorizes the City Manager to approve change orders in a total amount not to exceed $44,270.00.
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Santee, California, at a Regular Meeting thereof held this 11th of June, 2025, by the following roll call vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
APPROVED:
JOHN W. MINTO, MAYOR
ATTEST:
JAMES JEFFRIES, CITY CLERK
RESOLUTION NO. __________
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTEE, CALIFORNIA
AUTHORIZNG AN AGREEMENT FOR URBAN FORESTRY MANAGEMENT
SERVICES WITH WEST ARBORISTS INC. RFB #24-025
WHEREAS, the current contract for urban forestry management services will expire on June 30, 2025. Santee Municipal Code (SMC) 3.24.130 authorizes the City to buy directly from a vendor at a price established by a competitive or competitively negotiated bid by another public agency as long as that bid substantially complied with the formal bidding procedures in Santee Municipal Code (SMC) sections 3.24.100 even if the City had not joined with that public agency in a cooperative purchase; and WHEREAS, in April 2024, the City of Rialto conducted a formal competitive request for bid (RFB) process, substantially complying with Santee’s Municipal Code, for provision of Urban Forestry Management Services. Based on the requirements for the lowest responsive responsible bidder, West Coast Arborists Incorporated was awarded the contract for RFB #24-025 for an initial three (3) year term plus two (2) additional 12- month options; and
WHEREAS, West Coast Arborists Inc. has offered the City of Santee the same terms, an initial three (3) year term, plus two (2) additional 12-month options; and WHEREAS, staff recommends authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement with West Coast Arborists Inc. for provision of Urban Forestry Management Services utilizing the City of Rialto contract for RFB #24-025 for an amount of $227,000.00 for Fiscal Year 2025-26 which includes $7,000.00 for Contract Option #4 to “Create a Public Facing Tree Inventory and Canopy Cover Website”; and $220,000.00 for each Fiscal Year 2026-27 and FY 2027-28 per fixed unit pricing for the initial three year contract; and
WHEREAS, staff recommends authorizing the City Manager to approve up to two (2) additional 12-month options, after the initial three (3) year term, authorizing future purchase orders along with subsequent contract renewals and annual changes orders up not to exceed ten percent (10%) of the then current fiscal year contract amount; and WHEREAS, this item is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to section 15301 (maintenance of existing structures, facilities or mechanical equipment).
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santee, California, as follows:
Section 1. The above recitals are hereby incorporated as though fully set forth herein.
Section 2. The City Council Authorizes the City Manager to execute the West Coast Arborists, Inc. (“Contractor”) for Urban Forestry Management Services agreement, for a not to exceed amount of $227,000.00 for Fiscal Year 2025-26, which includes Option #4 to “Create a Public Facing tree Inventory and Canopy Cover Website”, and RESOLUTION NO. __________
$220,000.00 for each FY 2026-27 and FY 2027-28 per fixed unit pricing for the initial three-year term contract; and.
Section 3. The City Council Authorizes the City Manager to approve up to two (2) additional 12-month options, after the initial three (3) year term, to renew along with corresponding purchase orders; and
Section 4. The City Council Authorizes the City Manager to approve annual change orders up to ten percent (10%) of the then current contract amount; and Section 5. This action is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to section 15301 (maintenance of existing structures, facilities or mechanical equipment).
Section 6. If any provision of this Resolution, to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the Resolution which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Resolution are severable. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Resolution irrespective of the invalidity of any particular portion thereof.
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Santee, California, at a Regular Meeting thereof held this 11th day of June 2025, by the following roll call vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
APPROVED:
JOHN W. MINTO, MAYOR
ATTEST:
JAMES JEFFRIES, CITY CLERK
RESOLUTION NO. __________
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTEE, CALIFORNIA
APPROVING THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT WITH ADVANCED
RAILWAY INNOVATIONS, DBA ADVANCED ELECTRICAL INNOVATIONS, FOR
ELECTRICAL REPAIRS AND RELATED MAINTENANCE
WHEREAS, on May 10, 2023, the City entered into an agreement with Advanced an agreement with Advanced Railway Innovations, DBA Advanced Electrical Innovations for FY 2023/24 in the amount of $37,892.00; and
WHEREAS, on July 1, 2024, the City exercised its option to extend the Contract for 12 months through June 30, 2025, in accordance with Section 6 of the Agreement and increased the not-to-exceed amount to $39,256.11 for Fiscal Year 2024/25 to reflect an increase in the Consumer Price Index in accordance with Section 6 of the Contract; and WHEREAS, on February 26, 2025, the City approved the First Amendment to the Agreement to increase the not-to-exceed amount for FY 2024/25 by $21,495.39, from $39,256.11 to $60,751.50 to include several electrical jobs that needed to be addressed; and
WHEREAS, staff has identified additional required electrical work at the temporary Fire Station 20 prior to the station becoming operational that requires the Agreement to be increased by $9,946.12; and
WHEREAS, staff recommends the City Council adopt the Resolution approving the Second Amendment to the Agreement, which will increase the not-to-exceed amount for FY 2024/25 by $9,946.12, from $60,751.50 to $70,697.62; and WHEREAS, staff recommends authorizing the City Manager to execute all necessary documents to execute the contract on behalf of the City; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santee, California, that it hereby:
SECTION 1. Authorizes the City Manager to execute the Electrical Repairs and Related Maintenance contract on behalf of the City.
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Santee, California, at a Regular Meeting thereof held this 11th of June 2025, by the following roll call vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
APPROVED:
JOHN W. MINTO, MAYOR
ATTEST:
JAMES JEFFRIES, CITY CLERK
STAFF REPORT
PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF FANITA RANCH, TO CONSIDER
CERTIFYING FINAL RECIRCULATED REVISED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT INCLUDING SECOND RECIRCULATED SECTIONS (ENV-2025-0003, AEIS2022-4, AEIS2017-11), AND APPROVING THE FANITA RANCH DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT (DR-2025-0001), VESTING TENTATIVE MAP (TM-2025-0001), AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR PUBLIC PARKS (CUP-2025-0001 AND CUP-2025-0002), AND A FIRE STATION (CUP-2025-0003))
APPLICANT: HOMEFED FANITA RANCHO LLC
CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 11, 2025
A. SITUATION AND FACTS
1. Requested by ................................. HomeFed Fanita Rancho LLC
2. Land Owner(s)................................. HomeFed Fanita Rancho LLC
3. Type and Purpose of Request Final Recirculated Revised Environmental Impact Report (EIR) including Second Recirculated Sections;
Vesting Tentative Map; Development Plan and
Development Review Permit; Conditional Use Permits
for two public parks and a fire station.
4. Location........................................... North of Carlton Hills Blvd and Fanita Parkway
5. Site Area ......................................... 2,368 acres
6. Number of lots................................. 1,467 (proposed)
7. Number of units 2,949 with school; 3,008 without school
8. Density ............................................ Various (4-50 dwelling units per acre)
9. Hillside Overlay ............................... No
10. Existing Zoning................................ PD-Planned Development
11. Surrounding Zoning......................... North: Unincorporated Lakeside Rural Residential South: R-2, R-1, R1A, HL
East: Unincorporated Lakeside Rural Residential
West: MCAS Miramar; East Elliot (San Diego)
12. General Plan Designation ............... Planned Development
13. Existing Land Use............................ Undeveloped site
14.Surrounding Land Use...................... North: Open space Staff Report, June 11, 2025
Fanita Ranch
South: Single-family residential
East: Undeveloped land; rural residential
West: Open space; PDMWD water treatment facility
15. Terrain…………………………………Hillside and valley terrain
16.Environmental Status ...................... Final Recirculated Revised EIR, including Second Recirculated Sections (SCH# 2005061118)
17.Within Airport Influence Area (AIA)…Gillespie Field and MCAS B. BACKGROUND
Prior Project Approvals
2020 Prior Project Approvals
On September 23, 2020, the City Council of the City of Santee (“City”) approved a prior Staff Report, June 11, 2025
Fanita Ranch
version of the Fanita Ranch project (hereinafter referred to as the “2020 prior project approvals”) including resolutions to: certify the Final Revised Environmental Impact Report (REIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 2005061118); to adopt a General Plan Amendment (GPA2017-2); and to approve the applications for a Fanita Ranch Vesting Tentative Map for the subdivision of approximately 2,638 acres into 1,467 lots (TM2017- 3), a Development Review Permit (DR2017-4), a Conditional Use Permit for a new 31.2- acre public community park (P2017-5), and a Conditional Use Permit for a new 4.2-acre public neighborhood park (P2020-2).
Also included in the 2020 prior project approvals was the adoption of two ordinances, introduced on September 23, 2020 and adopted on October 14, 2020. Specifically, Ordinance No. 580, added Chapter 13.20 “Specific Plan District” to Title 13 and amended Chapter 13.04 “Administration” of the Santee Municipal Code and approved the Fanita Ranch Specific Plan (Case Files R2017-1 and SP2017-1). Ordinance No. 581 approved and authorized the execution of a development agreement by and among the City of Santee and HomeFed Fanita Rancho LLC.
On October 21, 2020, the Final REIR for the prior project approvals was challenged by Preserve Wild Santee, Center for Biological Diversity, Endangered Habitats League, and California Chaparral Institute (collectively, “Petitioners”). On March 3, 2022, the Court issued its ruling identifying deficiencies in the Final REIR related to wildfire evacuation, entered judgment based on its ruling on March 25, 2022, and issued a peremptory writ of mandate ordering the City to set aside and vacate all resolutions and approvals pertaining to the previous Fanita Ranch project. On May 25, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 070-2022, setting aside and vacating in their entirety the 2020 prior project approvals, including certification of the Final REIR.
2022 Prior Project Approvals
Since the 2020 prior project approvals, the City adopted an Essential Housing Program by Ordinance (Urgency Ordinance 592) on August 25, 2021. On November 29, 2021, an application was submitted by HomeFed Fanita Rancho, LLC for Fanita Ranch under the Essential Housing Program. On December 27, 2021, the City’s Director of Development Services (now Planning & Building) certified the Fanita Ranch as an Essential Housing Project.
On May 4, 2022, HomeFed Fanita Rancho LLC submitted applications pursuant to Urgency Ordinance 592 consisting of a Fanita Ranch Development Review Permit (DR2022-4), a Vesting Tentative Map (TM2022-1), Conditional Use Permits for a Community Park (P2022-1), a Neighborhood Park (P2022-2) and a new Fire Station (P2022-3), and an application for processing under the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (Senate Bill 330) for the development of Fanita Ranch, including the subdivision of approximately 2,638 acres (hereinafter referred to as the “2022 prior project approvals”).
Staff Report, June 11, 2025
Fanita Ranch
The description of the 2022 prior project components did not change from the 2020 prior project approvals except that the Magnolia Avenue extension—originally proposed as part of the prior proposed project but omitted prior to the 2020 City Council hearing—was added back into the project as originally proposed. In addition, since the 2022 prior project was certified as an Essential Housing Project, it was considered to be in compliance with the Santee General Plan, and therefore did not require a General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan, rezone or other legislative action. Additionally, the applicant no longer sought a Development Agreement; however all provisions of the former Development Agreement were incorporated as conditions of approval in the resolutions for the Vesting Tentative Map, Development Review Permit, and/or Conditional Use Permits for the Community Park, Neighborhood Park and Fire Station.
Recirculated Sections were prepared in June 2022 to correct the deficiencies identified in the Court’s March 25, 2022 ruling, judgment, and writ. The Recirculated Sections included new or replaced Chapter 0, Preface, and Section 4.18, Wildfire, in their entirety. The Recirculated Sections also included strikeout/underline changes to Chapter 3, Project Description, and Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, because the proposed project no longer requested legislative approvals, including a General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan, Rezone, or Development Agreement, but instead requested adjudicatory approval of a Development Plan, Vesting Tentative Map, Development Review Permit, and Conditional Use Permits. On September 14, 2022, the City Council held a public hearing and voted unanimously to certify the Final Recirculated REIR and approve the proposed project.
On October 14, 2022, Petitioners again filed a lawsuit challenging the City’s approval of the Fanita Ranch Project and certification of the related REIR including Recirculated Sections under CEQA. On October 1, 2024, the Court issued its ruling identifying deficiencies in the Final Recirculated REIR related to General Plan inconsistency and related issues related to CEQA, the California Elections Code, and Subdivision Map Act, and issued a peremptory writ of mandate (“Writ”) ordering the City to set aside and vacate all resolutions and approvals pertaining to the 2022 prior project approvals. On December 11, 2024, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 130-2024, setting aside and vacating in their entirety the 2022 prior project approvals, including certification of the Final Recirculated REIR.
C. PROPOSED PROJECT
As directed by Resolution No. 130-2024, City staff was directed to prepare additional environmental analysis and/or revise the analysis in the 2022 Final REIR, including the Recirculated Sections but excepting Chapter 4.18 "Wildfire," consistent with the requirements set forth in CEQA and the State Planning and Zoning Law in accordance with the Court's ruling, and in compliance with the directive in the Writ (the “Proposed Project”).
Staff Report, June 11, 2025
Fanita Ranch
The Proposed Project as described in this Section C has not changed from the 2022 prior project approvals, however, the environmental analysis has been supplemented to correct the deficient portions of the Final Recirculated REIR, as set forth below in Section D of this Staff Report.
Fanita Ranch Development Plan
The Proposed Project would establish a new community
within the City of Santee consisting of approximately
2,949 housing units under the preferred land use plan
with school, or 3,008 units under the land use plan
without school, and up to 80,000 square feet of
commercial uses in addition to parks, open space, and
agriculture uses. Project development would be
clustered into three villages to preserve natural open
space areas, drainages, and key wildlife corridors. The three villages would be named according to their design theme: Fanita Commons, Vineyard Village, and Orchard
Village. The three villages would be situated around a
centralized farm that would provide food and function as a focal point for the community. Each village would be
defined by its location, physical characteristics, and mix of housing types and uses.
Fanita Commons would serve as the main village and include the primary Village Center, the Village Green, the Community Park, a potential K–8 school site, and an Active Adult neighborhood. The Vineyard and Orchard Villages would include smaller, mixed-use Village Centers that would allow for neighborhood-serving uses, office space, and other community services and amenities, as well as Medium Density Residential and Low Density Residential neighborhoods. The proposed project would provide mini-parks, neighborhood parks and a community park all within walking distance of residences. A comprehensive system of walking and biking trails would connect the residences to key destinations throughout the project site and to existing off-site trails in surrounding park and recreation areas.
The proposed land uses and maximum residential unit yield for the project are provided in Table 1, which is excerpted from the Development Plan.
Residential Use: The Proposed Project would develop 1,203 single-family residential units and 1,746 multi-family units. The Development Plan describes numerous residential types that will accommodate various housing needs. Higher density residential types (up to 50 dwelling units/acre) would typically be located in Village Centers (VC), and medium- (8-25 dwelling units/acre) to low-density (4-10 dwelling units/acre) residential Staff Report, June 11, 2025
Fanita Ranch
TABLE 1
Land Use Plan Statistical Summary
Land Use
Designation
Area (Acres) Dwelling Units Density Range
(Du/Ac)
Commercial Square
Feet
Residential & Village Center
Low Density Residential (LDR) 240.8 1,203 4 - 10
Medium Density Residential N/A
(MDR)
67.0 866 8 - 25
Active Adult (AA) 31.0 445 5 - 25
Village Center (VC) 36.5 435 Up to 50 60,000
Residential & Village Center Subtotal 375.3 2,949 60,000 Other Uses
Community Park (CP) 31.2
N/A N/A
N/A
Neighborhood Park (NP) 30.4
Mini-Park (MP) 16.4
School (S) Overlay 15.0
Special Use (SU) 31.9
Open Space (OS) 256.0
Agriculture (A) Overlay 38.2 20,000
Habitat Preserve (HP) 1,650.4
N/A
Roadways 193.3
Other Uses Subtotal 2,262.8 20,000
DEVELOPMENT PLAN TOTAL 2,638.1 2,949 80,000
Notes:
1. Acreage reflects the rounding of numbers and may vary slightly from the calculated total.
2. The transfer of residential dwelling units and commercial square feet within the Development Plan Area is permitted up to 15 percent of the total residential units for the respective land use designation, as provided in Section 10.7.1:
Administrative Amendments (Minor Modifications) of the Development Plan.
3. VC reserves a 1.5-acre fire station site.
4. There are 31 mini-parks on approximately 16.4 acres distributed throughout the Development Plan Area, including the Village Green located in Fanita Commons.
5. Does not include approximately 28.6 acres of off-site roadway improvements.
6. The underlying land use for the S overlay site is MDR. If the reserved school site is not acquired for school use within 2 years of approval of the final map containing the S overlay site, the MDR land use may be implemented on the school site and the maximum total number of units in the Development Plan Area shall be 3,008 units, as provided in Section 3.2.5: School (S) Overlay and Section 10.7.1: Administrative Amendments (Minor Modifications) of the Development Plan
7. The underlying land use for the A overlay sites is OS. If an A overlay site is not developed with agricultural related uses described in Section 3.2.8: Agriculture (A) Overlay of the Development Plan, the OS land use shall be implemented on the A overlay sites.
communities would surround the Village Centers. Fanita Ranch would also include an “Active Adult” neighborhood for age-restricted residential uses in a variety of building Staff Report, June 11, 2025
Fanita Ranch
typologies, with densities ranging from 5 to 25 dwelling units/acre. The Active Adult land use designation occurs in Fanita Commons near the Village Center, Farm and Community Park to promote walkability.
Further, the Proposed Project includes a $2.6 million contribution to an affordable housing fund, as well as the production of 150 workforce housing units, onsite or offsite; thus providing for a mix of very low, low, moderate and above-moderate income households.
This provision of housing will assist the City of Santee in addressing the existing housing crisis in the City consistent with the findings of Urgency Ordinance No. 592 as amended.
Parks: Fanita Ranch would add approximately 78 acres of parkland, of which 35 acres are comprised of two publicly-owned parks (a 31.2-acre Community Park and 4.2-acre Neighborhood Park) and 43 acres are comprised of private parks with full public access.
The publicly-owned Community Park and Neighborhood Park would include park amenities required in the Community Park CUP (P2022-1) and the Neighborhood Park CUP (P2022-2). One of the amenities of the Community Park would be a 7,000-10,000 square foot public building. The Proposed Project would exceed its Parkland Dedication requirements.
Trails: Fanita Ranch would provide City residents with new, public, recreational opportunities, including use of the over 35 miles of trail network (currently the site is privately owned and gated). The trail system accommodates a variety of users, connects Villages and community amenities, maximizes views, protects sensitive habitat areas and provides linkages to local and regional parks and trails. The trail system would be comprised of trails of varying width and surface material, ranging from 2.5-foot wide, native earth “Primitive” trails to 10-foot wide concrete “Multi-Purpose” and “Village Access” trails. An 8-foot wide, “Perimeter” trail intended for recreational use and fire access would be comprised of native earth or decomposed granite (DG) and would loop around the Vineyard Village.
Fire Station and Fire Protection: Fanita Ranch would provide a 10,000 square-foot, turnkey fire station to provide service to both project residents and existing Santee neighborhoods. The project would provide one Type I fire engine and one Type III wildland fire engine to be added to the City’s fire apparatus resources. The project would also include full staffing of the fire station, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, with three captains, three engineers and three firefighter/paramedics.
The project provides a Fire Protection Plan that incorporates the City’s fire code, amended to be more restrictive than the state code, and includes highly specialized brush management zones adjacent to structures and roadways.
School Overlay: The Development Plan establishes a 15.0-acre school lot with a “School Overlay”. The school site is intended for a K-8 school. The underlying land use for the School Overlay site is Medium Density Residential (MDR). If the reserved school site is Staff Report, June 11, 2025
Fanita Ranch
not acquired for school use within 2 years of approval of the final map containing the School Overlay site, the MDR land use may be implemented on the school site, and the maximum total number of units in the Development Plan Area shall be 3,008 units.
Special Use area: A Special Use area would be located in the southwestern corner of the project site. The Special Use area, which was previously graded for a park and is not suitable for habitat preservation, cannot be irrigated and is limited to minimal grading because of geological conditions on the site. As such, the Special Use area would include a limited range of uses, such as a solar farm, recreational vehicle storage, and other similar uses. A mini-park in the Special Use Area would serve as a trail staging area.
Habitat Preserve and Open Space: Approximately 1,650.4 acres representing about 63 percent of the total project site would remain as a Habitat Preserve, and an additional 256 acres would remain in open space. The Habitat Preserve would include areas undisturbed from development and specific revegetated slopes at the edge of the planned development area. Revegetated slopes would consist of native plants that blend into the existing natural landscape in conformance with a habitat restoration plan. The intent of this land use is to designate areas that would ultimately be included in City’s Multiple Species Conservation Plan (MSCP) Subarea Plan, fulfilling the City’s commitment to participate in the regional MSCP. The project applicant has prepared a Preserve Management Plan that directs and provides funding mechanisms for the long-term management and monitoring of the biological resources in the Habitat Preserve, with or without the approval of the City’s Subarea Plan by the Wildlife Agencies. The Habitat Preserve would be selectively accessible through a managed and maintained trails system. A conservation easement would be dedicated on the Final Map that reflects the Habitat Preserve area.
In addition to the Habitat Preserve, approximately 256 acres of the site would remain in open space throughout the community. This area includes brush management areas at the edge of development, slopes adjacent to roads and within Villages, detention basins, trailheads and two riparian areas in Fanita Commons.
Agricultural Overlay: Fanita Ranch would be an agrarian-focused community centered on a working farm along with orchards and vineyards. The Development Plan dedicates over 38 acres of the site to an Agricultural Overlay, which would allow agricultural uses, such as a publicly-accessible working farm, orchards, vineyards and residential gardens.
A component of the trail network, the “AgMeander” would be a series of trails and paths with educational components that would connect the central community Farm to the Villages, school site, parks and residences.
Mobility Element Streets: The Proposed Project would improve and construct new segments of three Santee General Plan Mobility Element streets: Fanita Parkway, Magnolia Avenue and Cuyamaca Street. Improvements would also occur at the terminus of Carlton Hills Boulevard and at existing dead-end streets that terminate at the project Staff Report, June 11, 2025
Fanita Ranch
site boundary where drainage facilities, erosion control measures and sidewalks are deemed necessary to access the Perimeter trail.
Population: Upon buildout, implementation of the land use plan with school would add approximately 7,974 residents and 450 employees and the land use plan without school would add approximately 8,145 residents and 200 employees.
Phasing: The conceptual phasing plan for the Proposed Project indicates four phases.
The public facilities would be provided commensurate with development, and public services would be provided prior to the time of need. The conceptual phases for the project include the following:
• Phase 1: Fanita Commons and the easterly portion of Orchard Village, off-site and onsite improvements to Fanita Parkway and Cuyamaca Street, sewer infrastructure through the Phase 2 area, and water infrastructure in the Special Use area.
Residential units in this Phase total 1,050.
• Phase 2: Westerly portion of Orchard Village and dead-end street improvements.
Residential units in this Phase total 573.
• Phase 3: Connections to and construction of the southerly half of Vineyard Village and water infrastructure through the Phase 4 area. Residential units in this Phase total 512.
• Phase 4: Northerly half of Vineyard Village. Residential units in this Phase total 814.
These proposed phases are conceptual and non-sequential. Phases may occur simultaneously. Phases may overlap or vary depending on market conditions. Each phase is estimated to take approximately two to four years to complete, with a buildout over a 10- to 15-year period. The Special Use area is not tied to development phasing and may be developed at any time during project buildout.
Fees and Economic Benefit: Fanita Ranch would contribute approximately $105.2 million in fees, including Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program (RTCIP) Mitigation fees pursuant to project conditions.
D. ANALYSIS
In response to the October 2024 San Diego County Superior Court ruling, the City prepared “Second Recirculated Sections of the Final REIR” that responds to each of the deficiencies identified by the Court. Pursuant to CEQA, if revisions to the EIR are limited to chapters or portions of the EIR, the lead agency need only recirculate the chapters or portions that have been modified (State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5(c)). It was determined that portions of the Final Recirculated REIR would be recirculated to ensure that the public has a meaningful opportunity to comment upon the changes to the Final Recirculated REIR in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. The City Staff Report, June 11, 2025
Fanita Ranch
determined that the portions of the Final Recirculated REIR that were not found deficient would not be recirculated as they have been through the CEQA process and have withstood legal challenge. The Second Recirculated Sections of the Final REIR include:
• Section 0, Preface (new section, recirculated in its entirety) • Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning (portions recirculated as shown in strikeout/underline where changes were made)
• Appendix S to the Final Revised EIR (new section, consists of latest ruling, judgment and writ)
• Appendix T to the Final Revised EIR (new section, background and legal support for analysis and discussion in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning) The Court ruling is included as Appendix S to the Final REIR. Specifically, the court found that the Final Recirculated REIR failed to adequately disclose the proposed project’s inconsistency with the Santee General Plan, which violations were intertwined with the bases for finding inconsistencies with the Santee General Plan (Appendix S [Ruling pp. 5–8]):
• “According to respondents, the project is consistent with the general plan because it was certified as an essential housing project, and so the City was not required to analyze and disclose any claimed inconsistencies” (Appendix S [Ruling p. 5]). The City did not “clearly explain where and how” the City’s Essential Housing Program fits in the land use hierarchy (Appendix S [Ruling pp. 7–8]). • Under the Housing Accountability Act (California Government Code, Section 65589.5), “concluding a particular basis for a project is not inconsistent with the general plan does not necessarily mean that a project is therefore consistent with a general plan” (Appendix S [Ruling pp. 7–8]).
• “[N]either the Density Bonus Law, including section 65915(n), nor the Housing Accountability Act are mentioned in the City’s findings of fact and statement of overriding considerations” and “relying on these bases after the findings of fact were made justifying approval the project are thus unpersuasive” (Appendix S [Ruling p. 8]).
• “The City’s most recent housing element acknowledged that it removed the prior density bonus program ordinance” to comply with state law. Therefore, the City’s argument that “the ordinance no. 592 is essentially the local ordinance version of the density bonus law that gave it express statutory authority to proceed with its essential housing program based on Government Code section 65915(n)” was “unconvincing” (Appendix S [Ruling p. 8]).
The Second Recirculated REIR responds to the deficiencies in the following manner:
Section 4.10.2, Regulatory Framework
This section describing the existing regulatory framework has first been revised to include state housing laws relevant to the Proposed Project’s consistency with the Santee Staff Report, June 11, 2025
Fanita Ranch
General Plan, including the Density Bonus Law (DBL) (California Government Code, Section 65915), the Housing Accountability Act (California Government Code, Section 65589.5), and the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (Senate Bill 330). This section has also been revised to better describe the Santee General Plan’s consideration and guidance for development of the Fanita Ranch property. Further, a discussion of Section 13.26.010 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, which implements the minimum requirements to comply with the DBL in the City, has been added.
Finally, revisions have been made to the discussion of the City’s Essential Housing Program, Urgency Ordinance No. 592. The revisions address amendments to the program adopted in light of the Court’s decision. These amendments clarify the City’s authority for adopting the program, including that the program has been adopted in accordance with subdivisions (n) and (r) of the DBL, which empower the City to adopt an ordinance to grant concessions, waivers, and density bonuses for housing projects that exceed or may not meet the strict requirements of the DBL.
Section 4.10.5.2, Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures, Threshold 2: Conflict with Land Use Plans, Policies, or Regulations
This section analyzes the Proposed Project’s potential to “cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.” The revisions more explicitly detail the relevant Santee General Plan policies and guidance, Planned Development designation, and “Guiding Principles” framework for the project site.
Limitations established in the Housing Accountability Act regarding “subjective” standards are also addressed.
The discussion of project consistencies and inconsistencies with the Guiding Principles for the project site has been revised to more explicitly identify each principle, whether it was “adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect,” and to evaluate whether the project would result in a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with the “land use plan, policy, or regulation.” As detailed in Section 4.10.5.2, while the proposed project does not meet the exact requirements of Guiding Principles 3 (lot size), 9 (golf course or recreational facility), and 14(e) (development agreement), the Proposed Project would not result in significant environmental impacts due to any conflicts with the Guiding Principles specifically adopted to avoid or mitigate environmental effects per the CEQA threshold. Additionally, revisions in the Second Recirculated REIR demonstrate that the Proposed Project does not conflict with these Guiding Principles because it is entitled to waivers of development standards under the DBL and the City’s Essential Housing Program.
Staff Report, June 11, 2025
Fanita Ranch
Density Bonus Law Revisions
The Second Recirculated REIR explains that the Proposed Project does not require a legislative act, such as a General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan, or Rezoning should the City find it is entitled to mandatory waivers and under the DBL (California Government Code, Section 65915, et. seq.) for the provision of a senior citizen housing development, as defined by statute (California Government Code, Section 65915[b][1][C] and [e][1]).
The proposed project would provide approximately 445 age-restricted residential units in a variety of building types with densities ranging from five to 25 residential units per acre, far surpassing the 35 units needed to qualify the whole project for the density bonus and waiver benefits of the DBL (California Government Code, Section 65915[b][1][C], [e][1]).
If the Council finds that the proposed project qualifies for benefits under the DBL, the revisions in Section 4.10 explain that the City must waive any development standard that will have the effect of physically precluding the project’s construction at the densities and with the amenities proposed. (California Government Code, Section 65915[e][1], [o][2]).
The proposed project is entitled to mandatory waivers of the lot size standard in the Guiding Principles because it would physically preclude construction of the proposed project’s 2,949 to 3,008 units, including the 445 age-restricted senior units, as designed and with the amenities proposed. Waivers are similarly appropriate for the few minor variations from Guiding Principle 9, discussed above. The DBL is to be “interpreted liberally in favor of producing the maximum number of total housing units,” supporting the application of waivers here (California Government Code, Section 65915[r]).
The granting of density bonus benefits “shall not require, or be interpreted, in and of itself, to require a General Plan Amendment, local coastal plan amendment, zoning change, or other discretionary approval” (California Government Code, Sections 65915(f)(5), (j)(1).) Further, “waived zoning standards are not ‘applicable’” to determine “consistency with applicable general plan designations and policies and applicable zoning designations and regulations” (Wollmer v. City of Berkeley [2011] 193 Cal.App.4th 1329, 1349; see also, California Government Code, Sections 65589.5[j][3], 65905.5[c][1]). (“The receipt of a density bonus, incentive, concession, waiver, or reduction of development standards pursuant to Section 65915 shall not constitute a valid basis on which to find a proposed housing development project is inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity, with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision specified in this subdivision.”) Thus, with mandatory waivers and/or incentives, the Proposed Project is consistent with the Santee General Plan and other applicable ordinances.
Essential Housing Program
As with the revisions to the Regulatory Framework section discussed above, revisions have been made in the analysis section to address amendments to the City’s Essential Staff Report, June 11, 2025
Fanita Ranch
Housing Program adopted in light of the Court’s decision. These amendments clarify the City’s authority to adopt the program and its relationship to the DBL. The revisions clarify that projects certified under the program are entitled to an appropriate density bonus, incentives, and/or waivers to develop at the density and with the amenities proposed to eliminate any inconsistency with zoning regulations or development standards. Projects are thereby established to be consistent with the Santee General Plan and do not require a General Plan Amendment or other legislative act for approval.
Table 4.10-1, Project Consistency with Relevant City of Santee Goals, Objectives, and Policies
Table 4.10-1 has been revised to address those policies adopted by Measure N— Objective 12.0 and Policies 12.1 through 12.4. The Second Recirculated REIR explains why each policy is inapplicable and negated because the proposed project does not require a General Plan Amendment through the use of DBL waivers, incentives, and/or Essential Housing Program certification, described above, and that Senate Bill 330’s limits on growth control measures preempt the requirement during the statewide housing crisis.
E. PUBLIC REVIEW
The Second Recirculated Sections of the Final REIR were released for public review from February 24, 2025 to April 10, 2025 in accordance with the provisions of CEQA. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 (f)(2), the City requested that reviewers limit their comments to the recirculated sections of the Final REIR.
A Notice of Availability of the Second Recirculated Sections of the Final REIR was published in the East County Californian on February 21, 2025. A total of 295 copies of the Notice of Availability were mailed and 501 copies of the Notice of Availability were emailed to agencies, tribes, organizations and individuals who had requested notice or otherwise indicated an interest in the project. An electronic version of the Notice of Availability as well as the Second Recirculated Sections of the Final REIR, updated technical appendices and a link to the administrative record prepared under Public Resources Code Section 21167.6.2 were also posted on the City of Santee’s website, posted outside the Santee City Clerk’s office and filed and posted with the San Diego County Clerk on February 24, 2025. A Notice of Completion and the Recirculated Sections of the Revised EIR were submitted to the California Office of Planning and Research. Three sets of the Draft Revised EIR and the technical appendices were made available at the City of Santee in the Planning and Building Department, City Clerk’s office and at the San Diego County Library in Santee.
The City received timely comments from the following entities: two comments from federal and state agencies, one comment from local or regional agencies, six comments from non-government organizations, and 137 comments from individuals. Written comments Staff Report, June 11, 2025
Fanita Ranch
received by the City during the public review period have been fully addressed in written responses. After the close of the public comment period, the City continued to receive late comments. The nine late comment letters that address the proposed project were addressed in the Second Recirculated Sections of the Final REIR. None of the late comments raised any significant environmental issues under State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.
The City has prepared a Final REIR, consisting of the Second Recirculated Sections of the REIR; written comments received during the public review and comment period on the Second Recirculated Sections; written responses to those comments; an errata; and Volumes I, II, and III, of the REIR. The Final REIR may be found on the City’s website at https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov, along with the Second Recirculated Sections of the Final REIR and corresponding appendices. The Final REIR is also available in the administrative record for the project posted on SharePoint for the Fanita Ranch Project accessible at:
https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/planning/fanita-ranch
A Notice of Public Hearing for June 11, 2025 was published in the East County Californian on May 30, 2025, and mailed by U.S. Postal Service or e-mailed to interested parties and agencies on May 30, 2025. An electronic version of the Public Hearing Notice was also posted on the City’s website at http://www.cityofsanteeca.gov on May 30, 2025.
G. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Neither the Second Recirculated Sections of the Final REIR nor the comments received during public review of the Second Recirculated Sections of the Final REIR identified any new significant environmental issues nor any issues that increased the severity of the impact analysis in the Final REIR. As discussed in detail in the Final REIR, the following impact areas would remain significant and unavoidable even after implementation of all feasible mitigation measures:
• Air Quality:
o Conflict with applicable air quality plans.
o Significant net increase in criteria pollutant emissions during construction and operation.
• Noise: Permanent increase in traffic noise levels.
• Transportation:
o Significant increase in traffic at intersections located outside Santee’s jurisdiction, or no funding mechanism is currently available, or no feasible mitigation is available.
Staff Report, June 11, 2025
Fanita Ranch
o Increase in Vehicle Miles Traveled above the calculated threshold. • Recreation: Air quality, noise and transportation impacts related to construction of new recreational facilities.
• Utilities: Air quality, noise and transportation impacts related to construction of new and expanded utilities.
Under State CEQA Guidelines section 15043, a public agency may approve a project even though the project would cause a significant effect on the environment if the agency makes a fully informed and publicly disclosed decision that (1) there is no feasible way to lessen or avoid the significant effect (see Section 15091), and (2) specifically identified expected benefits from the project outweigh the policy of reducing or avoiding significant environmental impacts of the project (see Section 15093). The proposed Resolution certifying the Final REIR includes Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations finding that economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits, including region-wide benefits, of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, rendering adverse environmental effects “acceptable.” State CEQA Guidelines section 15097 requires that a lead or responsible agency adopt and implement a program for monitoring or reporting on the revisions which it has required in the project and the measures it has imposed to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared for the Fanita Ranch project. The purpose of the MMRP is to ensure that the mitigation measures required by the EIR for the Fanita Ranch project are properly implemented. The City will be responsible for monitoring the timely completion of the project’s mitigation measures. The MMRP Checklist provides a mechanism for monitoring the mitigation measures in compliance with the EIR. For each impact area, the impacts identified in the EIR are summarized, and the required mitigation measures are listed. The following items are identified for each mitigation measure to ensure the implementation of each measure: (1) responsibility for implementation and monitoring; (2) date of completion; and (3) initials of monitor.
H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Conduct and close the public hearing; and
2. Certify the Final Recirculated Revised Environmental Impact Report Including the Second Recirculated Sections (SCH # 2005061118) for the Fanita Ranch Project; adopt Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program under CEQA; and approve the Project, per the attached Resolution No.072-2025; and
3. Approve Vesting Tentative Map (TM-2025-001) per the attached Resolution No.073- 2025; and
Staff Report, June 11, 2025
Fanita Ranch
4. Approve Development Plan and Development Review Permit (DR-2025-0001) per the attached Resolution No. 074-2025; and
5. Approve Conditional Use Permits CUP-2025-0001, CUP-2025-0002 and CUP-2025- 0003 per the attached Resolution Nos 075-2025 076-2025 and 077-2025 respectively.
RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
1 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF SANTEE CERTIFYING
THE RECIRCULATED REVISED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT INCLUDING THE SECOND RECIRCULATED SECTIONS (SCH # 2005061118) FOR THE FANITA RANCH PROJECT; ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT AND A STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT; ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM; AND APPROVING THE PROJECT
WHEREAS, on August 25, 2021, the City of Santee adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 592, declaring the need for an Essential Housing Program to boost housing production and improve housing affordability in the City to address and respond to the existing housing crisis in the City of Santee; and
WHEREAS, on August 26, 2021, the City filed a Notice of Exemption in connection with its adoption of Urgency Ordinance No. 592, and no legal challenges were timely filed; and
WHEREAS, on November 29, 2021, the Applicant, HomeFed Fanita Rancho LLC, submitted an Essential Housing Project Application under Urgency Ordinance No. 592 for the Fanita Ranch Project (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, on December 27, 2021, the Director of Planning & Building certified the Project as an Essential Housing Project as it met the specified criteria in Urgency Ordinance No. 592; and
WHEREAS, on December 27, 2021, the City filed a Notice of Exemption in connection with its certification of the Project as an Essential Housing Project, and no legal challenges were timely filed; and
WHEREAS, on May 4, 2022, pursuant to Urgency Ordinance No. 592, HomeFed Fanita Rancho LLC submitted the additional application materials for the Project consisting of a Fanita Ranch Development Review Permit DR2022-4, a Vesting Tentative Map TM2022-1, a Preliminary Application under the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (Senate Bill 330), and Conditional Use Permits P2022-1, P2022-2 and P2022-3; and WHEREAS, the Project proposes a community consisting of approximately 2,949 housing units under a preferred land use plan with school, or 3,008 units under a land use plan without school, including 445 age-restricted senior units, up to 80,000 square feet of commercial uses, parks, open space, and agricultural uses; and WHEREAS, the Project site has been subject to environmental review and land use planning for the past 40 years; and
WHEREAS, development of the Project site would be clustered into three villages in order to designate approximately 63 percent of the site as Habitat Preserve; and RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
2 WHEREAS, the villages would be arranged around a centralized Farm to support farming and wellness as the theme for Fanita Ranch; and WHEREAS, a Special Use area separated from the rest of the development would be located in the southwestern corner of the site, allowing for a limited range of uses; and WHEREAS, the Project would provide a coordinated system of parks and nonmotorized use trails that would connect to the three villages, regional trails and open space; and
WHEREAS, the Project would improve and construct new segments of three Santee General Plan Mobility Element Roads, namely Fanita Parkway, Cuyamaca Street, and Magnolia Avenue; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21067, State CEQA Guidelines section 15367, and the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, the City is the lead agency for the Project; and
WHEREAS, in 2018, pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines the City determined that a Revised Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) should be prepared in order to analyze all potential adverse environmental impacts of the proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines section 15082, on November 10, 2018, the City sent to the Office of Planning and Research and each responsible and trustee agency a Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) stating that a Revised Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse # 2005061118) would be prepared; and
WHEREAS, in the NOP, the City solicited comments from various public agencies, other entities, and members of the public; and
WHEREAS, on November 29, 2018, the City held a public scoping meeting to further solicit comments on the scope of the EIR; and
WHEREAS, a Draft Revised EIR was prepared incorporating comments received in response to the NOP, and it determined that despite the incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures, the proposed Project would nonetheless result in significant and unavoidable impacts; and
WHEREAS, on or about May 29, 2020 the City initiated a 45-day public review and comment period for the Draft Revised EIR ending on July 13, 2020 at 5:00 p.m.; and WHEREAS, on September 23, 2020, the City Council approved the previous version of the Fanita Ranch project and certified the Final Revised EIR (Reso. No. 093- 2020); and
RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
3 WHEREAS, on October 21, 2020, a Petition for Writ of Mandate was filed in the San Diego County Superior Court (Case No. 37-2020-00038168-CU-WM-CTL) challenging the September 23, 2020 decision to approve the previous Fanita Ranch project;
WHEREAS, on March 3, 2022, the Court issued its ruling identifying deficiencies in the Final Revised EIR related to wildfire evacuation; and WHEREAS, on March 25, 2022, the Court entered judgment based on the ruling and issued a writ ordering the City to set aside and vacate all resolutions and approvals pertaining to the previous Fanita Ranch project (the “2022 Judgment”); and WHEREAS, on May 25, 2022, pursuant to the 2022 Judgment, the City set aside and vacated in its entirety the previous Fanita Ranch project approvals, including certification of the Final Revised EIR (Reso. No. 070-2022); and WHEREAS, the City prepared Recirculated Sections of the Final Revised EIR (“Recirculated Sections”) to correct the deficiencies identified in the 2022 Judgment and clarify the Project’s designation as an Essential Housing Project; and WHEREAS, the Recirculated Sections included Section 0, Preface; Section 4.18, Wildfire, and associated technical appendices; portions of Chapter 3.0, Project Description; and portions of Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning; and WHEREAS, on or about June 10, 2022, the City initiated a 45-day public review and comment period for the Recirculated Sections ending on July 25, 2022 at 5:00 p.m.; and
WHEREAS, on September 14, 2022, the City Council approved the Project and certified the Final Revised EIR including Recirculated Sections (Reso. No. 112-2022); and
WHEREAS, on October 14, 2022, a Petition for Writ of Mandate was again filed in the San Diego County Superior Court (Case No. 37-2022-00041478-CU-MC-CTL) challenging the September 14, 2022 decision to approve the Fanita Ranch Project; WHEREAS, on October 1, 2024, the Court issued its ruling identifying deficiencies in the Final Revised EIR including Recirculated Sections related to General Plan inconsistency and related issues related to CEQA, the California Elections Code, and Subdivision Map Act; and
WHEREAS, the Court issued entered judgment based on the ruling and issued a writ ordering the City to set aside and vacate all resolutions and approvals pertaining to the Fanita Ranch Project (the “2024 Judgment”); and
RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
4 WHEREAS, on December 11, 2024, pursuant to the 2024 Judgment, the City set aside and vacated in its entirety the Fanita Ranch Project approvals, including certification of the Final Revised EIR including Recirculated Sections (Reso. No. 130-2024); and WHEREAS, the City has prepared Second Recirculated Sections of the Final Recirculated Revised EIR (“Second Recirculated Sections”) to correct the deficiencies identified in the Court’s 2024 Judgment related to General Plan inconsistency; and WHEREAS, the Second Recirculated Sections include Section 0, Preface; portions of Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning; and Appendices S and T; and WHEREAS, the Project description has not changed as a result of the supplemental analysis in the Second Recirculated Sections; and WHEREAS, the current Project consists of a Fanita Ranch Development Review Permit DR-2025-0001, a Vesting Tentative Map TM-2025-0001, a Preliminary Application under the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (Senate Bill 330), and Conditional Use Permits CUP2025-0001, CUP-2025-0002 and CUP-2025-0003; and WHEREAS, on or about February 24, 2025, the City initiated a 45-day public review and comment period for the Second Recirculated Sections ending on April 10, 2025 at 5:00 p.m.; and
WHEREAS, during the public review and comment period, copies of the Second Recirculated Sections and technical appendices were available for review and inspection at the City’s Department of Planning & Building (Building 4), the City Clerk’s Office (Building 3), Santee County Library, and on the City’s website; and WHEREAS, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15086, the City consulted with and requested comments from all responsible and trustee agencies, other regulatory agencies, and others during the 45-day public review and comment period of the Second Recirculated Sections; and
WHEREAS, during the review and comment period of the Second Recirculated Sections, the City received two (2) comments from federal and state agencies, one (1) comment from local or regional agencies, six (6) comments from non-government organizations, and 137 comments from individuals, as well as nine (9) late comment letters; and
WHEREAS, the City has prepared a Final Recirculated Revised EIR including Second Recirculated Sections, consisting of the written comments received during the review and comment period on the Second Recirculated Sections; written responses to those comments as well as thematic responses; and an errata showing revisions to the Second Recirculated Sections and technical appendices in response to comments. The Final Second Recirculated Sections will be considered along with the portions of the Final Recirculated Revised EIR that were not subject to substantive revision. For the purposes RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
5 of this Resolution, the “EIR” shall refer to the Final Second Recirculated Sections of the Final Revised EIR, together with the other sections of the Final Recirculated Revised EIR; and
WHEREAS, after the close of the 45-day public review and comment period, the City continued to receive additional late comments. These late comments have been addressed in the Staff Report for the Project and do not raise any significant environmental issues under State CEQA Guidelines section 15088 beyond what has already been addressed in the Final Recirculated Revised EIR, including Second Recirculated Sections; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.5, the City provided copies of its responses to timely commenting public agencies at least ten (10) days prior to the City Council’s consideration of the EIR; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Public Hearing for June 11, 2025 was published in the East County Californian on May 30, 2025, and mailed by U.S. Postal Service or e-mailed to interested parties and agencies on May 30, 2025. An electronic version of the Public Hearing Notice was also posted on the City’s website at http://www.cityofsanteeca.gov on May 30, 2025; and
WHEREAS, on June 11, 2025, the City Council held a public hearing on the Project, at which all persons wishing to testify were heard; and WHEREAS, the environmental impacts identified in the EIR that the City finds are of no impact or constitute a less than significant impact and do not require mitigation are described in Section II of the CEQA Findings of Fact, attached hereto as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the environmental impacts identified in the EIR as potentially significant but which the City finds can be mitigated to a level of less than significant through the incorporation of feasible Mitigation Measures identified in the EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section III of the CEQA Findings of Fact, attached hereto as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the City finds that even with the incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures, the environmental impacts that are identified in the EIR that are significant and unavoidable are set forth in Section IV of the CEQA Findings of Fact, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the cumulative impacts of the Project identified in the EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section V of the CEQA Findings of Fact, attached hereto as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the significant and irreversible environmental changes that would result from the Project, but which would be largely mitigated, and which are identified in RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
6 the EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section VI of the CEQA Findings of Fact, attached hereto as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the existence of any growth-inducing impacts resulting from the Project identified in the EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section VII of the CEQA Findings of Fact, attached hereto as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, alternatives to the Project that might eliminate or reduce significant environmental impacts are described in Section VIII of the CEQA Findings of Fact, attached hereto as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, because the EIR identified significant and unavoidable impacts, the City Council explains its reasoning for recommending the adoption of the Project despite those impacts in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, as set forth in Section IX of the CEQA Findings of Fact, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program setting forth the mitigation measures to which the City shall bind itself in connection with adopting the Project is attached hereto as Exhibit B; and
WHEREAS, as contained herein, the City has endeavored in good faith to set forth the basis for its decision on the Project; and
WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the City Council has heard, been presented with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record, including the EIR, and all oral and written evidence presented to it during all meetings and hearings; and
WHEREAS, the EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council and is deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the Project; and WHEREAS, the City has not received any comments or additional information that constitute substantial new information requiring recirculation of the EIR or any portion thereof under Public Resources Code section 21092.1 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5; and
WHEREAS, all the requirements of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City’s Local CEQA Guidelines have been satisfied by the City in the EIR, which is sufficiently detailed so that all of the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project have been adequately evaluated; and
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Santee City Council, after considering the evidence presented at the public hearing, as follows:
RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
7 SECTION 1: RECITALS
The recitals above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Resolution by reference as findings of fact.
SECTION 2: CEQA COMPLIANCE
As the decision-making body for the City, and in the City’s role as lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.), the City Council has reviewed and considered the information relating to the Project contained within the EIR and all supporting documentation, together with all oral and written comments received during the public review process, and all other related documents, which are available at City Hall and which are incorporated by reference herein. The City Council finds that the EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City. The City Council further finds that the EIR contains a complete and accurate reporting of environmental impacts associated with the Project, and was prepared in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City’s Local CEQA Guidelines. The City Council further finds and declares that the City has not received any evidence of new significant impacts, as defined by State CEQA Guidelines, section 15088.5, after circulation of the EIR which would require recirculation. No substantial changes to the Project have occurred that would require a supplemental or subsequent EIR.
SECTION 3: FINDINGS OF FACT
In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines, sections 15091 and 15093, the City Council hereby adopts the Environmental Findings of Fact attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth herein.
SECTION 4: CERTIFICATION OF EIR
In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines, sections 15090, the City Council hereby certifies that:
A. The EIR is an accurate and objective statement that has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines.
B. The City Council has been presented with and has reviewed and considered the information contained in the EIR prior to approving the Project.
C. The EIR reflects the City Council’s independent judgment and analysis.
SECTION 5: MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
8 Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the City Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference. The City Council finds that the MMRP is designed to ensure that, during the implementation of the Project, the City and any other responsible parties implement the components of the Project and comply with the mitigation measures identified in the MMRP. To the extent there is any conflict between the MMRP, the EIR, or the Findings of Fact, the terms and provisions of the MMRP shall control.
SECTION 6: APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT
Based upon the entire record before the City Council and the findings set forth herein, the City Council of the City of Santee approves the proposed Project.
SECTION 7: RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this Resolution has been based are located at City Hall, 10601 N. Magnolia Avenue, Santee, CA 92071. The custodian of the record of proceedings is the Department of Planning & Building.
SECTION 8: NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
The City Council hereby directs staff to prepare and file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk of the County of San Diego within five working days of the execution of this Resolution and approval of the Project and with the Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation.
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Santee, California, at a Regular Meeting thereof held this 11th day of June, 2025 by the following roll call vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
APPROVED:
JOHN W. MINTO, MAYOR
ATTEST:
JAMES JEFFRIES, CITY CLERK
RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
9 Attachments:Exhibit A Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Exhibit B Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
10 EXHIBIT A
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS SECTION I: INTRODUCTION
Public Resources Code section 21002 states that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]” Section 21002 further states that the procedures required by CEQA “are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects.” Pursuant to section 21081 of the Public Resources Code, a public agency may only approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been completed that identifies any significant environmental effects if the agency makes one or more of the following written finding(s) for each of those significant effects accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding:
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.
2. Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency.
3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.
As indicated above, section 21002 requires an agency to “avoid or substantially lessen” significant adverse environmental impacts. Thus, mitigation measures that “substantially lessen” significant environmental impacts, even if not completely avoided, satisfy section 21002’s mandate. (Laurel Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 521 [“CEQA does not mandate the choice of the environmentally best feasible project if through the imposition of feasible mitigation measures alone the appropriate public agency has reduced environmental damage from a project to an acceptable level”]; Las Virgenes Homeowners Fed., Inc. v. County of Los Angeles (1986) 177 Cal. App. 3d 300, 309 [“[t]here is no requirement that adverse impacts of a project be avoided completely or reduced to a level of insignificance . . . if such would render the project unfeasible”].)
While CEQA requires that lead agencies adopt feasible mitigation measures or alternatives to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts, an agency need not adopt infeasible mitigation measures or alternatives. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002.1(c) [if “economic, social, or other conditions make it infeasible to mitigate one or RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
11 more significant effects on the environment of a project, the project may nonetheless be carried out or approved at the discretion of a public agency”]; see also State CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.6(a) [an “EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible”].) CEQA defines “feasible” to mean “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21061.1.) The State CEQA Guidelines add “legal” considerations as another indicia of feasibility. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15364.) Project objectives also inform the determination of “feasibility.” (Jones v. U.C. Regents (2010) 183 Cal. App. 4th 818, 828-829.) “‘[F]easibility’ under CEQA encompasses ‘desirability’ to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.” (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 401, 417; see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715.) “Broader considerations of policy thus come into play when the decision making body is considering actual feasibility[.]” (Cal. Native Plant Soc’y v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 1000 (“Native Plant”); see also Pub.
Resources Code, § 21081(a)(3) [“economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations” may justify rejecting mitigation and alternatives as infeasible] (emphasis added).)
Environmental impacts that are less than significant do not require the imposition of mitigation measures. (Leonoff v. Monterey County Board of Supervisors (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1337, 1347.)
The California Supreme Court has stated, “[t]he wisdom of approving . . . any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced.” (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 576.) In addition, perfection in a project or a project’s environmental alternatives is not required; rather, the requirement is that sufficient information be produced “to permit a reasonable choice of alternatives so far as environmental aspects are concerned.” Outside agencies (including courts) are not to “impose unreasonable extremes or to interject [themselves] within the area of discretion as to the choice of the action to be taken.” (Residents Ad Hoc Stadium Com. v. Board of Trustees (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 274, 287.)
SECTION II: FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS NOT
REQUIRING MITIGATION
The City Council hereby finds that the following potential environmental impacts of the Project are less than significant and therefore do not require the imposition of Mitigation Measures.
A. AESTHETICS
RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
12 1. Scenic Vistas
Threshold: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Finding: Less than significant. (EIR, § 4.1.5.1.)
Explanation: The Santee General Plan Community Enhancement Element describes numerous topographic features in the City and the surrounding vicinity as providing distinctive views and vistas from developed portions of the City. Although the Santee General Plan does not designate specific scenic vistas in the City, the major ridgeline and hillside systems provided by undeveloped areas of the northern portion of the City, including the project site, present a large portion of the views and vistas in the City. Jurisdictions outside of the City surrounding the project site, such as the County’s Lakeside Community Plan, do not designate scenic vistas in the viewshed of the project site.
To show the changes in key views and describe the visibility of the proposed project from surrounding areas and potential scenic vistas, visual simulations were prepared using photographs of the project site and computer-generated, three-dimensional project modeling (Visual Impact Group 2020).
Sixteen key vantage points were analyzed and the proposed project’s design would retain most of the major ridgelines and landform features on the project site visible from public viewpoints, and the surrounding topography would be retained. This would allow for the continued screening of views into much of the proposed project from throughout the City and adjacent public view areas.
Additionally, the proposed project would comply with the design recommendations set forth by the City through the development review process, which ensures development projects adhere to the City’s design principles. Further, there are no designated scenic vistas on or around the project site. Therefore, development of the proposed project would not obstruct or detract from a designated scenic vista. Impacts would be less than significant.
2. Scenic Resources
Threshold: Would the Project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
Finding: Less than significant. (EIR, § 4.1.5.2.)
Explanation: SR-52 is a state designated scenic highway which runs in an east– RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
13 west direction approximately 1.8 mile south of the southern project site boundary. The approximately 3.5-mile segment from Santo Road east to Mast Boulevard within the City of San Diego was officially designated as a state scenic highway in February 2016 (Caltrans 2017). Due to its distance and intervening topography, future project development would not be seen from this location. To demonstrate this, three locations were studied along this designated segment as part of the visual simulation effort for the proposed project. As part of that effort, all three locations were determined to have no view of the project site. Consequently, the proposed project would not alter views from within the rights-of-way of a designated or eligible state scenic highway. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a significant impact associated with views from scenic highways.
3. Visual Character
Threshold: In non-urbanized areas, would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public view of the site and its surroundings?
Finding: Less than significant. (EIR, § 4.1.5.3.)
Explanation: Visual Character. Sixteen key vantage points (KVPs) were analyzed depicting various existing and proposed condition views surrounding the project site and the off-site improvement areas. The proposed project would alter the existing aesthetic characteristics of the project site from a variety of vantage points within the City and adjacent areas. As demonstrated by the representative KVPs, changes in the project site’s aesthetic appearance would be visible from public vantage points located adjacent to the project site on the south, west, and east; recreational areas such as Santee Lakes Recreation Preserve and Stowe Trail; and major roadways such as SR-125, Fanita Parkway, Cuyamaca Street, and Magnolia Avenue.
As illustrated with the KVPs, some existing residences and user groups would be affected by the proposed landform alteration and site development. The KVP that displays the largest potential change in visual character is KVP-15, which shows a view looking south onto the project site from the Stowe Trail. This KVP shows the proposed Active Adult neighborhood and, due to close proximity to the existing trail, reveals considerable views of the development. However, the proposed landscaping and revegetated slopes would screen much of this development and allow it to blend in with the surrounding existing environment. In addition, the proposed project proposes to grade this area in accordance with Hillside Development Guidelines (Policy 1.3 of the Conservation Element of the Santee General Plan RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
14 [City of Santee 2003]), which require contour grading and clustering of development to minimize the grading footprint. The resulting revegetated slopes would blend in with the native landscape and further act as wildfire buffers to the community.
Due to uneven topography and the far distances from the proposed village development area to the nearest off-site receptors, it is difficult to distinguish the proposed development along most ridgelines. In addition, the proposed project’s design would retain most of the major ridgelines and landform features on the project site’s periphery, which would allow for the continued screening of views into much of the proposed project from throughout the City and adjacent areas. The changes in views due to the extension of Fanita Parkway, and the off-site improvements to Cuyamaca Street and Magnolia Avenue have been anticipated as part of the Santee General Plan Circulation Element roadway improvements. These improvements would be enhanced through the use of natural vegetation, landscaping, and revegetated manufactured slopes.
Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on the visual character or quality of the area.
Landform Alteration. Sensitive landforms are natural landforms that are unique or contribute to the character of a site. The Santee General Plan Conservation Element (City of Santee 2003) identifies two main topographic landforms that exist in the City, one being the Peninsular Range, which traverses much of the project site. Policies within the Conservation Element call for significant natural landforms to be maintained during development whenever possible. To protect and wisely manage hillsides and topographic resources, the City lays out specific hillside development guidelines.
Construction of the proposed project would involve extensive excavation and grading into the native terrain. Earthwork would involve approximately 27 million cubic yards of cut and fill materials, which would be balanced on site (Figure 3-16, Conceptual Cut and Fill Plan, in Chapter 3, Project Description). Construction would include cuts up to 165 feet and fills up to 142 feet. The site would be graded into development pads using a maximum 2:1 slope ratio for fill slopes and a maximum 1.5:1 for cut slopes, which is a requirement of the Santee Municipal Code, Section 11.40.320, and to closely mimic the interval of the natural contours. The Special Use area has been previously graded and no significant grading or introduction of water into the soil is proposed.
While the proposed project would generally preserve the existing contours of the landforms where feasible for development, the proposed project includes considerable grading into steeply sloped RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
15 areas. Some of the largest differences from the existing grade would occur with the development of a Neighborhood Park and multi-family residences in the central area of Orchard Village and Low Density Residential in southern and central areas of Vineyard Village. The prominent hilltop in Fanita Commons would be preserved within the planned Community Park. These large cut and fill slopes, as identified on the Vesting Tentative Map, that are visible from the public rights-of-way would utilize landform grading techniques to recreate and mimic the flow of natural contours and drainages within the natural surroundings. Where development is proposed on hillsides, grading would be efficient to minimize the grading footprint.
Special contour grading techniques would be utilized at edges and transitions in landform. In addition, the proposed extensions of Fanita Parkway and Cuyamaca Street into the village development area would be designed to preserve natural hillsides and rock outcroppings and follow the existing slopes and landforms to the extent possible.
Manufactured slopes along the edges of the development footprint, primarily visible along the northern village development area of Vineyard Village and at the proposed extensions of Cuyamaca Street and Magnolia Avenue, would be revegetated with natural vegetation to restore the native habitat and blend with the existing environment, further limiting the visibility of the landform alteration of these areas.
These slopes, some of which are highly visible from public rights-ofway, are identified in the Fanita Ranch Development Plan as “public interest” slopes. During construction, these slopes would be temporarily devoid of vegetation; however, they would be revegetated and landscaped in compliance with the Santee Municipal Code, Chapter 12.26, Landscape and Irrigation Regulations, and the Guidelines for Implementation of the City of Santee Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (2017). Therefore, by complying with the policies in the Santee General Plan and the requirements of the Santee Municipal Code, as well as adhering to the guidelines set forth in the Fanita Ranch Development Plan, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact associated with landform alteration.
4. Lighting and Glare
Threshold: Would the proposed project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views? Finding: Less than significant. (EIR, § 4.1.5.4.)
Explanation: Implementation of the proposed project would result in the development of new structures that would have the potential to RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
16 increase sources of light or glare. The proposed new development would take place in currently undeveloped areas, and potential new sources of light would include exterior building illumination, sports field lighting, Special Use area security lighting, residential lighting, parking lots, new landscaped areas, and new roadway lighting. New sources of glare could result from reflective building surfaces or the headlights of vehicular traffic.
During the day, lighting has limited potential to impact views.
Potential impacts from glare would primarily occur from the sun reflecting off reflective building surfaces. Daytime views that are subject to a substantial amount of new glare may be significantly impacted. However, the proposed project would not include the implementation of large, uninterrupted expanses of glass or any other highly reflective material. The Special Use area would include space for approximately 18.4 acres of photovoltaic solar panels atop an RV/boat storage area, which could result in potential glare impacts to surrounding residents. However, photovoltaic solar panels are designed to absorb light, not reflect it, and would be coated with anti-reflective materials to maximize light absorption. In addition, solar panels face upward resulting in a small likelihood of directly affecting nearby residents on the ground. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in substantial glare that would adversely affect daytime views in the area.
Sensitive views of the night sky could be impacted from new light and glare in a previously undeveloped area. The proposed project would include 2,949 residences with a school, or 3,008 residences without a school, commercial uses, parks, open space, agriculture uses, and a network of streets with off-site roadway improvements. In addition, yellow flashing beacons with advisory speed signs would be situated along the proposed extension of Magnolia Avenue to alert drivers of steep roadway grades and to reduce speed. These lighted beacons would be directed away from existing residences and comply with the standards in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Chapter 4L (Caltrans 2014). The increase in light and glare from the implementation of the proposed project would have a potentially significant impact to views of the night sky. The proposed project would be replacing a natural backdrop with a large residential development with exterior building illumination, sports field lighting, residential lighting, parking lots, new landscaped areas, and new roadway lighting.
To minimize the impacts of lighting and glare as a result of new development, the proposed project has prepared a Conceptual Lighting Plan as part of the Fanita Ranch Development Plan. The Conceptual Lighting Plan provides general lighting design guidance RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
17 for streets, pathways, common open space, recreation areas, buildings, special accent lighting, and sign illumination. One of the primary goals of the Conceptual Lighting Plan is to reduce or eliminate light pollution by utilizing low glare and full cutoff light fixtures, lower wattage luminaires, and lighting controls to create a “Dark Sky” friendly community. This would be achieved by designing lighting according to use; prohibiting certain types of light sources; using appropriate shielding and direction of lighting sources; and enforcing lighting curfews for certain uses. Outdoor lighting would be designed and placed to efficiently direct light downward, particularly lighting for streets and parking areas. All outdoor lighting would be shielded to confine light within the site and prevent glare onto adjacent properties, the Habitat Preserve, riparian areas, and streets.
The Conceptual Lighting Plan for the proposed project states specific requirements for lighting within or adjacent to the Habitat Preserve and other environmentally sensitive areas. These requirements would prohibit lighting in or adjacent to conserved habitat, except where essential for roadway use, facility use, safety, or security purposes; use of low-pressure sodium illumination sources or other similar technology; would not use low-voltage outdoor or trail lighting, spotlights or bug lights; and would shield light sources adjacent to conserved habitat so that the lighting is focused downward.
Proposed Streets “V” and “W” would traverse the Habitat Preserve to connect Fanita Commons and Orchard Village with Vineyard Village. These streets would be designed to include wildlife crossings and use retroreflective pavement markers and touch-activated lighted bollards, instead of conventional lighting, to allow for the safe crossing of automobiles and wildlife while minimizing excessive light pollution on adjacent uses.
In addition, the anticipated development of the proposed project would be required to comply with the lighting guidelines of the Santee General Plan and the City Zoning Ordinance (Title 13 of the Santee Municipal Code) to assure that the proposed project would not include nuisance lighting. Therefore, by complying with the City Zoning Ordinance, guidelines in the Santee General Plan, and adhering to the requirements set forth in the Conceptual Lighting Plan designed for the proposed project, the proposed project’s potential to create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area would be less than significant.
B. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES
RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
18 1. Farmland Conversion
Threshold: Would the Project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide significance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
Finding: No impact. (EIR, § 5.1.1.)
Explanation: Pursuant to the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, the project site is designated as Grazing Land. Grazing Land is defined as “land on which the existing vegetation is suited to the grazing of livestock” (DOC 2020).
California Public Resources Code, Section 21060.1, defines agricultural land as “prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance, or unique farmland.” Soils on the project site have been mapped by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (2020) and consist predominantly of portions of three soil series: Redding, Diablo, and Linne. The Redding and Diablo soils are the most common on site.
The Linne soil is generally limited to smaller areas throughout the project site. Redding soil is composed of gravelly loamy soils that have a gravelly clay subsoil and a hardpan, while Diablo and Linne soils consist chiefly of deep clay loams derived from soft, calcareous sandstones and shale. The above soils do not meet the criteria for prime farmland or soils of statewide importance outlined in the U.S.
Department of Agriculture’s land inventory and monitoring program for San Diego area (2020). The project site does not support prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance.
Therefore, the proposed project would not impact classified farmland, either directly or indirectly, or result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. As such, no impact would occur to prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance.
2. Agricultural Zoning
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
Finding: No impact. (EIR, § 5.1.1.)
Explanation: As shown on the City’s Zoning District Map (2017), no lands zoned for agricultural use are on the project site. The project site is zoned as Planned Development (PD). Further, the project site is not in the vicinity of any lands zoned for agricultural use. No lands affected by the proposed project are currently under a Williamson Act contract.
Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on a RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
19 Williamson Act contract property or conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use.
3. Forest Land
Threshold: 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)?
Threshold: Would the Project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Threshold: 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 nonforest use? Finding: No impact. (EIR, § 5.1.1.)
Explanation: The project site does not support prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance and would not involve other changes in the existing environment, which would result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. In addition, the City has no designated forest land or timberland within its boundaries.
The project site is not zoned for timberland production and is not in proximity to any lands zoned as Forest Land. The land area affected by the proposed project does not support forest land or timberland resources or operations. Therefore, no impact would occur from project implementation with regard to conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land or timberland, and the proposed project would not result in the potential loss or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.
C. AIR QUALITY
1. Other Adverse Emissions
Threshold: Would the Project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Finding: Less than significant. (EIR, § 4.2.5.4.)
Explanation: Heavy-duty equipment on the project site during construction would emit odors, primarily from equipment exhaust. However, the construction activity would cease to occur after individual construction is completed in a given area. Generally, construction RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
20 would be separate from existing receptors by hundreds of feet due to the distance of the nearest off-site residences to the village development areas. Additionally, emissions of SOx, the pollutant most associated with odors, would be minimal. Therefore, impacts during construction would be less than significant.
Following construction, operation of the proposed agricultural areas (specifically the Farm) could release localized odors. However, localized odors would generally be confined to the Agriculture Overlay zone on the project site and would dissipate quickly beyond the limits of the Farm based on typical agricultural operations. An extensive animal husbandry operation is not proposed and would not be accommodated within the Farm; therefore, the potential to generate odors would be low. The remaining proposed commercial and residential uses are not typical sources of nuisance odors.
Although not an impact under CEQA, as an impact of the
environment on the proposed project, it is noted that operation of the proposed project would require implementation of Conditional Use Permit measures at the Padre Dam Municipal Water District (PDMWD) Ray Stoyer Water Recycling Facility (WRF) located on Fanita Parkway west of the project site. The existing Conditional Use Permit for the PDMWD Ray Stoyer WRF contains measures that require implementation once the proposed project is constructed.
These measures include the use of an odor scrubber to limit hydrogen sulfide, the replacement of the existing primary clarifier system with a chemical scrubbing system, the covering of all zones of the biological nutrient removal basins, the installation of additional chemical scrubbers, and the installation of an additional SO2 neutralization system at the dechlorination building (Helix 2015).
Therefore, objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people would not occur because of the proposed project. This impact would be less than significant.
D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
1. Local Policies and Ordinances
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Finding: Less than significant. (EIR, § 4.3.5.5.)
Explanation: The City of Santee’s Urban Forestry Ordinance contains tree-related policies, regulations, and generally accepted standards for planting, RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
21 trimming, and removing trees on public property and public rights-ofway (Santee Municipal Code, Section 8.06 [City of Santee 2020]).
The ordinance gives the City control of all trees, shrubs, and other plantings in any street, park, public right-of-way, landscape maintenance district or easement, or other City-owned property. City review of development plans for the City-owned and maintained property would ensure that the proposed landscaping and maintenance requirements conform to the Urban Forestry
Ordinance. Therefore, the proposed project would comply with the Urban Forestry Ordinance, and impacts would be less than significant.
In the Conservation Element of the Santee General Plan, biological resources are discussed and specific objectives and policies are presented. The proposed project does not conflict with any objectives or policies as presented in the Conservation Element of the Santee General Plan. Impacts would be less than significant.
2. Habitat Conservation Plans
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Finding: Less than significant. (EIR, § 4.3.5.6.)
Explanation: The City is actively preparing its Draft MSCP Subarea Plan. The Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan would implement the MSCP Subregional Plan and is intended to result in issuance to the City of federal and state authorizations (permits) for the take of certain listed threatened or endangered species. These authorizations would be granted to the City by USFWS and CDFW pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act and Section 2835 of the California Natural Community Conservation Planning Act, respectively. The City, in turn, may then extend the take authorizations to public and private projects within its jurisdiction, as long as those biological resources are adequately conserved by the Santee MSCP Subarea Plan and the projects are consistent with and covered by the provisions of the Santee MSCP Subarea Plan.
The proposed project design is consistent with the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan through specific adherence to conditions of coverage and mitigation/conveyance requirements for hardline Covered Projects as defined in the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan (City of Santee 2018). The proposed project would not compromise continued implementation of the MSCP in the County or other cities because their Subarea Plans do not rely on the City of Santee for RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
22 coverage of any species. Furthermore, the current project footprint has been reduced from the previous development hardline footprint identified in the approved 1998 MSCP Plan (City of San Diego 1998).
A large development bubble in the southern portion site from the 1998 project design was removed, increasing the size of the current Habitat Preserve by more than 200 acres. Development of the proposed project would contribute 1,650.4 acres to the targeted 171,917 acres within the MHPA for conservation (City of San Diego 1998). Therefore, implementation of the current project design would be consistent with the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan and would not compromise future implementation of the MSCP Subarea Plan within the City of Santee because the current project meets all requirements and provides a greater level of conservation than required for the Santee MSCP Subarea Plan pursuant to the MSCP Plan.
The proposed project comprises the Fanita Ranch Subunit of the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan. The Santee General Plan, including its Conservation Element, and the NCCP Enrollment Agreement executed by the City require that any development in the City comply with the Draft MSCP Subarea Plan. This requirement applies to the proposed project and all other development that would impact biological resources in the City.
Therefore, the proposed project’s consistency with the MSCP Subarea Plan would be ensured by the City, and impacts related to consistency with habitat conservation plans (HCPs) would be less than significant.
E. CULTURAL RESOURCES
1. Historical Resources
Threshold: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, section 15064.5?
Finding: Less than significant. (EIR, § 4.4.5.1.)
Explanation: The Cultural Resources Phase I Survey Report evaluated one potential historic resource, the Stowe Trail, which runs through the very western edge of the area of potential effect (APE) and connects the City of Santee with the City of Poway. Atkins was unable to locate any documentation specifying the precise length or boundaries of the Stowe Trail. However, historical U.S. Geological Survey maps suggest it is quite short, extending approximately 1 mile north of Stowe to intersect with other trails. The dirt road was of local RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
23 importance to Stowe, a small ranching community in northern Sycamore Canyon (north of the project site), in the latter half of the nineteenth century. The dirt road had likely fallen out of use by 1942.
Although this dirt road was locally important for several decades, no historic artifacts were observed during the pedestrian survey. It is likely that modern activity, including road maintenance, entirely replaced the original road surface and has disturbed or obscured any subsurface historic or prehistoric cultural materials. For these reasons, this section of the dirt road is unlikely to contain cultural deposits and was recommended not eligible to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), or any local designation because it lacks the integrity necessary to convey its historic significance. Therefore, the proposed project’s impact to this site would be less than significant.
No other historic resources were observed on site or identified through records searches or archival research. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. Impacts are less than significant.
F. ENERGY
1. Wasteful Use of Energy
Threshold: Would the Project result in a potentially significant impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
Finding: Less than significant. (EIR, § 4.5.5.1.)
Explanation: Construction. Construction of the proposed project would result in temporary energy consumption and one-time, non-recoverable energy costs associated with construction of structures, utilities, and roadways. Energy consumption as a result of construction of the proposed project would primarily consist of the consumption of fossil fuels as a result of use of off-road construction equipment, movement of soil, and use of on-road vehicles for worker commuting and vendors.
As shown in EIR Tables 4.5-5 and 4.5-6 of the EIR, peak total daily energy consumption from on- and off-road sources would be approximately 1,855 MMBtu per day and would occur during Phase
1. The transportation fuel consumption in California is approximately
2.9 billion MMBtu per year, or approximately 7.8 million MMBtu per day. The proposed project would result in an increase in temporary indirect energy consumption compared to energy consumption RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
24 without project construction. However, this level of energy consumption would be negligible at the regional level (approximately
0.03 percent of statewide transportation fuel consumption) and would be a one-time use during project construction. Construction of the proposed project would not include unusual construction practices that would result in wasteful or inefficient consumption of energy compared to typical construction. Therefore, construction of the proposed project would not cause a significant temporary energy impact during construction. This impact would be less than significant.
Operation:
Electricity. The proposed project’s estimated electricity consumption and renewable energy generation were calculated for project operation. EIR Table 4.5-7 provides estimated energy consumption with and without implementation of the mitigation measures required to reduce air quality and GHG emissions in Sections 4.2 and 4.7, respectively. Specifically, Mitigation Measure AIR-8 would reduce energy use, and Mitigation Measure GHG-1 requires generation of renewable energy on the project site. The annual electricity consumption of the proposed project with Mitigation Measures AIR7, GHG-4, and GHG-6 would be higher than without mitigation measures due to the electricity consumption by electric vehicles (EVs) and all-electric residences. However, mitigation would include on-site renewable electricity generation (Mitigation Measure GHG-1) that would offset the higher electricity consumption of the proposed project.
The U.S. Census Bureau reported that, in 2017, the total population in the County was 3,325,468 (U.S. Census Bureau 2020). The proposed project is anticipated to generate a service population of approximately 8,424 people under the preferred land use plan with school, or 8,345 people under the land use plan without school, which is equal to approximately 0.3 percent of the County’s total population. The proposed project would be home to approximately
0.3 percent of the County’s population but would consume approximately 0.15 percent of the County’s total electricity consumption without any mitigation and 0.06 percent of the County’s total electricity consumption when on-site renewable generation is taken into account. Therefore, before mitigation, the proposed project’s electricity consumption per person would be efficient compared to its proportion of the County’s population and would not result in significant environmental impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. The implementation of the air quality and GHG mitigation measures RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
25 further improves the proposed project’s energy efficiency by decreasing its proportion of energy consumption in the County.
Additionally, with implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1, the proposed project would generate renewable energy on site. By buildout, the proposed project would generate approximately 20,472,039 kilowatt-hours (kWh) and 20,378,877 kWh of electricity per year from distributed photovoltaic solar electric generation on site, under the preferred land use plan with school and land use plan without school, respectively, which is equal to approximately 63 percent of the total electricity demand. The on-site generation of renewable energy would reduce the project’s percent of County 2017 energy consumption to 0.06 percent. Therefore, the proposed project’s operational electricity impacts would be less than significant.
Natural Gas. Natural gas consumption was estimated for the preferred land use plan with school and the land use plan without school and with and without implementation of the mitigation measures required to reduce air quality and GHG emissions.
Specifically, Mitigation Measure GHG-4 requires all-electric residences, which would substantially reduce natural gas consumption. These mitigation measures are not required to reduce energy consumption but would have the added benefit of reducing natural gas consumption. EIR Table 4.5-8 of the EIR provides estimated natural gas use at project buildout with and without mitigation measures required for air quality and GHG impacts.
At full buildout, without mitigation, the proposed project would result in an annual natural gas consumption of approximately 60,889 MMBtu and 62,329 MMBtu under the preferred land use plan with school and the land use plan without school, respectively, which is approximately 0.13 percent of the County’s total natural gas consumption of 48,000,000 MMBtu in 2017. Because the population of the proposed project would be approximately 0.3 percent of the County’s total population, and its natural gas consumption would be
0.13 percent, the proposed project’s natural gas consumption would be efficient compared to its population. This impact would be less than significant prior to implementation of mitigation measures for air quality and GHG emissions impacts. However, with implementation of all-electric residences (Mitigation Measure GHG-4), natural gas use on the project site would be further reduced to approximately
0.04 percent of the County’s total consumption under the preferred land use plan with school and 0.03 percent for the land use plan without school. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant environmental impact due to the wasteful, inefficient, or RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
26 unnecessary consumption of natural gas. This impact would be less than significant.
Petroleum. EIR Table 4.5-9 of the EIR shows the annual petroleum demand at full buildout of the proposed project under the preferred land use plan with school and the land use plan without school and with and without the transportation demand management mitigation measure (Mitigation Measure AIR-6). The mitigation measure is not required to reduce energy use but would have the added benefit of reducing fuel consumption. The petroleum consumption estimate at the state level is available for comparison to the proposed project’s petroleum consumption estimate. The proposed project would consume approximately 0.01 percent of the state’s total petroleum consumption. The U.S. Census Bureau reported that, in 2018, the total population in California was 39,557,045 (U.S. Census Bureau 2020). The proposed project is anticipated to generate a service population of approximately 8,424 people under the preferred land use plan with school, or 8,345 people under the land use plan without school, which is equal to approximately 0.02 percent of the state’s total population. Therefore, the proposed project’s petroleum consumption would be efficient compared to its proportion of the state population and would not result in a significant environmental impact due to the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Impacts related to petroleum consumption would be less than significant.
2. Energy Efficiency Plans
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Finding: Less than significant. (EIR, § 4.5.5.2.)
Explanation: Energy use on the project site during construction would be temporary, and energy use associated with operation of the proposed project would be relatively small in comparison to the state’s and County’s available energy sources. It would also be efficient compared to the proposed project’s estimated proportion of the state’s and County’s population. In addition, on-site renewable energy generation (Mitigation Measure GHG-1) combined with allelectric residences (Mitigation Measure GHG-4) would significantly reduce the energy usage associated with operation of the proposed project. Because the proposed project’s per capita energy consumption would be less than the state or County level for the same resource, the proposed project would not conflict with California’s energy conservation plans as described in the California Energy Commission’s (CEC) 2019 Integrated Energy Policy Report RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
27 (IEPR). Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. This impact would be less than significant.
G. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
1. Fault Rupture, Seismic Groundshaking, and Seismic-Related Ground Failure Threshold: Would the Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving 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; strong seismic ground shaking; seismic-related ground failure including liquefaction; or landslides?
Finding: Less than significant. (EIR, § 4.6.5.1.)
Explanation: Fault Rupture. The geotechnical investigations prepared for the proposed project indicated that no known active, potentially active, or inactive faults are on the project site or in off-site improvement areas. In addition, the proposed project is not on the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map. The nearest known active faults are the Newport-Inglewood Fault and Rose Canyon Fault Zone, both located approximately 15 miles west of the project site. As a result, ground surface rupture is not likely to occur due to an earthquake or seismic event. Due to the distance of these faults from the project site, the proposed project is not anticipated to be at risk from ground surface rupture at these faults. In addition, all new structures associated with the proposed project would be constructed in compliance with the 2019 CBC or most current code at the time of construction. Therefore, because no active faults are located on or near the project site and project construction would comply with the CBC, implementation of the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact associated with the rupture of a known earthquake fault.
Ground Shaking. The project site is located in a seismically active area that has the potential to experience strong ground shaking.
Ground shaking has the potential to dislodge objects from walls, ceilings, and shelves and to damage and destroy buildings and other structures. People in the area would be exposed to these hazards.
The proposed project would minimize hazards associated with damage or destruction to buildings and other structures through compliance with the CBC, which includes specific structural seismic safety provisions. Given the proposed project’s compliance with the RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
28 CBC, impacts associated with ground shaking would be less than significant.
Liquefaction. Soil liquefaction typically occurs when loose, saturated, and relatively cohesionless soil deposits found below the water table lose strength during strong seismic ground motions. Seismically induced soil liquefaction is a phenomenon in which loose to medium dense, saturated granular materials undergo matrix rearrangement, develop high pore water pressure, and lose shear strength due to cyclic ground vibrations induced by earthquakes. Due to the relatively high density and grain-size distribution characteristics of the fill and formational materials at the project site, and the absence of a permanent water table in the proposed development area, the risk of seismically induced soil liquefaction occurring at the project site is very low. In addition, due to the dense formational material encountered, lack of significant deposits of saturated soils that could be susceptible to liquefaction, and compliance with the CBC, liquefaction occurrence at the off-site improvement areas is also low.
Therefore, impacts related to liquefaction would be less than significant.
Landslides. The stability and potential impacts of ancient landslides located on the project site and off-site improvement areas were evaluated in the geotechnical investigations prepared for the proposed project. The geotechnical investigations found that landslide instability due to seismic ground shaking is not anticipated and that there are no known ancient landslides within the Friars Formation in the County that have reactivated due to natural causes.
Therefore, the potential for seismically induced landslides occurring on the project site is low. Impacts would be less than significant.
2. Septic Tanks
Threshold: 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? Finding: No impact. (EIR, § 4.6.5.5.)
Explanation: The proposed project proposes connections to existing sewer lines within the City. No septic systems or other alternative wastewater disposal systems are proposed. Therefore, no impact would occur.
H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
1. Hazardous Materials
RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
29 Threshold: Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Finding: Less than significant. (EIR, § 4.8.5.1.)
Explanation: Construction. Project construction activities could result in the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials such as fuels, grease, and lubricants for construction equipment and vehicle use, asphalt during roadway construction activities, and toxic solvents, pesticides, and herbicides during site clearing and landscaping activities. These materials would be used and stored in designated construction staging areas within the boundaries of the project site and in staging areas for off-site improvements. Activities associated with the temporary aggregate plant would include crushing rock and producing roadway subbase and other aggregate materials for use on the project site using electricity to power the plant. If electricity is not available, a diesel generator would be used to power the aggregate plant. Project construction activities would comply with all applicable local standards set forth by the City, as well as state and federal health and safety requirements that are intended to minimize hazardous materials risk to the public, such as the RCRA, CERCLA, SARA, Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, CCR Title 22 and Title 27, Cal/OSHA requirements, the Hazardous Waste Control Act, the California Accidental Release Protection (CalARP) Program, and the California Health and Safety Code. The construction contractor would be required to implement such regulations relative to the transport, handling, and disposal of any hazardous materials, including the use of standard construction controls and safety procedures to avoid a significant hazard to the public or environment.
Standard construction practices would be observed such that any materials released are appropriately contained and remediated as required by local and state laws.
Operation: The types of uses proposed by the proposed project include residential units, Village Center buildings, potential school, agricultural uses, recreational and trails, sewer/water connections, and roadway improvements typical of residential community development. Without development of the school site, the potential sources of hazardous materials typically associated with schools would not contribute to the proposed project’s potential impacts related to hazardous wastes.
Residential, Village Center, and Parks and Recreational Uses:
Operation of the proposed project would involve the use of potentially hazardous materials typical of residential, commercial, agricultural, recreational, and civic uses including cleaning fluids, detergents, RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
30 solvents, adhesives, sealers, paints, fuels/lubricants, and fertilizers or pesticides for landscaping. The proposed land uses would result in an increase in hazardous chemical waste generation at the site compared to the current baseline condition. However, these materials would be transported, contained, stored, used, and disposed of in accordance with manufacturers’ instructions, applicable standards, and federal, state, and local regulations.
Compliance with applicable state and local regulations would serve to protect against a significant and irreversible environmental change that could result from the routine use of these hazardous materials.
Agricultural Uses: Implementation of the proposed project would include agricultural uses associated with the Farm and within the Agriculture Overlay area. This includes terraced vegetable fields, pasture lands, limited housing for employees, raised gardens, and pastures/facilities for farm animals. These uses are anticipated to involve the use of pesticides, fertilizers, and other hazardous materials. However, any use of fertilizers or pesticides as part of agricultural operations are required to comply with CalEPA’s enforcement of pesticide laws and regulations in California.
Additionally, animal raising would generate animal waste which could result in vectors, such as flies, and could be considered a hazard itself if not handled and disposed of correctly. However, standard housekeeping practices and best management practices are adequate for addressing the hazards of animal waste. Therefore, compliance with existing federal and state regulations and using standard housekeeping practices and best management practices would ensure that the routine transport, use, and dispose of hazardous materials related to agricultural uses would result in a less than significant impact.
School Use: The School Overlay reserves a school site for a potential K–8 public school or other educational uses on the project site. If acquired by the Santee School District, the site would be able to accommodate up to 700 students, including existing Santee students and new students on the project site. Schools throughout the state generate hazardous waste as a normal part of the operation and maintenance of each school. Typical wastes generated by the routine operation and maintenance of K–12 schools include the following: Electronic equipment (e.g., computer monitors), batteries, and copier or printer toners from school daily operation and administration; chemical and biological hazardous wastes from chemistry and science labs; used oil, antifreeze, solvents, degreasers, and auto batteries from auto repair shops and classrooms or compressors; pesticides, cleaning solvents, RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
31 detergents, and oil-based or latex paint wastes from school maintenance and housekeeping or janitorial functions.
In California, on-site and off-site storage of hazardous waste is a regulated activity that requires authorization under the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) five-tiered program for hazardous waste treatment or storage. School uses are required to comply with DTSC requirements for on-site and off-site collection and storage of hazardous wastes. This requires obtaining permits to manage and transport hazardous waste products. Therefore, compliance with state requirements and permitting under the DTSC would ensure that the routine transport, use, and dispose of hazardous materials associated with the potential school would result in a less than significant impact.
2. Hazards Near Schools
Threshold: Would the Project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within onequarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Finding: Less than significant. (EIR, § 4.8.5.3.)
Explanation: Sycamore Canyon Elementary School, is located on Settle Road, approximately 500 feet from the proposed Special Use area along the southwestern boundary of the project site in the Carlton Hills neighborhood. Approximately 350 students are currently enrolled in the elementary school. The Special Use area falls within the notification area for Gillespie Field and has a height restriction, thus limiting its development potential. It is also on landslide deposits, which further limits its development potential. Therefore, the Special Use area would allow for a limited range of uses, such as a solar farm, recreational vehicle and boat storage, aboveground agriculture without irrigation, and other similar uses. The types of hazardous materials that would be potentially emitted from the site could include gasoline, diesel fuel, oils, and grease from the recreational vehicle and boat storage and pesticides from the aboveground agriculture.
However, due to the limited nature of development proposed, the Special Use area is not anticipated to emit or handle hazardous materials in quantities large enough to affect the nearby school. As such, the permitted uses for the Special Use area would not result in activities that emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances, or waste in quantities that would affect persons at Sycamore Canyon Elementary School.
In addition, existing residential uses and intervening topography provide a buffer from any hazardous materials that could be RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
32 potentially emitted from the Special Use area. The applicant is required to include a minimum 50-foot buffer adjacent to the existing homes to the south and southwest and a minimum 100-foot buffer to the west to preserve neighbor privacy. This would also provide an additional buffer between the existing and permitted land uses. In the event that agricultural uses are implemented in the Special Use area, the potential for pesticides to become airborne during application exists. However, they would be handled and disposed of in accordance with all federal, state, and local laws regulating the management and use of hazardous materials such that an impact would not occur.
CEQA Guidelines, Section 15186(b), stipulates that before certifying an EIR for a project located within 0.25 mile of a school that involves the construction of a facility that might emit hazardous air emissions or handle an extremely hazardous substance, the lead agency is required to consult with and provide written notification to the school district no less than 30 days prior to the certification of the EIR.
Sycamore Canyon Elementary School is located within 0.25 mile of the proposed Special Use area. However, as discussed previously, the Special Use area is not anticipated to emit hazardous air emissions or handle an extremely hazardous substance or a mixture containing extremely hazardous substances in a quantity equal to or greater than the state threshold quantity specified in the California Health and Safety Code. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the proposed project would trigger the requirements of CEQA Guidelines, Section 15186(b), and consultation with and notification to the Santee School District would not be required.
The preferred land use plan with school includes a 15-acre school site with a School Overlay to allow for the development of a future school by the Santee School District. Land uses in the vicinity of the school would include residential, commercial, agricultural, recreational, and civic uses, which would require the routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials. However, these materials would be contained, stored, and used on site in accordance with manufacturers’ instructions, applicable standards, and federal, state, and local regulations. While hazardous materials and waste would be handled within 0.25 mile of a proposed school associated with the proposed project, these materials would not exist in quantities large enough to pose a health risk to users of the nearby school. Additionally, these types of land uses do not typically constitute incompatible land uses near a school.
The PDMWD Ray Stoyer WRF is approximately 0.25 mile southwest of the 15-acre school site proposed in Fanita Commons under the preferred land use plan with school. The WRF handles hazardous RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
33 materials, including chlorine and sulfur dioxide gas. The RMP for the WRF lays out a comprehensive plan for the protection of public health and addresses potential chlorine and sulfur dioxide spills at this facility. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15186(c)(2), notification is required in writing by the Santee School District to consult with the San Diego Air Pollution Control District over the siting of the new school near a facility known to handle hazardous materials. The PDMWD Ray Stoyer WRF is within 0.25 mile of the proposed school site. This is a formal notification requirement that would be completed in accordance with Section 25502 of the California Health and Safety Code and would be necessary for the Santee School District to make a finding to approve the site.
The DTSC school siting requirements would not allow for development of a school adjacent to incompatible land uses or those that would release hazardous materials. In accordance with the California Education Code and California Code, Sections 17210.1 through 17213.2, as with all proposed school sites that would receive state funding for acquisition or construction, the Santee School District would be required to comply with CEQA for its acquisition of the proposed project’s school site. The proposed school site has been reviewed in the Phase I ESA prepared for the proposed project.
As concluded in the Phase I ESA, the project site is not a former waste disposal site and has not been identified by DTSC as a hazardous waste release site, and there are no pipelines carrying hazardous waste that traverse the project site. Therefore, there is no evidence of existing on-site RECs in connection with the proposed school site. Under the land use plan without school, no impact would occur.
The proposed project would comply with federal and state regulations pertaining to hazardous waste, such as proper handling, disposal practices, and cleanup procedures, to ensure that risks associated with hazardous emissions or materials to existing or proposed schools within one-quarter mile of the project site would not result in a significant impact. Impacts would be less that significant.
3. Waste Sites
Threshold: Would the Project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Finding: Less than significant. (EIR, § 4.8.5.4.)
RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
34 Explanation: As part of the Phase I ESA, a hazardous materials record search was conducted for the project site and surrounding properties from federal, state, and local databases. According to the government hazardous materials databases searched, no reported hazardous materials sites are located within the boundaries of the project site.
Pursuant to Government Code, Section 65962.5, there is one facility located within one-quarter mile of the project site that was listed three times on LUST database. This facility is the 7-Eleven located at a facility at 9750 Cuyamaca Street. According to the findings in the Phase I ESA, all three LUST listings identified for the facility relate to a release of gasoline on three separate occurrences (March 1986, May 1991, and June 1994). Regulatory closure was granted in each case.
The Phase I ESA determined that based on distance from the project site, downstream position, and closed regulatory status, the facility located at 9750 Cuyamaca Street is unlikely to have caused a REC at the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant hazard to the public or the environment due to the presence of hazardous materials sites identified pursuant to Government Code, Section 65962.5, as it relates to annual updates to the Cortese List. Impacts would be less than significant.
4. Airport Safety
Threshold: For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
Finding: Less than significant. (EIR, § 4.8.5.5.)
Explanation: The project site is located in the vicinity of two airports: MCAS Miramar (private federal) and Gillespie Field (public). The project site is east of MCAS Miramar. The portions of the project site proposed for development fall outside of any Overflight Zones and are not subject to overflight-related disclosure or notification requirements.
According to the MCAS Miramar ALUCP, the entire project site is located within the Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77 Outer Boundary, which establishes standards and Federal Aviation Administration notification requirements for potential hazards to use of navigable airspace. A small northerly portion of the project site falls within Review Area 2 of the AIA, which requires ALUC review for any proposed objects with a height greater than 35 feet above ground level. However, this portion of the project site would be dedicated as Habitat Preserve and would not be developed. The easterly portions of the project site are within a High Terrain zone but RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
35 are not within Review Area 2; therefore, they do not require ALUC review. The remainder of the project site is located outside of the AIA. Thus, the proposed project would not be subject to any land use restrictions from MCAS Miramar.
The project site is also located north of Gillespie Field. Southerly portions of the project site are located within the Federal Aviation Administration Height Notification Boundary and are proposed as Habitat Preserve and Special Use area. Within this boundary, the Federal Aviation Administration shall be notified of any proposed construction or alteration having a height greater than an imaginary surface extending 100 feet outward and 1 foot upward (slope of 100 to 1) from the runway elevation. The Special Use area also falls within the Gillespie Field Review Area 2, which requires limitations on the height of structures. Review Area 2 also requires overflight notification documents for residential uses; however, residential uses would not be permitted within the Special Use area, except for a caretaker unit. If a caretaker unit is proposed, the applicant is required to provide notification and compliance in accordance with the Gillespie Field Review Area 2 requirements. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in a significant impact regarding airspace safety hazards or conflicts with the land use plans for MCAS Miramar or Gillespie Field.
I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
1. Water Quality Standards
Threshold: Would the Project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
Finding: Less than significant. (EIR, § 4.9.5.1.)
Explanation: Construction and operation activities associated with the proposed project could result in an increase in potential discharge of pollutants to receiving waters, including waters designated as impaired for certain conditions of concerns. Hydromodification could increase stormwater runoff and intensify erosion and the transport of sediments and other pollutants. Development of vacant land would introduce new types of pollutants in stormwater runoff.
Construction: During construction, the proposed project has the potential to produce pollutants such as sediment, nutrients, heavy metals, organic compounds, trash and debris, oxygen-demanding substances, oil and grease, bacteria and viruses, and
pesticides/herbicides. Additionally, waste materials such as wash water, paints, wood, paper, concrete, food containers, and sanitary RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
36 wastes may be discharged from the project site during construction.
These pollutants could impact water quality if they were washed off site by stormwater or non-stormwater or are blown or tracked off site to areas susceptible to wash off by stormwater or non-stormwater.
Pollutants are likely to drain into Sycamore Canyon Creek. Sycamore Canyon Creek drains into the San Diego River, which then drains into the Pacific Ocean. Therefore, these water bodies are identified as the receiving waters of the proposed project. Impairments for these water bodies include dissolved oxygen, benthic community effects, cadmium, indicator bacteria, nitrogen, dissolved oxygen, phosphorus, total dissolved solids, and toxicity for the San Diego River. Under these impairments, the receiving water cannot assimilate or accommodate additional loading of pollutants, and any increases in pollutants would contribute to the impairment.
The proposed project would be subject to compliance with Construction General Permit requirements and with Chapter 9.06 of the Santee Municipal Code, which prohibits non-stormwater discharges and eliminates illicit discharges and illicit connections to the stormwater conveyance system, reduces the discharge of pollutants from the stormwater conveyance system to the maximum extent practicable in order to achieve applicable water quality objectives for surface waters in the County, and achieves compliance with TMDL regulations (City of Santee 2020).
Prior to project grading or construction, the Construction General Permit requires preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP would include a series of specific BMPs to be implemented during construction in order to address erosion, accidental spills, and the quality of stormwater runoff. The SWPPP applies only to the time period in which construction activity is taking place, and is no longer operative once the soil on the project site has been stabilized and a Notice of Termination is completed. BMPs that must be implemented as part of a SWPPP can be grouped into two major categories: (1) erosion and sediment control BMPs and (2) non-stormwater management and materials management BMPs.
As part of project compliance with the General Construction Permit, a Notice of Intent would be prepared and submitted to the San Diego RWQCB providing notification and intent to comply with the General Permit. The Construction General Permit also requires that construction sites be inspected before and after storm events and every 24 hours during extended storm events. The purpose of the inspections is to identify maintenance requirements for BMPs and to determine the effectiveness of BMPs that are being implemented.
RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
37 Operation: Operation of the proposed project land uses would have the potential to generate pollutants that could degrade the surface water quality of downstream receiving waters. Pollutant sources from operation of the proposed project would include landscaping, rooftops, parking and driveways, roadways, agricultural uses, general use areas, and trash storage areas. Pollutants from operation of the proposed project would include sediment, nutrients, heavy metals, organic compounds, trash and debris, oxygendemanding substances, oil and grease, bacteria and viruses, and pesticides. In addition, project implementation would require routine operation and maintenance activities, thereby increasing instances of accidental spills and non-stormwater discharges to storm drains, and non-stormwater connections (e.g., sewer connections) that could result in the potential discharge of pollutants to storm drainage systems and associated receiving waters.
Consistent with the City’s Stormwater Management Ordinance, the proposed project is considered a priority development project and is required to identify and incorporate measures for hydromodification management to ensure that stormwater runoff rates and durations do not exceed pre-development conditions or result in adverse erosion or sedimentation effects. All priority development projects are required to implement structural BMPs for stormwater pollutant control. Additionally, projects subject to hydromodification management requirements must implement structural BMPs for flow control. Structural BMPs, such as biofiltration (basins and proprietary modular units) and combined pollutant control and hydromodification control measures, have been incorporated into the proposed project design.
Runoff from natural and sloped areas containing no impervious areas would be collected in separate storm drains and discharged through riprap energy dissipaters to avoid comingling of drainage and to allow any course sediment generated in the areas to pass through. The proposed project would extend and make
improvements to Fanita Parkway and would include features in accordance with Green Streets design elements, including rock garden swales and tree wells, to address water quality. Street improvements would reset roadway widths, medians, utilities, and storm drain conveyance systems. The proposed storm drain system would be constructed to collect and convey on-site runoff as well offsite run-on from developed areas east of Fanita Parkway that confluences with the Fanita Parkway flows. However, instead of discharging into an open channel along the western side of Fanita Parkway as it currently does, confluence flows would be conveyed within a storm drain pipe within Fanita Parkway to an existing drainage. Cuyamaca Street and Magnolia Avenue would also be RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
38 extended and improved to provide access to the project site. Similar to Fanita Parkway, these streets would also include Green Street design elements, such as rock gardens and tree wells.
Through changes in topography and land cover on the project site, the proposed project has the potential to result in impacts to sedimentary transport to downstream channel areas, known as Potential Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas (PCCSYA), by altering the sediment producing areas on the project site. The alteration of PCCSYAs has the potential to negatively impact characteristics of sediment supply and delivery which can lead to water quality degradation of downstream receiving waters. To avoid impacts to PCCSYAs produced on the project site and resulting downstream water quality impacts, the discharges of the sediment producing areas would be diverted to adjust the sediment production as close as possible to the original conditions. As a result, the proposed project would not encroach into more than 5 percent of the proposed project’s potential PCCSYAs areas off site and would have no net encroachment into on-site areas. In addition, the discharges of the project site would be adjusted by designing BMPs such that the erosion from the discharged flows is as close as possible to the pre-development conditions. The proposed project would avoid significant impacts to both on- and off-site PCCSYAs and water quality through redirecting sediment producing discharges, adherence to BMPs, and the protection of the remaining natural areas. Therefore, alteration of the drainage area on the project site would have less than significant impacts to PCCSYAs and would not result in the loss of sedimentary transport or decreased water quality to downstream channel areas.
The Stormwater Quality Management Plan identifies a number of site design BMPs to ensure that water quality is maintained during project operation. BMPs have been incorporated into the project design to minimize impacts from project-generated operational pollutant sources, which include sediment, nutrients, heavy metals, organic compounds, trash and debris, oxygen-demanding substances, oil and grease, bacteria and viruses, and pesticides.
Preparation of and compliance with the SWPPP, implementation of BMPs identified in the Stormwater Quality Management Plan, and compliance with existing federal, state, and local regulations as discussed previously would protect water quality and ensure project compliance with applicable water quality standards. The proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or WDRs.
Additionally, the implementation of these BMPs would help treat runoff and decrease the amount of pollution entering receiving waters. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
39 2. Groundwater Supplies
Threshold: Would the Project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Finding: Less than significant. (EIR, § 4.9.5.2.)
Explanation: The City does not rely on groundwater sources for its water supply.
No groundwater would be used for project construction or operation activities. Therefore, the proposed project would not adversely affect or deplete groundwater supplies due to water demand generated by the proposed development.
Development of the proposed project would result in new impervious surfaces that may lead to a decrease in the amount of water recharged into the groundwater system within the project boundaries. To minimize potential effects on groundwater recharge, the proposed project would be designed to include pervious, landscaped areas, allowing groundwater recharge to continue to occur. Runoff from developed areas would drain into proposed onsite basin system designed to slow peak flow and discharge to rates equal to or less than existing conditions. Hydromodification management would occur through storage of stormwater within the basins, with outlets that regulate the flow rate and duration of stormwater released. Source control and low-impact development measures would be implemented to incorporate pervious surfaces and maximize the amount of open space, landscaping, and vegetated swales to slow and absorb runoff, allowing for groundwater recharge.
Further, the proposed project would include a total of approximately 2,022.6 acres of undeveloped area including 256 acres of Open Space, 1,650.4 acres of Habitat Preserve, and 116.2 acres of Agriculture and Parks (Community, Neighborhood, and Mini). As such, groundwater recharge in these areas would continue after project implementation.
The proposed project is not anticipated to substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. No groundwater would be used for project construction or operation, and the proposed project would be designed to minimize potential effects to groundwater recharge through consolidation of impervious surfaces and the retaining of approximately 2,022.6 acres as Open Space, Habitat Preserve, and Agriculture and Parks.
Impacts would be less than significant.
RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
40 3. Erosion or Siltation
Threshold: Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site; create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or impede or redirect flood flows?
Finding: Less than significant. (EIR, § 4.9.5.3.)
Explanation: Construction. Land-disturbing construction activities associated with implementation of the proposed project, such as vegetation clearing, grading, and excavation of project sites, and construction of new building foundations, streets, driveways, and trenches for utilities, could result in localized alteration of drainage patterns and temporarily increase erosion and sedimentation in the construction area.
Temporary ponding or flooding could also result from construction activities from temporary alterations of the drainage system (reducing its capacity of carrying runoff). Alterations may temporarily result in increased erosion and siltation if flows were substantially increased or routed to facilities or channels without capacity to carry the additional flow.
Construction phase activities implemented under the proposed project would be required to comply with the SWRCB General Construction Stormwater Permit, which requires preparation of a SWPPP. The SWPPP would include a series of specific BMPs to be implemented during construction to address erosion, accidental spills, and the quality of stormwater runoff, which have been developed in part to reduce the potential adverse effects associated with construction activities. In addition, construction phase activities implemented under the proposed project would be required to comply with Chapter 9.06 of the Santee Municipal Code, which mandates the implementation of a pollution control plan for each phase of construction and season of the year (City of Santee 2020).
The pollution control plan would incorporate BMPs in accordance with the California Stormwater Quality Association’s Construction BMP Handbook (2015).
Therefore, with the adherence to regulatory requirements, which include the implementation of erosion and sediment control BMPs, RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
41 any short-term impacts resulting from alterations of drainage and hydrology during construction would be less than significant.
Operation. The proposed project would result in hydromodification from development of impervious surfaces in an area that is currently undeveloped. Hydromodification could increase stormwater runoff and intensify erosion and the transport of sediments and other pollutants. Changes to delivery of coarse sediment and transport of coarse sediment result in increased transport capacity and the potential for adverse channel erosion (City of Santee 2016).
Additionally, impervious surfaces do not allow percolation of the water down into the soil. Water is instead forced directly into storm drain systems or streams, where increases in erosion and siltation could result, as well as increased flood risks. These alterations could also result in exceeding the existing capacity of stormwater facilities if substantial drainage is rerouted or stormwater flow or velocities are substantially increased. To avoid these types of impacts, the proposed project includes a drainage network designed to control and filter stormwater runoff in conformance with RWQCB and City’s requirements, which call for retention first, then biofiltration. The proposed stormwater system would include the use of biofilters, onsite storage of stormwater in basins with outlets that regulate the flow rate and duration of stormwater released, and the use of both retention and detention basins to slow and sequester runoff.
The pre- and post-development conditions for the proposed project were evaluated to determine if the proposed biofiltration facilities are sized adequately to meet the current HMP requirements of the RWQCB. Hydromodification management would occur through storage of stormwater in proposed on-site basins, with outlets to regulate the flow rate and duration of stormwater released. Runoff would be collected in storm drain inlets from street surfaces and routed toward multi-purpose basins and treated for stormwater quality, flow control for hydromodification, and flood attenuation to maintain existing peak-flow rates during a 100-year storm event.
As indicated in the Master Drainage Study, the pre-development project 100-year flows are 3,312 cubic feet per second. Through project design, stormwater runoff upon project completion would result in 2,729 cubic feet per second 100-year flows. Thus, project design would help to reduce flows by approximately 583 cubic feet per second versus existing conditions.
The proposed project would construct a total of 19 stormwater basins and 3 vaults. Of the 19 stormwater basins, the proposed project would construct 15 on-site stormwater basins (BF-1-1 through BF-1- 6, BF-1-17, HMP-17, HMP-18, and BF-1-RV1 through BF-1-RV6).
RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
42 Biofiltration basins BF-1-1 through BF-1-6, BF-1-17, and BF-1-RV1 through BF-1-RV6 would serve as combined water quality, hydromodification, and detention basins. Basins HMP-17 and HMP18 would serve as hydromodification and detention basins. In addition, the proposed project would construct four off-site stormwater basins (BF-1-10A, BF-1-10B, HMP-11, and HMP-12) and three vaults (HMP-13, HMP-15, and HMP-16). Basins BF-1-10A and BF-1-10B would serve as combined water quality,
hydromodification, and detention basins. Basins HMP-11 and HMP12 and vaults HMP-13, HMP-15, and HMP-16 would serve as hydromodification and detention facilities.
The system would collect stormwater through a series of swales, catch basins, and culverts that direct stormwater to
detention/biofiltration basins. Runoff from the residential portions of the site would generally be collected by inlets and conveyed toward one of the proposed detention basins. Flows would outlet the basins and discharge into downstream conveyance channels consisting of storm drain pipes, constructed channels, or natural drainage ways.
The proposed basins would also serve as detention for flow-control hydromodification and peak-flow attenuation. Peak-flow attenuation would be required not only due to the increase in imperviousness associated with the development but also because the site design proposes to divert acreage from areas that currently drain easterly and southerly to drain westerly toward Sycamore Canyon Creek.
Other areas along the roadway corridors of Fanita Parkway, Cuyamaca Street, and Magnolia Avenue would include storage facilities such as underground vaults and aboveground basins to address local peak-flow attenuation. Each detention facility would be equipped with a riser designed to accomplish the various functions.
Orifices placed along the height of the rise would regulate the lower flow rates to address flow-control hydromodification. The crosssectional area of the riser would aid in regulating the higher flows to reduce flows below existing conditions. The basins would also include a second riser installed for redundancy and as an emergency outlet should the primary riser clog. Design of this secondary riser would be performed during final engineering. Depending on the accessibility of the riser structures, it may be necessary to equip some of them with a grate over the top opening as a safety measure.
The biofiltration basins proposed for the site would be lined; therefore, no infiltration is assumed in the biofiltration basins.
The storm drain system and layout would be designed to address peak flows and to integrate water quality features needed to comply with the City’s BMP Design Manual requirements for water quality and hydromodification. As designed, the proposed project would RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
43 allow biofiltration, evapotranspiration, and filtering of stormwater to remove microscopic organisms, suspended solids, organic material, nitrogen, and phosphorous. The results show that development of the proposed project would not increase peak flows for any point of discharge. Therefore, the proposed project would not compromise the capacity of downstream drainage facilities, and effects due to erosion, sedimentation, and flooding are anticipated to be minimal.
The proposed project has been designed in compliance with the San Diego RWQCB and the City’s requirements. Post-development flow rates would be reduced to below pre-development flow rates with implementation of bioretention and hydromodification basins.
Construction runoff would be contained in compliance with the State of California Construction Permit. Post-construction runoff would be cleaned through bioretention basins and modular wetlands in compliance with the San Diego RWQCB Order R9-2013-0001.
Portions of Fanita Parkway and Cuyamaca Street, Magnolia Avenue, and Summit Avenue have been designed as a Green Street per the requirements of the San Diego RWQCB.
All site runoff would receive water quality treatment prior to discharging off site. To prevent erosive velocities at pipe outlet locations, energy dissipating measures would be included as part of project design. These measures would be designed during final engineering and would include but not be limited to riprap and concrete energy dissipating headwalls. Landform grading has been incorporated into the proposed project to mimic existing conditions where the proposed grading ties into or daylights with the existing terrain. It is intended that the stormwater running off manufactured slopes would sheet flow and follow existing drainage patterns.
Implementation of hydromodification measures would reduce postproject flows to below pre-project conditions. As shown, the basins proposed for the proposed project would help to reduce flows by approximately 583 cubic feet per second compared to existing conditions. Thus, post-project flows would be released into Sycamore Canyon Creek at a lower rate than existing natural flows.
Runoff from the adjacent hillsides and natural off-site areas would be collected in a series of brow ditches and conveyed to culverts located within the proposed street improvements. Runoff generated by the hardscape improvements would be intercepted via curb and gutter, draining to an internal storm drain system that would convey these flows to Modular Wetland Biofiltration BMP’s prior to draining to HMP detention facilities. Once treated and detained, these flows are then discharged to their respective discharge location. Proposed structural BMPs would be maintained by the homeowners
association in perpetuity.
RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
44 Additionally, Green Streets principles and infrastructure are proposed for meeting water quality requirements for portions of Fanita Parkway, Cuyamaca Street, Magnolia Avenue and Summit Avenue in the areas outside of the villages where the roadways are proposed to be improved. The Green Streets approach integrates strategies into roadway design that help protect, restore, and mimic the natural water cycle such that runoff is encouraged to be percolated or stored in a more natural manner, with the use of features such as rock garden swales and tree wells, which are designed to capture runoff from hardened surfaces, slow water down, spread it out, and allow it to sink into the soil during storms.
Methods like this would help to trap silt and pollutants to reduce siltation and erosion. The use of Green Street principles would reduce the proposed project’s potential to increase peak flows.
Therefore, compared to existing conditions, the potential for erosion to occur downstream of the project site would be reduced with implementation of the proposed project. Existing flow velocities would be lessened with implementation of the proposed project since post-development flows would be reduced. As such, the proposed project would not compromise the capacity of downstream drainage facilities, and effects due to erosion and sedimentation are anticipated to be minimal. Therefore, erosion and siltation is not expected downstream of the project site.
Further, the project design includes improvements to allow connection to the City’s existing stormwater infrastructure system.
Proposed improvements would ensure that stormwater flows are properly maintained and treated on site so that runoff volumes or velocities do not exceed that which currently occur under existing conditions. The proposed project would be subject to National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements and other local, state, and federal regulations pertaining to maintaining water quality and minimizing potential adverse effects on downstream water bodies. Because stormwater runoff from the site would be less with the proposed project, it would not create or contribute runoff that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems, and the proposed project would not generate additional sources of polluted runoff.
Lastly, the project site is in Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Zone X, which is outside of the 100- and 500-year flood hazard areas. The proposed project would be designed to reduce peak-flow rates such that downstream locations would be below existing flow rates. The proposed project would not impede or redirect flood flows because redirected areas would be reduced by attenuation facilities such that post-development flows would not exceed pre-project flows. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially alter RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
45 the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner that would substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a way that would impede or redirect flood flows or result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site or flooding on or off site. The proposed project would not create or contribute runoff that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems, and the proposed project would not generate additional sources of polluted runoff. As such, impacts would be less than significant.
4. Flood Hazard
Threshold: In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the Project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Finding: No impact. (EIR, § 4.9.5.4.)
Explanation: The project site is not subject to inundation by tsunami or seiche. The project site is located approximately 16 miles from the Pacific Ocean negating the potential for the site to be subject to a tsunami event. A seiche is a wave on the surface of a lake or landlocked bay that is caused by atmospheric or seismic disturbances. The nearest lake to the project site is San Vincente Reservoir located approximately 2 miles from the northeastern portion of the project site. This portion of the project site is located at approximately 1,000 feet above mean sea level and the area between the reservoir and the project site is a valley. This topographical variation would make it difficult for the project site to be inundated by the reservoir. Further, the project site is located in Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Zone X, which is outside of the 100- and 500-year flood hazard areas.
Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not release pollutants due to inundation caused by a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche.
5. Water Quality Control Plan
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Finding: Less than significant. (EIR, § 4.9.5.5.)
Explanation: The project site is located within the San Diego River Hydraulic Unit (HU) of the San Diego region as defined by the San Diego RWQCB and is further located within the Santee Hydrologic Subarea. The project site currently drains west to Sycamore Canyon Creek and east to unnamed tributaries and storm drain conveyance systems that eventually discharge to San Diego River, both of which are on RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
46 the CWA Section 303(d) list for dissolved oxygen. Once developed, on-site hydromodification would divert acreages from areas that drained easterly to now drain west toward Sycamore Canyon Creek.
As identified in the Basin Plan, the designated beneficial uses for Sycamore Canyon Creek include: agricultural supply (AGR), industrial services supply (IND), contact water recreation (REC1), non-contact water recreation (REC2), warm freshwater habitat (WARM), and wildlife habitat (WILD), and rare, threatened, or endangered species (RARE). Sycamore Canyon Creek is a tributary to the San Diego River, which is on the CWA Section 303(d) list for benthic community effects, cadmium, indicator bacteria, nitrogen, dissolved oxygen, phosphorus, total dissolved solids, and toxicity.
Construction and operation activities associated with the proposed project could result in an increase in potential discharge of pollutants to receiving waters, including waters designated as impaired.
Additionally, hydromodification could increase stormwater runoff and intensify erosion and the transport of sediment and other pollutants.
Land use changes may also introduce new types of pollutants in stormwater runoff. There is no sustainable groundwater
management plan prepared for the project site.
Construction. Construction activities associated with the proposed project would involve various types of equipment such as bulldozers, scrapers, backhoes, and other earthmoving equipment; dump trucks; cranes; trucks; concrete mixers; and generators. Pollutants associated with these construction activities that could result in water quality impacts include soils, debris, other materials generated during demolition and clearing, fuels and other fluids associated with the equipment used for construction, paints, other hazardous materials, concrete slurries, and asphalt materials. The proposed project would be required to comply with General Construction Stormwater Permit requirements, including the development and implementation of a SWPPP. The SWPPP must identify BMPs that the discharger would use to protect stormwater runoff from pollutants and the placement of those BMPs. Therefore, with the
implementation of policies and regulatory requirements, which include the implementation of construction-period BMPs to address potential discharges of pollutants to stormwater, any short-term water quality impacts during construction of the proposed project would be minimized and would not cause a conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Basin Plan. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Operation. Implementation of the proposed project would result in land use changes that would have the potential to generate pollutants that could degrade the surface water quality of downstream receiving waters. Pollution sources for the proposed RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
47 project would include landscaping, rooftops, parking, and trash storage areas. In addition, implementation of the proposed project would also result in routine operation and maintenance activities, increasing opportunities for accidental spills and non-stormwater discharges to storm drains and non-stormwater connections (e.g., sewer connections) that could result in the potential discharge of pollutants to receiving waters.
However, the proposed project requires the implementation of construction and operation BMPs, which include low-impact development site design and source control BMPs, to reduce runoff or pollutants at the source. Therefore, with implementation of appropriate BMPs, compliance with Chapter 9.06 of the Santee Municipal Code, and applicable state requirements, project impacts would be minimized and would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Basin Plan. Impacts would be less than significant.
J. LAND USE AND PLANNING
1. Established Communities
Threshold: Would the Project physically divide an established community? Finding: Less than significant. (EIR, § 4.10.5.1.)
Explanation: The proposed project does not contain any components that could result in dividing an established community. The project site is an undeveloped area located in the City’s boundary. Areas directly north are currently undeveloped, though they are designated as Rural Lands (RL-40) (one residential unit per 40 acres) and Open Space (Conservation) by the San Diego County General Plan and zoned Agriculture (A70) and Specific Plan (S80). Beyond that, north of the project site and west of SR-67 lies the 2,272-acre Goodan Ranch/Sycamore Canyon County Preserve. Areas northeast include undeveloped hillsides and Slaughterhouse Canyon, where active mining operations take place. East of the project site is an unincorporated rural residential subdivision known as Eucalyptus Hills. Existing detached single-family residences in the Carlton Hills neighborhood are south of the project site. The Santee Lakes Recreation Preserve is southwest of the project site and MCAS northwest of the project site.
Proposed roadways would connect, rather than separate, the project site from established communities in the vicinity. A proposed extension of Fanita Parkway and Cuyamaca Street would connect the project site to the existing residential development to the south.
RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
48 The proposed project also proposes to construct Magnolia Avenue from its current terminus to the extension of Cuyamaca Street just south of the project site.
Additionally, people have historically taken informal access through the proposed project for active and passive recreation.
Implementation of the proposed project would formalize permanent public access trails, trailheads, and staging areas. The proposed project proposes more than 35 miles of multimodal public trails allowing access for pedestrians and bicyclists throughout the site and providing connections to the City center and regional trails. Thus, the proposed trail system would provide enhanced connectivity to existing trails in and near the project site. The proposed project would not result in the physical division of an established community.
Impacts would be less than significant.
2. Conflicts With Plans
Threshold: Would the Project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Finding: Less than significant. (Second Recirculated Sections of Final Revised EIR, § 4.10.5.2.)
Explanation: The review of local land use plans, including the ALUCPs for MCAS Miramar and Gillespie Field, SANDAG’s Regional Plan, the Santee General Plan, and the City’s Zoning Ordinance, has indicated that the proposed project would be generally not in conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Mere inconsistency with a plan, policy, or regulation does not mandate a significance finding. The conflict must “cause a significant environmental impact” due to a conflict with a policy or regulation “adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect” (California Public Resources Code, Section 21083; CEQA Guidelines 15063[a]).
San Diego County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans: The project site is located in the vicinity of two airports: MCAS Miramar and Gillespie Field. The project site abuts the easterly property line of the MCAS Miramar. The entire project site is within the Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 77, Outer Boundary, which establishes standards and Federal Aviation Administration notification requirements for potential hazards to use of navigable airspace. The easterly portions of the project site are in a High Terrain zone, which is an area of land in the vicinity of an airport where the ground is above a surface regulated by Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 77. However, only a RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
49 small northerly portion of the site falls in Review Area 2 of the AIA.
The portion of the site in Review Area 2 would be dedicated as Habitat Preserve and would not be developed, and the remainder of the project site is outside of any AIA. Therefore, the proposed project addition, the areas proposed for development fall outside of any Overflight Zones and are not subject to overflight-related disclosure or notification requirements (SDCRAA 2011).
The project site is north of Gillespie Field. Southerly portions of the site are within the Federal Aviation Administration Height Notification Boundary. The proposed Habitat Preserve and Special Use area are within this notification boundary. Within this boundary, the Federal Aviation Administration is required to be notified of any proposed construction or alteration having a height greater than an imaginary surface extending 100 feet outward and 1 foot upward (slope of 100 to 1) from the runway elevation. The Special Use area also falls in the Review Area 2, which requires limitations on the height of structures. Review Area 2 also requires overflight notification documents for residential uses; however, residential uses are not permitted in the Special Use area, except for one caretaker unit. If a caretaker unit is proposed, notification in accordance with the Review Area 2 requirements would be made. The development standards for the Special Use area consider the site’s relationship to Gillespie Field and adjacency to off-site neighbors. Height in the Special Use area would be limited to conform to the Gillespie Field ALUCP. Buffers would be required adjacent to existing residences off site to preserve privacy (SDCRAA 2010). Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the ALUCPs for MCAS Miramar and Gillespie Field.
San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan: In accordance with SB 375, the Regional Plan includes five building blocks that are accompanied by strategies to move the San Diego region toward sustainability and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The building blocks and strategies aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through a land use pattern that accommodates the region’s future employment and housing needs and protects sensitive habitats, cultural resources, and resource areas.
The proposed project proposes Village Center, Medium Density Residential, Low Density Residential, and Active Adult land use designations that would allow for a diversified mix of housing types.
Additionally, the proposed development would be clustered into three villages to preserve approximately 63 percent of the site as Habitat Preserve to maintain core habitat identified in the Final MSCP Plan, preserve known wildlife corridors, and maintain a contiguous and connected open space system, which would help RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
50 implement the first building block. By clustering compact, walkable, sustainable, low-impact development in strategic locations that minimize ecological impacts, development of the proposed project would allow for the restoration of sensitive habitat areas and management of the Habitat Preserve. Implementation of the proposed project would include the establishment of a formal management entity and a management plan to monitor and protect biodiversity. Open space corridors between the villages would preserve connectivity and allow for continued wildlife movement through the site. Wildlife crossings at roadways would be designed to support the safe and efficient movement of wildlife. In addition, existing drainages between the villages would allow for revegetation and restoration of these important features, which provide habitat and connectivity for wildlife.
The proposed project’s mobility plan focuses on reducing the number and length of vehicle trips and providing alternatives to fossil fuelpowered vehicle use, which would help implement the second building block. This would be achieved through organizing land uses to locate services and goods close to residences and optimizing circulation systems to create direct, efficient, safe, and comfortable routes for a variety of transportation modes. The proposed project land uses are designed to meet the daily needs of the project residents to minimize trips outside the project site. Emphasis is placed on encouraging a transportation network that generate fewer emissions, such as walking, biking, electric vehicles, transit, and ridesharing. A Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan has been prepared to support alternative modes, manage shared facilities to optimize transportation modes, implement and support appropriate advanced technologies, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The TDM Plan considers community programs to support and encourage ridesharing, alternative modes, and other strategies to reduce single-occupancy vehicle use, which would help implement the third and fourth building blocks. Implementation of the TDM Plan would be required by Mitigation Measure AIR-6.
The proposed project includes a Complete Streets system that supports various modes of transportation and offers alternatives to single-occupancy vehicle travel. Streets on the project site are designed as a system of Complete Streets that safely accommodate and support multiple user types, including motorists, pedestrians, bicycles, and transit riders in an effort to manage the transportation system. The Fanita Ranch Development Plan establishes the street designs within the boundaries of the project site. Street improvements associated with development on the project site include the extension of existing streets and the construction of a new internal systems of public and private streets. The proposed RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
51 project establishes a network of streets of varying design capacities tailored to meet the unique concepts of the three villages.
Additionally, the proposed project street designs address safety, aesthetics, and functionality, as well as site constraints.
The proposed project would offer sustainable transportation features that would reduce the number of vehicle trips, reduce emissions, and improve the overall mobility of people in the community, all of which would help implement the fifth building block (innovative pricing policies) of the Regional Plan. One proposed mobility feature is a bicycle circulation network throughout the community through a combination of on-street bike lanes and off-street multi-purpose trails. Bicycle trails would be designed for both recreation and to provide direct access between the villages. Another project feature is a project layout that promotes walkability and wellness. The proposed project would provide direct connections to multiple destinations that shorten the routes and allow walking to be an efficient and viable method of travel. The project proposes two pedestrian bridges that would provide direct connections across the two drainages in Fanita Commons to shorten the walking distance.
The bridge that would traverse the northerly drainage would provide convenient access between the Active Adult neighborhood and the Community Park. The bridge that would traverse the southerly drainage would connect Orchard Village to the school, Community Park, and Fanita Commons. Additionally, every street on the project site would include a sidewalk or multi-purpose trail to accommodate pedestrian travel. Trails along the northerly and southerly drainages would also offer pedestrian connections between the school, the Farm, and the Active Adult neighborhood with minimal interruptions from vehicular traffic. The proposed project would include a pedestrian and bicycle mobility system consisting of sidewalks, trails, and bikeways throughout the proposed project, providing linkages between neighborhoods to other key land uses.
The proposed project supports the Regional Plan by proposing a land use pattern and TDM strategies that would accommodate the region’s future employment and housing needs and protect sensitive habitats, cultural resources, and resource areas. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the strategies and objectives of the Regional Plan.
Multiple Species Conservation Program: The proposed land use plan would be consistent with the Fanita Ranch Subunit of the City’s Draft MSCP Subarea Plan. The proposed project would adhere to or exceed conditions of coverage and mitigation/conveyance requirements for covered projects as defined in the City’s Draft MSCP Subarea Plan (City of Santee 2018). The Santee General RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
52 Plan, including its Conservation Element and the Natural Communities Conservation Plan Enrollment Agreement executed by the City, requires that any development in the City comply with the City’s Draft MSCP Subarea Plan.
Santee General Plan: The Santee General Plan provides the framework for the City’s long range planning vision. The project site is designated for Planned Development (PD).
The proposed project provides for mixed-use development of employment, commercial, recreational, and various residential densities, including senior housing, consistent with the framework for development set forth by the Santee General Plan PD designation.
The proposed project would develop consistent with Guiding Principles. The proposed project would include business and office uses in the Village Center and include a community focus including public parks, commercial, school, a fire station, and other uses (Guiding Principles 1 and 2). The proposed project would provide a range of residential densities, including Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, and Active Adult (Id. and Guiding Principle 3). The proposed project would be developed sensitive to natural open space and major landforms: 1,650.4 acres of the site would be preserved as Habitat Preserve (Guiding Principle 4). The Habitat Preserve would include hillsides with steep slopes to minimize landslide and mudslide hazards and to protect key visual resources (Guiding Principles 4-6).
The proposed project would provide approximately 78 acres of public parklands for active and passive recreation (including sports fields and parks) and private parklands and 4.5 acres of trail lands consisting of perimeter trails and the Stowe Trail connections planned on the project site, totaling 82.5 acres (Guiding Principles 2, 4, 7, and 8). Mini-Parks, Neighborhood Parks, a Village Green, Linear Parks, and Community Parks would be included (Guiding Principle 8). The proposed project would not locate the Sports Park to be accessed by Carlton Hills Boulevard (Guiding Principle 8).
However, the principle does not mandate the Sports Park must be provided or that access must be by Carlton Hills Boulevard. It merely states that the PD “should, subject to population demand” contain the variety of parks and that dedication of a “Sports Park, (accessed by Carlton Hills Boulevard), to the City of Santee would fulfill the requirements of one community park” (Guiding Principle 8). This is accordingly not considered a conflict between the proposed project and Guiding Principle 8. Moreover, no significant environmental RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
53 impact is caused by not constructing a sports park accessed by Carlton Hills Boulevard.
The proposed Fanita Ranch Development Plan contains a
comprehensive pedestrian and bicycle trail system that provides connectivity within and between the villages and with the adjacent regional trails and local trails that connect to surrounding open space areas, residential neighborhoods, parks, and the Santee Town Center to the south (Guiding Principles 4 and 13). Multi-purpose trails would be within the street rights-of-way along Fanita Parkway and Cuyamaca Street, which would support pedestrian and bicycle travel. The multi-purpose trail along Cuyamaca Street would extend south off site to connect to the Santee Town Center and the San Diego River as part of the north–south regional corridor. Trail access in the Habitat Preserve would be subject to the requirements and provisions of the Public Access Plan and the City’s Draft MSCP Subarea Plan.
The project includes an extension of Fanita Parkway along the western boundary of the property, an extension of Cuyamaca Street into the site, the Magnolia Avenue extension, and additional circulation improvements (Guiding Principles 10-12). The Fanita Ranch Development Plan includes a comprehensive implementation chapter (Chapter 10) identifying public improvements, phasing, financing, and other plans according to projected need (Guiding Principle 14). The site will not be subdivided until the Fanita Ranch Development Plan is adopted by the City. Chapters 4 and 6 of the Fanita Ranch Development Plan also include illustrative plans showing prototype circulation systems and residential product types (Guiding Principle 16). The proposed project does not provide a development plan with the following lot sizes referenced in Guiding Principle 3:
• 6,000 sq. ft. lots – 20 percent of total lots
• 10,000 sq. ft. lots – 20 percent of total lots
• 20,000 sq. ft. lots – 60 percent of total lots or greater The proposed project would accordingly conflict with this principle.
The proposed project’s design condenses the previous development footprint to respect existing topography and preserve 1,650.4 acres of the site as habitat preserve. This approach is consistent with other Guiding Principles that encourage “creative product design” and “alternative residential design” as alternatives to conventional lotting across the site (Guiding Principles 4 and 6). There is no evidence that Guiding Principle 3 was adopted to avoid or mitigate an environmental effect. Greater density can increase certain impacts RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
54 while decreasing others and providing much-needed housing. Here, the significantly reduced footprint of the proposed project avoids effects associated with a larger development footprint, such as increased impacts associated with grading, erosion, biological resources, cultural resources, geological resources, construction emissions (including air quality and greenhouse gases), and other effects. Further, as noted by the California Legislature, “building more smaller homes with good access to schools, parks, and services, will provide the most immediate help with the lowest greenhouse gas footprint to state residents” (SB 330, Section 2[a][14]). Consequently, the proposed project’s inconsistency with Guiding Principle 3 would likely not result in greater significant impacts overall in comparison to a project with larger lots spread over larger development footprint in compliance with Guiding Principle 3.
Rather, the compact footprint of the proposed project is likely to reduce, rather than increase, overall adverse environmental impacts (see Section 21083[b]).
The proposed project also would not include an 18-hole golf course or human-made lake with potable water, as outlined in Guiding Principle 9. Guiding Principle 9 was not adopted to avoid or mitigate any environmental effect but to provide amenities for the residents of the project and larger community. The inclusion of a golf course or lake would likely increase impacts on water supply, grading, erosion, biological resources, cultural resources, geological resources, construction emissions (including air quality and greenhouse gases), and other effects compared to the proposed project due to expanded grading and irrigation demands. The proposed project presents an environmentally superior alternative, featuring parks, trails, and recreational facilities, while preserving significant sensitive habitat in lieu of dedicating 200 acres to a golf course or human-made lake.
Consequently, any conflict with Guiding Principle 9 would not result in a significant environmental impact.
The project’s Development Plan includes a comprehensive implementation element (Chapter 10, Implementation) but does not incorporate a “Development Agreement” as specified in Guiding Principle 14(e). Development Plan Chapter 10 addresses issues normally included in a Development Agreement, including project phasing, financing, operation, maintenance, administration, implementation, modification, and monitoring. Additionally, the proposed project’s conditions of approval and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are legally binding upon the developer and ensure the environmental effects of the project would be mitigated to the extent feasible. Therefore, the absence of a Development RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
55 Agreement in the implementation plan would not create adverse environmental impacts for purposes of this threshold.
Moreover, a Development Agreement, as a contract between two or more willing parties, by its very nature is a subjective undertaking subject to negotiation. As such, Guiding Principle 14 is not an objective development standard as defined by the HHA (California Government Code, Section 65589.5[h][9]).
In summary, the Guiding Principles are intended as guidance for future development of a PD, and not as mandatory development requirements. The proposed project does not result in significant environmental impacts due to conflicts with Guiding Principles specifically adopted to avoid or mitigate environmental effects.
Additionally, as outlined below, the proposed project does not conflict with these Guiding Principles because it is entitled to the DBL benefits and also has been certified as an Essential Housing Project under the City’s Essential Housing Program, resulting in the waiver of conflicting Guiding Principles.
State Density Bonus Law
With the inclusion of 445 age-restricted senior units (55 years of age or older) within the Active Adult community, the entire proposed project is entitled to density bonus, waiver, and reduced parking benefits under the DBL (California Government Code, Section 65915[b][1][C], [e][1], [f][3][A], [p][1]; Civil Code Section 51.3[b][1], [4]).
The proposed project would develop an “Active Adult” neighborhood, which would provide approximately 445 “age-restricted residential uses in a variety of building types with densities ranging from 5 to 25 residential units per acre” (Section 3.3.1.4 of the Final Recirculated REIR). The project’s 445 senior units far surpass the 35 needed to qualify for mandatory DBL benefits, including waivers of development standards (California Government Code, Section 65915[b][1][C], [e][1]).
The proposed project is seeking only waivers under the DBL. It does not require, and is not seeking, any bonus density market rate dwelling units under the DBL as there is no density limit at the site established in the General Plan or Zoning Ordinance. The site has been shown to accommodate the 2,949 to 3,008 units proposed by the project while preserving 1,650.4 acres (63 percent) in a Habitat RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
56 Preserve, with waiver of development standards discussed below (California Government Code, Section 65915[o][6][A] and [B)]).
An agency must waive any development standard that will have the effect of physically precluding project construction at the densities and with the amenities proposed (California Government Code, Section 65915[e][1]). A “development standard” is defined as “a site or construction condition, including, but not limited to, a height limitation, a setback requirement, a floor area ratio, an onsite openspace requirement, a minimum lot area per unit requirement, or a parking ratio that applies to a residential development pursuant to any ordinance, general plan element, specific plan, charter, or other local condition, law, policy, resolution, or regulation that is adopted by the local government or that is enacted by the local government’s electorate exercising its local initiative or referendum power, whether that power is derived from the California Constitution, statute, or the charter or ordinances of the local government” (California Government Code, Section 65915[o][2]).
Agencies are “strictly limited in denying requested development standard waivers, … unless doing so would have a specific adverse impact on health or safety (as defined) which could not be mitigated” (California Government Code, Section 65915[e]).
Here, the proposed project is entitled to mandatory waivers of Guiding Principle 3 (lot size standards), and Guiding Principle 9 (approximately 200-acre golf course or lake amenity) because they would physically preclude construction of the project’s 2,949 to 3,008 units, including the 445 age-restricted senior units, as designed and with the other amenities proposed (California Government Code, Section 65915[e][1], [o][2]). Waived development standards— Guiding Principles 3 and 9—are not “applicable” and the project may not be deemed inconsistent with the General Plan for any conflict with these principles (California Government Code, Section 65589.5[j][3]). [“[T]he receipt of a density bonus, incentive, concession, waiver, or reduction of development standards pursuant to Section 65915 shall not constitute a valid basis on which to find a proposed housing development project is inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity, with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision specified in this subdivision.”].
Per the DBL, density bonus benefits cannot require a General Plan Amendment, Local Coastal Plan Amendment, Zoning Change, or other discretionary approval (California Government Code, Section 65915[e][1], [f][5], [j][1]). With these mandatory DBL waivers, the RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
57 proposed project is consistent with the Santee General Plan and other applicable ordinances and requires no legislative action.
Essential Housing Program
The proposed project is also consistent with the Santee General Plan, including the Guiding Principles for the project site, pursuant to Urgency Ordinance No. 592, as amended on February 12, 2025.
Urgency Ordinance No. 592, the City’s Essential Housing Program, provides an alternative process to boost housing production and improve housing affordability for housing projects that meet specified criteria through 2026 (City of Santee 2021; Appendix S). Under the program, projects that follow the procedures and meet the strict requirements of the program are entitled to waivers from City development regulations, including Guiding Principles, as needed to develop at the density and with the amenities proposed, without the requirement for a General Plan amendment or other legislative act (California Government Code, Section 65915[f][5], [j][1], [n]; Appendix T).
Urgency Ordinance No. 592 controls over any other City plan or ordinance in the event of a conflict, with its interpretation being afforded the fullest possible weight to the interest, approval, and provision of housing except where City plans or ordinances relate to the implementation of state or federal regulations and/or permits (Appendix R).
An application under the Essential Housing Program was submitted for the proposed project in December 2021. On December 27, 2021, the City’s Director of Development Services certified the proposed project as an Essential Housing Project based on the criteria adopted by the City Council (Appendix R). No changes have been made to the project which would impact or negate such certification. Note the Essential Housing Program is available to expedite (1) any new application for a Housing Development Project; (2) any Housing Development Project currently under City review; or (3) any approved, entitled, and/or permitted Housing Development Project not yet built by the date application for certification is made.
As demonstrated by the certification and project conditions, the proposed project would address the City’s housing crisis by providing a mix of residential and nonresidential uses and a mix of housing types and sizes. A total of 2,949 housing units would be developed if the proposed project includes a school, or 3,008 units without a school, including 435 moderate-income units and 445 age-restricted senior units. The proposed project would also develop 150 low-and RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
58 moderateincome units and contribute up to $2.6 million for affordable housing.
Stringent environmental and Santee General Plan consistency criteria established by the Essential Housing Program would be met.
The proposed project would implement mobility improvements, including bus stops, traffic calming, an up to $300,000 contribution to relieve congestion on SR-52, and rideshare/carshare parking.
Open space would be conserved. In addition to preserving 1,650.4 acres in the Habitat Preserve, the proposed project would provide at least $300,000 in funding for the management of City-owned natural open space and would plant at least 10 trees per acre of land to be developed. Water use would be reduced by connections to recycled or advanced treated water when PDMWD’s East County Advanced Water Purification project is completed.
With regard to energy, air quality, and greenhouse gas emissions, the proposed project’s residential units would be all-electric and would exceed Title 24 standards by all-electric residential development, implementing heat pump technology, increasing solar production, and expanding ventilation systems. Appliances would be Energy Star rated, electric vehicle chargers would be provided in the Village Center, and solar panels would be installed on accessory buildings and car ports. Wildfire safety would be ensured through implementation of fuel management zones and the Fire Protection Plan (FPP), among the many other measures set forth in the FPP and Wildland Fire Evacuation Plan (see Appendices P1 and P2).
Many miles of trails and sidewalks would be provided with the proposed project, and up to $300,000 would be provided to the City to fund additional improvements to trail facilities. Finally, the proposed project’s extensive park and recreational facilities would exceed the Santee Municipal Code standards by at least 5 percent and would provide for multi-purpose playing fields and public recreational facilities for Citywide use.
The certification of the proposed project based on the City’s Essential Housing Project Credits Assessment Guide and Checklist
demonstrates that the current development proposal for the project site addresses the City’s immediate housing needs and furthers Santee General Plan objectives and policies. Therefore, the proposed project is deemed consistent with the Santee General Plan under the Essential Housing Program and does not require an amendment to the Santee General Plan or other legislative act for approval. Any Guiding Principles which would preclude the implementation of the project as proposed are not “applicable” to the project. Any conflict is also not considered an inconsistency with the RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
59 General Plan or other regulations under state housing law (California Government Code, Section 65589.5[j][3], 65905.5[c][1]).
Table 4.10-1 of the Second Recirculated Sections of Final Revised EIR identifies the goals, objectives, and policies found in the various elements of the Santee General Plan that are relevant to the proposed project (including Land Use Objective 12.0 and Policies
12.1 through 12.4) and provides an evaluation of the proposed project’s consistency with them. Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, only the goals, objectives, and policies adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect are discussed.
For all these reasons, the proposed project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with the Santee General Plan or any policies or regulations therein that were adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
City of Santee Zoning Ordinance: The proposed project promotes the Planned Development (PD) designation because it provides a unique development that includes creative housing types and use configurations not currently addressed in the City’s existing Zoning Ordinance. The proposed project would include detailed
development standards and design guidelines intended to facilitate the creation of new and innovative housing types and configurations, walkability, and housing attainability by creating greater efficiency and addressing the diverse range of incomes, lifestyles, special needs, and household types in Santee and the greater San Diego County region. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the City’s Zoning Ordinance upon project approval.
K. MINERAL RESOURCES
1. Regional and Statewide Mineral Resources
Threshold: Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
Finding: Less than significant. (EIR, § 4.11.5.1.)
Explanation: Construction of the proposed project has the potential to impact the mineral resources of both known and unknown significance in MRZ2 and MRZ-3 on the project site. The proposed project would have the potential to impact MRZ-2 lands in the northeastern and central portions of the proposed project where the Vineyard and Orchard Villages would be developed. The development of Fanita Commons, RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
60 the Farm, and surrounding roadways would have the potential to impact MRZ-3 lands. The MRZ-2 lands in the southern portion of the project site and the majority of the MRZ-3 lands throughout the rest of the project site would remain undeveloped in the proposed Habitat Preserve. Although there is the potential of mineral recovery from the MRZ-2 and MRZ-3 areas on the project site, in accordance with the Santee General Plan Conservation Element, economic, land use compatibility, and environmental protection factors must be considered when deciding on the appropriateness of mining in a particular area. Furthermore, the Santee General Plan designates the project site for Planned Development, not mineral resources extraction.
The majority of the project site is underlain with two major rock types, granitic rock and Stadium Conglomerate, with alluvial deposits made up of sand, gravel, and silt overlaying these basement rocks. These rock formations are commonly mined elsewhere in the County and the State of California for use as aggregate and are considered valuable to the region and the state. The proposed project would reuse on-site rock materials, such as large boulders, rock cobble, decomposed granite, and processed rock. There are large quantities of rock cobble existing on site. Rock cobble would be collected and used in the construction of water quality and landscape features. It is also anticipated that a relocatable, temporary aggregate plant would be permitted and set up on site during construction. The temporary aggregate plant would crush rock and produce roadway subbase and other aggregate materials for use on site. In addition to rock materials, there are large deposits of decomposed granite on site, which would be reused for trails and other landscape related purposes.
The processing and use of the on-site aggregate would reduce the need for mining and trucking aggregate materials from off-site sources for the infrastructure needs of the proposed project. The onsite aggregate plant would be capable of producing the materials required for roads, drain rock and backfill materials for wet and dry utilities, cobbles to line drainage channels and road medians, and a variety of landscaping materials for on-site and off-site road improvements. Construction of the proposed project would require on-site processing of approximately 937,500 tons of raw aggregate obtained from the project site. This equates to approximately 300,000 cubic yards of manufactured aggregate to be used for the building materials for the proposed project. Areas of high-grade Stadium Conglomerate or granite would be selected as the cut operation is ongoing and would be moved to the aggregate plant as aggregate is needed. The on-site aggregate plant would be RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
61 permitted by the City as a part of the overall project entitlement process. Rock-crushing activities would comply with the City’s noise standards and regional air quality standards. The on-site aggregate plant would not be designed to produce materials for asphalt or ready-made concrete. These materials would be brought in from local off-site sources. The use of the on-site aggregate plant would terminate at project buildout.
In consideration of the Santee General Plan Conservation Element’s Objective 5.0 and Policy 5.1, the project site’s proximity to the Goodan Ranch/Sycamore Canyon County Preserve and the Santee Lakes Recreation Preserve would likely preclude the proposed project from eligibility for mineral extraction due to the potential habitat and water quality impacts to those preserve areas. Use of the on-site aggregate plant would allow for the mineral resources existing on the project site to be used as part of the proposed project and would not contribute to other environmental impacts from transporting aggregate from off-site locations. Transitioning the onsite aggregate production areas to the proposed project uses would comply with the Santee General Plan Conservation Element’s Objective 6.0 and Policy 6.1, which prioritize the reclamation of mined lands for the use of recreational, wildlife habitat, and residential uses. In addition, consistent with the Santee General Plan Conservation Element’s Objective 10.0, over 60 percent of the project site would remain in open space, and the mineral resources like aggregate and sediment in the open space would not be lost to the region. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact associated with the loss of mineral resources that would be of value to the region and the state.
2. Locally-Important Mineral Resource
Threshold: Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a locallyimportant mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Finding: Less than significant. (EIR, § 4.11.5.2.)
Explanation: The Santee General Plan Conservation Element designates the project site as MRZ-2 and MRZ-3 lands containing mineral resources of known and unknown importance. However, the proposed project would satisfy the Santee General Plan Conservation Element’s Objectives 5.0, 6.0, and 10.0 and Policies 5.1 and 6.1 regarding consideration of environmental disturbance from mineral resources extraction; reclamation of mined lands for recreational, habitat, and residential uses; and the preservation of mineral resources. In addition, the Santee General Plan designates the project site as RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
62 Planned Development, not mineral resource extraction, and does not consider the project site a potential significant local source of mineral resources. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact associated with the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site.
L. NOISE
1. Airport Noise
Threshold: For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Finding: Less than significant. (EIR, § 4.12.5.3.)
Explanation: MCAS Miramar is located adjacent to the west/northwestern boundary of the project site. The runways are located approximately 6 miles west of the project site. Additionally, Gillespie Field is located approximately 1.75 miles south of the project site. The project site is currently subject to periodic, audible overflights, particularly from MCAS Miramar. However, the proposed project site is not located within the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour of either airport (SDCRAA 2010, 2011). Additionally, the proposed project does not include any components that would increase air traffic or require changes to existing air traffic patterns. As such, overflights are anticipated to continue to be audible at the project site; however, the proposed project is not anticipated to increase exposure to excessive noise levels from airport operation. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
M. POPULATION AND HOUSING
1. Population Growth
Threshold: Would the Project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of road or other infrastructure)?
Finding: Less than significant. (EIR, § 4.13.5.1.)
Explanation: Direct Impacts
Preferred Land Use Plan with School: The proposed project would result in the construction of 2,949 residential units under the RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
63 preferred land use plan with school. Of the 2,949 residential units, 445 are proposed to be designated as Active Adult units. The proposed project residential population is based on a population generation factor of 2.9 persons per household and 1.6 persons per Active Adult unit. Based on this population factor, the proposed project is expected to result in a population increase of approximately 7,974 residents (2.9 x 2,703 residential units) + (1.6 x 445 Active Adult units). It is unknown whether the proposed project would generate residents from in the City or result in resident migration from other areas. Presumably, the additional residents generated by the proposed project would be a combination of current residents in the City and residents who migrate from other areas. The analysis conservatively assumes the proposed project would increase the City’s population by 7,974 residents.
SANDAG’s population projections for the City are based on the adopted Santee General Plan. The current designation of the project site as Planned Development (PD) in the Santee General Plan Land Use Element and the identification of the site to provide 1,395 units in the Santee General Plan Housing Element demonstrate that the site has been planned for residential growth by the City. Using the
2.9 persons per household multiplier, a development project of 1,395 units could result in a population increase of approximately 4,045 residents. The difference between the planned and proposed land uses, when translated to persons per household, is approximately 3,929 persons. However, the project site has been subject to land use planning for the past 40 years, indicating that this site was planned for development even before it was part of the City. In 1980, the project site was designated in the County General Plan for development of approximately 14,000 residential units. When the City adopted its first General Plan (1984), the project site was designated for a maximum of 8,100 residential units. The number of residential units proposed on the project site has continued to vary over the years, with many proposals greater than the 2,949 residential units currently proposed, indicating that the project site has been intended for population growth by the City and the County for many decades.
Further, the production of housing in California has not returned to the level required to meet the projected housing demand and would need to be approximately 100,000 additional residential units annually to meet this demand (HCD 2018). In the County, SANDAG projected that housing production at the regional level will not be able to keep pace with population growth in the coming years. Because new development in the County are constrained to the north by Camp Pendleton, to the west by the Pacific Ocean, and to the south by Mexico, the proposed project would be beneficial to County RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
64 residents because it would contribute to the overall County housing stock. Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to begin in 2021 with a buildout of approximately 10 to 15 years. Thus, based on a conservative estimate and averaged over 10 years, the 7,974- person population increase would equate to approximately 797 new residents per year, which would be consistent with the City’s historical population increases. In the context of the housing shortage currently experienced by the state and the San Diego region, the provision of new housing on the project site would be considered growth accommodating and would represent a regional benefit.
In addition, the RHNA has identified housing needs based on income level for the City. The Santee General Plan Housing Element lists the project site as the only source for above moderate income residential units. Other sites are identified to meet RHNA requirements for the other income levels. The proposed project would satisfy the RHNA requirements for above moderate residential units and provide additional residential units to meet the anticipated future deficiencies in the City.
Further, the widening of State Route 52 from Cuyamaca Street to State Route 67 has contributed to the loss of housing in the City. This project resulted in the loss of approximately 199 residential units as of 2006, which the proposed project would replace (Poucel 2006).
Therefore, the preferred land use plan with school would not result in direct impacts to unplanned population growth, and impacts would be less than significant.
The Planned Development (PD) land use designation in the Santee General Plan allows for a variety of mixed-use development types, including commercial uses. The non-residential components of the proposed project, including commercial uses (retail, service, and office) in the Village Centers, the Farm, and the proposed school, would result in the creation of approximately 450 jobs (411 full-time and 39 part-time positions), which would not induce substantial population growth given the size of the labor pool anticipated on the project site and in the existing City and nearby communities.
Approximately 250 jobs would be associated with the proposed onsite school. The proposed project is not anticipated to cause significant numbers of people to relocate to the area solely to be close to the project site for employment purposes. This proposed non-residential development is allowed by the PD land use designation and would not contribute to unplanned population growth.
Land Use Plan Without School: The underlying land use for the on- RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
65 site designated school location is Medium Density Residential. If the school site is not acquired for school use by the Santee School District within 2 years of filing the final map containing the school site, then the Medium Density Residential land use may be implemented on the school site for development of an additional 59 residential units, for a total project development potential of 3,008 residential units. Using the same population generation factors of 2.9 persons per household (U.S. Census Bureau 2020) and 1.6 persons per Active Adult unit, the land use plan without school would provide housing for approximately 8,145 residents, which would be an increase of 171 persons compared to the preferred land use plan with school.
As discussed previously, SANDAG’s population projections for the City are based on the adopted Santee General Plan land uses for the project site, which would allow 1,395 residential units that could result in a population increase of approximately 4,045 residents (assuming 2.9 persons per household). The difference between the planned and proposed land uses, when translated to persons per household, is approximately 4,100 persons. As stated previously, the project site has been slated for development for the past 40 years with designated residential development ranging from 1,395 to 14,000 residential units. In addition, the state and the County recognize a prominent housing deficit, and the provision of new housing on the project site would be considered growth
accommodating and would represent a regional benefit. The proposed project proposes to increase the units on the site up to 3,008 without a school, which would be consistent with the Santee General Plan Housing Element, as amended.
Additionally, the land use plan without school would be a phased development with a construction start date of 2021 and a buildout of approximately 10 to 15 years. Therefore, based on a conservative estimate and averaged over 10 years, the 8,145-person increase would equate to approximately 815 new residents per year. The land use plan without school would be consistent with the historical numeric population increases that have occurred in the City.
Therefore, under the land use plan without school, the proposed project would not induce unplanned population growth, and impacts would be less than significant.
The Planned Development (PD) land use designation on the project site would allow for a variety of mixed-use development, including commercial uses. The non-residential components of the land use plan without school would include commercial uses (retail, service, and office) in the Village Centers and the Farm. These uses are estimated to create approximately 200 jobs (161 full-time and 39 RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
66 part-time staff positions), which would not induce substantial population growth given the size of the labor pool anticipated on the project site and in the existing City and nearby communities. Nonresidential development is allowed by the Planned Development (PD) land use designation and would not contribute to unplanned population growth.
Indirect Impacts
Preferred Land Use Plan With School and Land Use Plan Without School: Population growth can be induced indirectly with the provision of streets or other infrastructure. Substantial new infrastructure would be built to serve the project site including the extension of and improvements to Fanita Parkway, Cuyamaca Street, and Magnolia Avenue. These street extensions are included in the Santee General Plan Mobility Element and would facilitate residential development contemplated in the Santee General Plan Land Use Element. The proposed project would also extend water and sewer utilities to the project site. The infrastructure improvements would allow for the development of the proposed project, the resulting growth of which is described previously.
However, the extension of infrastructure would not allow for additional development on the project site or beyond, since the undeveloped open space on the project site would be dedicated in perpetuity as Habitat Preserve and much of the undeveloped land surrounding the project site is owned by the federal government, County and Padre Dam Municipal Water District and is not planned for future growth. Instead, the proposed infrastructure would accommodate growth already planned for in the area. Therefore, the proposed project would not indirectly induce substantial population growth. The proposed project’s indirect impacts would be less than significant.
2. Displacement of Housing
Threshold: Would the Project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere; and displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Finding: No impact. (EIR, §4.13.5.2.)
Explanation: The project site is currently undeveloped, and there are no existing housing units on the project site. As such, the proposed project would have no impacts related to the displacement of substantial numbers of existing housing units or people. Therefore, this significance criterion listed previously would not apply to the proposed project, RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
67 and no additional analysis related to this criterion is required. There would be no impacts related to this issue area.
N. PUBLIC SERVICES
1. Fire Protection
Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection?
Finding: Less than significant. EIR, § 4.14.5.1.)
Explanation: Under the preferred land use plan with school, the proposed project would develop 2,949 new residential units, which would generate approximately 7,974 residents. Under the land use plan without school, the proposed project would develop 3,008 residential units, which would generate approximately 8,145 residents. Using the City’s current per capita call generation factor of 100 calls per 1,000 persons, the project site is projected to add approximately 950 calls per year to the SFD’s existing call load. Under the land use plan without school, the additional population would increase the annual calculated call volume to 889 calls per year.
Due to increased demand and larger service area, response times to emergencies may exceed established response time goals. The primary standard used in the City to determine adequate levels of service is response time. The Santee General Plan (City of Santee 2003) states the goal is to provide an average maximum initial response time of no more than 6 minutes for fire, rescue and emergency medical services with an average maximum response time of no more than 10 minutes for supporting paramedic transport units 90 percent of the time. Secondary to response time is the number of personnel necessary to perform critical tasks required to safely mitigate emergencies.
According to the Fire Service Letter prepared for the proposed project, fire stations and personnel within the City are currently operating at capacity. To accommodate the increased demand and larger service area, the proposed project designates a 1.5-acre site for a new fire station and requires firefighting apparatus and trained firefighters in Fanita Commons to serve the project site and ensure adequate response times. The new station specifications regarding RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
68 size, staffing, and layout would be determined through the Development Plan between the applicant and the City.
The SFD has indicated it can and would serve the project site with the addition of an adequately staffed and equipped fire station. The station design would comply with City building and design standards, including City Ordinance No. 457, Article 86, Amended – Fire Protection Plan Wildland-Urban Interface Areas, in accordance with the approved Development Plan. Either a permanent or a temporary fire station must be constructed prior to the occupancy of any residential units in the proposed project. The proposed project would provide a fully constructed and staffed permanent fire station. In addition, a temporary fire station site equipped with apparatus and personnel may be provided on site until a permanent fire station is complete. The temporary fire station must be in an area that would meet a response time maximum of no more than 6 minutes to all areas of the proposed project. The temporary fire station would be fully equipped and staffed 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. The final location for the temporary fire station would be specified in the approved Development Plan and must be approved by the Santee Fire Chief. The applicant may choose to provide a permanent fire station in lieu of a temporary station. The Santee Fire Chief confirmed the addition of the new fire station, equipment, and staff on the project site would adequately serve the project site while maintaining current response standards. Travel time from the new permanent station to the most remote (distant) lot on the project site is calculated at 3 minutes and 26 seconds. This would allow just under 2 minutes for dispatch and turnout and would meet the Santee General Plan response time goal of no more than 6 minutes.
Fire flow pressure would be required to be a minimum of 2,500 gallons per minute for 3 hours of fire flow for single-family and multifamily residential and 3,500 gallons per minute for 4 hours of fire flow for commercial areas with fire hydrants spaced on average every 300 feet. New construction in the City requires the installation of fire sprinklers, which would further reduce the potential for fire loss on the project site. To address fire and life safety issues on new development, the City’s Fire Marshal reviews proposed residential, commercial, and industrial projects through the City’s Development Review process to ensure that adequate fire hydrant locations, water flow pressures, access for emergency vehicles, and other requirements are met, which would also reduce the need for fire protection services (City of Santee 2003).
The on-site fire station would be constructed to serve the increased development and population associated with the proposed project and would be a project component located within the boundaries of RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
69 the project site. Because the proposed project would provide an onsite fire station to serve the anticipated increase in development and population, it would not require construction or expansion of additional new fire protection facilities off site. Therefore, impacts associated with the need for new or expanded fire facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for fire protection would not result in a new significant impact.
2. Police Protection
Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for police protection?
Finding: Less than significant. (EIR, § 4.14.5.2.)
Explanation: The proposed project would generate additional population under either the preferred land use plan with school or the land use plan without school. The increase in population would increase the demand for law enforcement services, with a consequent increase in the response times to emergency and non-emergency calls. The SDCSD provided a will-serve letter that includes service ratio and response time information for law enforcement services provided to the City by the County. The ratio of officers to population in the City is approximately 2.5 full-time deputies per 1,000 residential unit, which is higher than the SDCSD goal1 of providing 1 patrol position per 10,000 residents. Based on this ratio, the addition of the proposed project would equate to a need for approximately 7.4 new officers to serve the proposed project at full buildout under the preferred land use plan with school or 7.5 officers under the land use plan without school.
The proposed project would be constructed in four phases, and the addition of approximately 7,974 residents under the preferred land use plan with school, or 8,145 residents under the land use plan without school, would be spread out over approximately 10 to 15 years until full buildout, enabling the City to contract with the SDCSD for appropriate increases in the level of service, including personnel, equipment, shifts, and person-hours committed to the City as a 1 The SDCSD staffing goals and facility plans are based on population instead of residential units.
RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
70 whole.
The Village Center land use designation in Fanita Commons allows for the development of a law enforcement satellite office for future expansion of police protection services, if deemed necessary, to accommodate these additional officers. Overall staffing would be a contractual commitment in which both the City and SDCSD would enter into and agree on personnel required for the proposed project.
As stated in the SDCSD will-serve letter for the proposed project, the provision of additional officers would not require the need for new or expanded police facilities on the project site to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for police protection. The additional officers could be in the SDCSD’s existing facilities. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new significant impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities.
3. Schools
Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for schools?
Finding: Less than significant. (EIR, § 4.14.5.3.)
Explanation: According to the Santee School District (SSD), the development of 2,949 residential units under the preferred land use plan with school would generate approximately 635 K–8 students. Though SSD identifies that it has capacity to house some new students in existing schools within the district, in order to accommodate the total influx of new students, a new school facility would need to be constructed.
The proposed project reserves a school site for a potential K–8 public school or other educational uses on the project site boundaries. If acquired by the SSD, the site can accommodate up to 700 students, including existing City students and new students on the project site, plus required staff. Under this land use plan, the proposed project would provide an on-site K–8 school to serve the proposed project’s anticipated increase in population, and would not require construction or expansion of additional K–8 school facilities off site.
Additionally, according to the Grossmont Union High School District (GUHSD), the project site is within the West Hills High School attendance area, and if necessary, the GUHSD may consider a boundary adjustment to allow students living on the project site to RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
71 attend Santana High School. According to the GUHSD, both of these school facilities have adequate capacity to serve students from the project site and the GUHSD does not anticipate the need to modify or expand the schools to accommodate the additional students from the proposed project. Therefore, impacts associated with the need for new or expanded school facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for public schools would be less than significant.
Should the SSD not acquire the on-site school site, the proposed project would allow development of an additional 59 residential units on the school site. Based on the generation rates provided by the SSD, the land use plan without school is anticipated to generate 647 students, which is only 12 more students than the SSD’s calculation of 635 students under the preferred land use plan with school.
According to the SSD, the district does not have sufficient classroom space to accommodate the additional students generated by this land use plan. However, given the 10–15 year project buildout, a new or expanded school would not be needed for several years after onsite residential units begin to be occupied. The SSD uses a centralized, open enrollment system, whereby students are assigned to schools based on available space. Therefore, an interim solution for school placement of new students generated by the proposed project would be to assign them to any of the SSD’s current nine schools, depending on space availability. SSD makes every attempt to assign students to their school of residence, when requested.
However, given available space, it is not always possible to assign students to the facility closest to their residence. An additional option may include the construction of new classrooms on existing school campuses to accommodate the increase in students. If the long-term solution is an expanded or new school, the SSD would be required to comply with CEQA under separate review.
According to the GUHSD, both of the high schools that would serve the project site (West Hills High School and Santana High School) have adequate capacity to serve students from the proposed project, including the additional students generated by the development of 59 residential units in the area sited for the school. The GUHSD does not anticipate the need to modify or expand schools to accommodate additional students from the proposed project.
The applicant would be required to pay development impact fees for the proposed project’s residential and commercial development in the amount required at the time of building permit issuance. Both school districts have established school impact mitigation fees to address the facility impacts created by residential and commercial RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
72 development. The districts use these fees to pay for facility expansion and upgrades needed to serve new students. These fees would be collected during the plan check process. Payment of mandatory school impact fees in accordance with SB 50 would mitigate potential impacts to school facilities from the proposed project. Impacts would be less than significant.
4. Other Public Facilities - Libraries
Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for libraries?
Finding: Less than significant. (EIR, § 4.14.5.4.)
Explanation: The Santee branch library, which is run by the Serra Cooperative Library System in conjunction with the County of San Diego, is considered to be in a space deficit. The City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Five-Year Budget (Fiscal Years 2020 through 2024) includes a project to develop a new library facility (City of Santee n.d.). The CIP project would build a new, 20,000 square foot library facility to replace the undersized space currently rented by the County of San Diego. Though a specific location is not identified at this time, as part of the CIP approval process, the City would conduct environmental review compliant with CEQA and identify mitigation measures to reduce significant impacts, as applicable. The library CIP project is currently unfunded by the City and is anticipated to occur in Fiscal Year 2023–2024. It is anticipated that the New Library Building Fund created by the Friends of Santee Library would provide some funding for the new library.
The construction of the proposed project would incrementally increase the existing library space deficit. The proposed project includes a Village Center land use designation that would allow for a mix of uses including civic uses. While a library is not precluded, a designated library site has not been identified on the project site. If a library is built on the project site in the Village Center area, the library construction and operation would be no more impactful than the other proposed commercial or public uses proposed within this land use designation.
Though the proposed project would be required to pay development impact fees (Chapter 12.30 of the Santee Municipal Code), which fund the construction of public facilities that are reasonably related RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
73 to the impacts of the new development, the fees associated with Chapter 12.30 do not go toward funding the construction of libraries.
The location of a new library on site or an expanded library off site has not been identified; however, the provision of new facilities off site would be subject to separate environmental review. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities. Impacts would be less than significant.
O. RECREATION
1. Increased Use
Threshold: Would the Project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Finding: Less than significant. (EIR, § 4.15.5.1.)
Explanation: Parks. The proposed project would develop 2,949 residential units (under the preferred land use plan with school) or 3,008 residential units (under the land use plan without school). Implementation of the proposed project would result in an increase of approximately 7,974 persons (under the preferred land use plan with school) or 8,145 persons (under the land use plan without school) on the project site and in the City, which, as of 2019, has a current population of 58,408, bringing the estimated population in the City to 66,382 (under the preferred land use plan with school) or 66,553 (under the land use plan without school).
The City’s objective of providing 10 acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents would be satisfied through compliance with the Santee Municipal Code, Chapter 12.40, requirement to provide 5 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents of parkland dedication and the provision of “other recreation and open space areas” equal to 5 acres per 1,000 persons. The increase in population from implementation of the proposed project would require approximately 79 acres of additional parkland under the preferred land use plan with school or approximately 81 acres under the land use plan without school.
Including the proposed project’s population increase, the City would require approximately 663 acres of developed parkland Citywide under the preferred land use plan with school or approximately 665 acres under the land use plan without school to meet the Santee General Plan policy.
To meet the City’s minimum standard while adhering to the Santee Municipal Code, Chapter 12.40, the proposed project would provide RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
74 new recreational amenities, including 78 acres of public and private parkland for active and passive recreation and 4.5 acres (approximately 4.8 miles) of trail land consisting of the perimeter trail and Stowe Trail connection for a total of 82.5 acres. This parkland could be accessed by the public at large and project residents. Per the public park credit provisions set forth in the Santee Municipal Code, Chapter 12.40.110, Credit for Public Parks, developed parkland dedicated to and maintained by the City would receive up to 100 percent park credit. Developed parkland maintained by a homeowners association and trail systems would receive up to 50 percent credit per the private park credit provisions in Santee Municipal Code, Chapter 12.40.100, Credit for Private Parks.
Applying these credits, approximately 52.4 acres of the total 82.5 acres of public and private parkland and trail land would be available for parkland dedication credit, which would satisfy the Santee Municipal Code parkland dedication requirement of 5 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents based on 740.5 square feet per singlefamily unit and 675.2 square feet per multi-family unit. The proposed project would be required to provide 47.6 acres of dedicated parks and trails based on the Santee Municipal Code requirement stated above. With the provision of 52.4 acres of dedicated parks and trails, the proposed project would result in a surplus of 4.8 acres. Under the land use plan without school, the developed parkland and recreational facility dedication requirement would increase by 0.9 acre due to the addition of 59 Medium Density Residential units. This would result in a total parkland dedication requirement of 48.5 acres and would result in a surplus of 3.9 acres under the land use plan without school.
Of the 82.5 acres of parkland and trails, the largest proposed park would be the Community Park (31.2 acres) in Fanita Commons. This park would be the primary location for active and organized recreational activities on the project site. Eight Neighborhood Parks totaling 30.4 acres would be provided in key locations to define neighborhoods and provide community-gathering spaces. Thirty-one Mini-Parks totaling 16.4 acres would be designed to enhance open space areas such as vistas and riparian corridors, break up development patterns, and provide visual relief. The 1.6-acre Village Green would be a special Mini-Park that, together with the Village Center and the Farm, would establish a centralized landmark and event space for the entire community. The proposed perimeter trail and Stowe Trail connection would total approximately 4.5 acres (approximately 4.8 miles). Applying the applicable 50 percent or 100 percent park credit to these acreages, these parks and trails would provide 52.4 acres of credited parkland dedicated to the City for public use.
RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
75 Furthermore, to comply with the specific ratio outlined in Santee Municipal Code, Section 12.40.070 (740.5 square feet per singlefamily unit and 675.2 square feet per multi-family unit), approximately
47.6 acres of other recreation and open space areas would be needed to meet the Santee General Plan Recreation Element Objective 1.0. To meet that requirement, the proposed project would provide 49 additional acres of parks, trails, and other recreation and open space areas, resulting in a surplus of 1.4 acres. The 49 acres includes the 4.8 acres of surplus public and private parks and trails described previously, the 27.3-acre Farm, 10.9 acres of Open Space areas with an Agriculture Overlay, and 6 acres of multi-purpose trails.
In addition, playgrounds and other recreational facilities would be provided at the reserved school site under the preferred land use plan with school should the Santee School District acquire the site and construct a school. When taken together, the 52.4 acres of dedicated parks and trails, the 49 additional acres of other recreation and open space areas, and the miscellaneous playground and recreational facilities would support a broad range of active and passive recreational opportunities to serve the City’s population and proposed residents and would satisfy Objective 1.0 of the Santee General Plan Recreation Element.
The proposed project would be designed so that every residence would be within a short walking distance of a park or trail. Active sports-oriented parks, playgrounds, gardens, and seating areas with views that provide meditative space would be spread throughout the community to allow residents opportunities for outdoor recreation.
Play structures in the parks would be of non-combustible or other materials approved by the Santee Fire Department. Park designs would be consistent with the Fire Protection Plan prepared for the proposed project. In addition, an AgMeander would use the proposed trail, path, and sidewalk system and provide numerous interpretive stations and exhibits.
Under existing conditions, the City has approximately 823 acres of public parkland, or approximately 12 acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents, which exceeds Objective 1.0 in the Santee General Plan Recreation Element. Implementation of the proposed project would increase the parkland inventory for the City to approximately 13 acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents under either the preferred land use plan with school or the land use plan without school. The proposed project would add public parkland acreage to an already surplus City inventory, which would increase access to public recreational facilities for the entire community. In total, the proposed project would provide more than the minimum acreage required by the Santee General Plan Recreation Element for the RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
76 proposed project’s population increase.
Trails. Trails proposed throughout the project site would provide connectivity between the villages, existing City development, and regional trails. The proposed project would provide over 35 miles of trails (23 acres), including the perimeter trail and Stowe Trail connection (approximately 4.8 miles combined), that were used to calculate compliance with the Santee Municipal Code. While not all trails would meet access requirements (particularly the existing primitive trails in the Habitat Preserve), the proposed project would comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act accessibility requirements to the extent practicable. The proposed project’s local trails would connect with the nearby existing regional trails north to Goodan Ranch/Sycamore Canyon County Preserve and south to Mission Trails Regional Park. Trail locations throughout the project site would be coordinated to minimize conflicts with sensitive habitat areas by using existing trails and dirt roads and providing signage, well-defined trail markers, fencing, and community education to protect habitat areas.
The Santee General Plan Recreation Element and Objective 9.0, Policies 9.1 through 9.5, of the Trails Element discuss recreational trails in the City’s 2018 Draft Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan. As considered in the Recreation and Trails Elements, certain trails in the proposed Habitat Preserve would offer recreational benefits and may be included in the overall park and open space calculations for the proposed project.
The proposed project would provide sufficient acreage of parks, trails, and recreational facilities to satisfy the parkland dedication requirements and comply with the Santee General Plan Recreational Element Objectives 1.0 and 2.0 to provide adequate recreational facilities including trails.
The proposed project would provide a variety of new, on-site recreational amenities to occupants of the project site, thereby offsetting the need to go off site to use recreational facilities. While project residents may use existing Neighborhood and Regional Parks or other recreational facilities, they would also be expected to use the on-site recreational amenities due to convenience and variety. Therefore, substantial physical deterioration of the existing recreational facilities would not be expected to occur or be accelerated. Impacts would be less than significant.
P. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC
1. Design Hazards
RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
77 Threshold: Would the Project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Finding: Less than significant. (EIR, § 4.16.5.3.)
Explanation: Implementation of the proposed project would establish a network of streets of varying design capacities tailored to meet the needs of the three proposed villages. The Fanita Ranch Development Plan has developed its own street design criteria intended to address safety, aesthetics, and functionality, as well as site constraints. The streets would be designed to meet or exceed Santee Fire Department (SFD) requirements. The project would design a system of complete streets that supports multiple user types, including motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit riders. On-site streets would generally be two lanes and would include a variety of design elements, including roundabouts, split streets, landscaped medians, and parkways.
A Traffic Calming Plan would be implemented throughout the proposed project in an effort to reduce traffic-related hazards by lowering vehicle speeds on neighboring streets without restricting access. The overall goals of the Traffic Calming Plan would be to improve the quality of life for residents, reduce impacts of motor vehicles on local and collector streets, create safe and attractive streets, and create a friendly environment for pedestrians and bicyclists. Several traffic calming measures would be implemented throughout the project site to assist in meeting these goals.
To relieve potentially dangerous intersections, a series of roundabouts would be incorporated throughout the proposed project to eliminate the need for left-turn and U-turn movements, controlling vehicle speed, and providing a safer environment for pedestrians.
Additional features include specialized wildlife crossing on Streets “V” and “W,” which traverse the Habitat Preserve. To create a safe corridor for automobiles, accommodate nocturnal wildlife movement, and enhance the viability of planned wildlife crossings, these streets would be marked with highly reflective pavement markers instead of standard City roadside lights. A wildlife crossing tunnel would be provided under the extension of Cuyamaca Street near the entrance to Orchard Village. It has been demonstrated that, from an animal’s perspective, the pavement markers mimic a small rock in the landscape and would not negatively impact wildlife movement.
Retroreflective pavement markers (pursuant to the California Department of Transportation specifications) would be spaced 24 feet of center on these segments. Bollard-type lighting with touchactivated sensors would be located on the pedestrian walkway that runs along these streets to enhance pedestrian safety. In addition, RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
78 there would be agricultural uses on the project site primarily within the central Farm. Outside materials storage would be provided for farming equipment and machinery. A tunnel would be constructed under Street “W” to allow for the movement of agriculture equipment to and from the Farm and avoid any potential conflicts with automobile traffic.
The proposed project would improve and construct new segments of three Santee General Plan Mobility Element streets: Fanita Parkway, Cuyamaca Street, and Magnolia Avenue. Improvements would also occur at the terminus of Carlton Hills Boulevard and at existing deadend streets that terminate at the project site boundary. Fanita Parkway and Cuyamaca Street would be widened and include sidewalks, multi-purpose trails, emergency lanes and enhanced pedestrian crossings to encourage multimodal transportation and pedestrian safety.
The proposed project would include transportation design features to enhance public safety and would not result in changes to roadway design that would cause increased hazards. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
2. Emergency Access
Threshold: Would the Project result in inadequate emergency access? Finding: Less than significant. (EIR, § 4.16.5.4.)
Explanation: The project proposes the extension of Fanita Parkway, Cuyamaca Street, and Magnolia Avenue to allow access to and from the project site with planned improvements on the existing segments and intersections to accommodate additional project traffic.
A Fire Protection Plan and Wildland Fire Evacuation Plan were prepared for the proposed project to address emergency access and evacuation in the case of an emergency. The proposed project would provide emergency access that meets current City requirements throughout the proposed development areas. The proposed internal looped roadways would be built to the currently adopted California Fire Code and City Ordinance 545 (Sections 503.2.1, 503.2.3) requirements and would provide travel lane widths consistent with the Fanita Ranch Development Plan standards, adequate parking, 28-foot inside radius, grade maximums, signals at intersections, and extremely wide roadside fuel modification zones. Interior residential streets would be designed to accommodate a minimum of a 77,000- pound fire truck. All dead-end streets would meet SFD requirements.
Additionally, the streets would provide residents the option to RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
79 evacuate from at least two routes that lead to three main arteries.
The project site would have two points of primary access for emergency response and evacuation. Depending on the nature of the emergency, future residents would exit to the south on Fanita Parkway or Cuyamaca Street. It is anticipated that the majority of the community traffic would exit the project site via Cuyamaca Street, which would also connect to the extension of Magnolia Avenue.
These are the most direct routes to the project site. Both streets would include bike lanes that could be used as an additional emergency lane for first responders. These streets would provide access to major traffic corridors including directly or indirectly to SR52 to the south, SR-67 to the east, I-8 to the south, I-125 to the south, and I-15 to the west. Fanita Parkway would be used for emergency access by the western portion of the proposed project development.
The planned extension and improvements to Fanita Parkway and Cuyamaca Street, and Magnolia Avenue south of the Project site would be sized to provide adequate access for fire equipment and personnel. The proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Q. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
1. Water Supplies
Threshold: Would the Project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Finding: Less than significant. (EIR, § 4.17.5.2.)
Explanation: Proposed project water demand was calculated based on land use type, number of residential units, the Santee Municipal Code, and the PDMWD-defined unit demand factors. The calculation also took into account the effects of climate change on water supply, including the rising sea levels and changes in weather events. For water demand per residential land use area, the residential units are multiplied by a per capita water-use factor of 100 gallons per capita per day obtained from PDMWD’s 2015 Comprehensive Facilities Master Plan and multiplied by the estimated number of persons per residential unit as defined in the Santee Municipal Code. Commercial and irrigation water demands are calculated per WAS design criteria based on land area type. The total projected water demand for the entire project site is 1.44 mgd, or 1,618 acre-feet per year (AFY).
PDMWD’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) accounts for 840 AFY of demand associated with the proposed project. Thus, RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
80 the WSA prepared for the project evaluated the additional demand of 778 AFY associated with the proposed project that was not previously accounted for.
Supply shortfalls are projected in the single and multiple dry year scenarios. PDMWD can address the shortfalls identified here and in its 2015 UWMP through the implementation of conservation measures identified in Section 8 of its 2015 UWMP, Water Shortage Contingency Planning (Appendix O3). The San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) 2015 UWMP has identified no shortages in a single dry year until 2035 and no shortages in multiple dry years until 2028, provided carryover storage supplies are utilized in both instances. Carryover storage currently totals 170,000 AFY. SDCWA maintains that single and multiple dry year shortages can be mitigated through extraordinary water conservation actions and dry year transfers, which the SDCWA successfully acquired and used during the 2007–2011 shortage period (SDCWA 2015 UWMP
Section 9.3.) Further, the shortfalls identified in the SDCWA’s 2015 UWMP would be mitigated by the interim demand forecast reduction of approximately 60,000 AFY for the 2020 to 2040 planning horizon identified in the 2018 SDCWA Annual Report based on water-use efficiency increase projections throughout the region and with the increased output at the Carlsbad Desalination Plant in comparison with the SDCWA’s 2015 UWMP. Similarly, PDMWD can address the shortfalls identified in its 2015 UWMP through the implementation of conservation measures identified in Section 8 of its 2015 UWMP, Water Shortage Contingency Planning.
The proposed project’s projected demand is 1,618 AFY. PDMWD’s projected total water demand for 2040 is 16,816 AFY (14,800 AFY potable and 2,016 AFY recycled) or 15 mgd. According to PDMWD’s 2015 Comprehensive Facilities Master Plan and Program
Environmental Impact Report, which were approved by the PDMWD Board in May 2017, only 0.75 mgd or 840 AFY of proposed project demand is accounted for in the 2040 projections for PDMWD because it was based on the previously proposed project from 2007.
Therefore, the 2015 UWMP only accounts for 56 percent of the proposed project’s calculated demand. The proposed project’s accounted for demand of 840 AFY is 5 percent of PDMWD’s total potable demand for the year 2040. The proposed project’s total demand of 1,618 AFY would be about 9.6 percent of PDMWD’s 2040 adjusted potable water demand of 15,578 AFY (14,800 AFY + 778 AFY [unaccounted for demand by the proposed project]).
Since PDMWD’s 2015 UWMP only accounts for 840 AFY of the proposed project’s total projected demand of 1,618 AFY over the 20- year planning horizon, the WSA evaluates and concludes that the RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
81 additional required 778 AFY can be accommodated by additional imported water from the SDCWA. The SDCWA has confirmed in a response letter that it can meet the additional 778 AFY demand associated with the proposed project through the use of its accelerated forecast growth (AFG) component of its 2015 UWMP.
The AFG is incorporated into the SDCWA’s demand forecast at a regional level and is available to all member agencies to meet additional demand increments not previously identified. The demand associated with the AFG component is included in the SDCWA’s regional total demand forecast and is intended to account for a portion of SANDAG’s estimated residential land use development that is currently projected to occur beyond the SDCWA’s 2040 planning horizon but that has the potential to move forward on an accelerated schedule. This AFG demand was incorporated by the SDCWA at a regional level for planning purposes and is not portioned out by member agencies. This allows for an additional 4,807 AFY beginning in 2025, a portion of which (778 AFY) has been allocated by SDCWA to PDMWD for the proposed project.
In addition, the proposed project would implement water-efficient irrigation, landscaping, appliances, and fixtures to further reduce water demand. Landscape plans would be required to ensure compliance with applicable requirements, and the applicant would be required to plan and install water-efficient devices and landscaping in accordance with applicable PDMWD development guidelines and standards, ordinances, and requirements.
PDMWD is also planning and developing a regional drought-proof water supply known as the East County Advanced Water Purification (ECAWP) Project, which would decrease PDMWD’s reliance on imported water supplies and improve water supply reliability. The ECAWP Project, which is currently in the project procurement and permitting phase, is anticipated to treat the combined 2025 wastewater flow of approximately 15 million gallons per day (MGD) and produce up to 12,880 acre-feet per year (AFY), or 11.5 MGD, of new, reliable, and locally controlled potable water supply which represents approximately 30% of East County San Diego’s water demand. If the ECAWP Project is implemented, based on this projected time frame, the proposed project would utilize purified water from the ECAWP Project within the 20-year water supply planning horizon and beyond. The ECAWP Project is not necessary for PDMWD to meet the demand associated with the proposed project, however. But it could provide an additional supply source for further water supply security to the proposed project and other PDMWD customers if it is implemented. Further, PDMWD plans to reduce its dependence on imported supplies from the SDCWA by continuing permanent water conservation efforts.
RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
82 The effects of climate change drastically alter the overall planning required for the conservation and distribution of Metropolitan’s water supply. Accounting for the effects of climate change is a challenging task because the events that can occur are unpredictable. However, previous hydraulic studies produced by Metropolitan have provided a strong basis for the prediction of future events. According to Metropolitan’s UWMP, the predicted impacts of global climate change that could affect Metropolitan’s water supply include, but are not limited to: (1) reduction in the average annual snowpack; (2) changes in the timing, intensity, and location of weather events; (3) rising sea levels; (4) decrease in local sources such as groundwater; (5) increase in urban and agricultural water demand; (6) degrading water source; (7) declines in ecosystem viability; and (8) changes to pumping and power operations.
To prevent further greenhouse gases emissions, Metropolitan has implemented steps to reduce the carbon footprint of its facilities, including the addition of hydroelectric power plants that create energy from the water flowing through pipelines, and implementation of solar power technologies to its facilities. Metropolitan not only audits its own energy usage but also voluntarily reports its greenhouse gas emissions to California’s Climate Registry.
Metropolitan has taken steps to offset the effects of climate change on water supply. To reduce the water impacts due to climate change, Metropolitan has developed and implemented drought response action items. According to “Current Conditions” section of the Metropolitan 2015 UWMP, Metropolitan’s drought response actions include providing incentives for on-site recycled water hook ups; augmenting water supplies with water transfers and exchange; improving storage programs; upgrading its distribution system to enhance CRA water delivery; and implementing the Water Supply Allocation Plan to distribute the limited imported supplies and preserve storage reserves.
The conservation method allows for a reduction in energy that normally would have been used by exporting water instead of storing it. With the use of gravitational distribution for recycled water, less electricity is required to generate energy needed to distribute pressurized water. Efforts to implement water conservation include recycling and reusing sea water and wastewater as a reliable source of potable water. Applying such measures reduces the amount of water imported from the SWP and the Colorado River.
Likewise, SDCWA has developed strategies to manage the supply uncertainties associated with a changing climate. This includes the foundational strategy to diversify the region’s resource mix through RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
83 development of local projects, such as recycled water and seawater desalination and reduce reliance on imported and local surface supplies whose yields could potentially decrease as a result of climate change (see Tables 10-3 and 10-4 of the SDCWA 2015 UWMP). SDCWA uses tracking metrics to monitor the progress on implementation of its water resource mix, which are then used in updates to its UWMP every 5 years.
Therefore, based on PDMWD’s projected supplies, combined with additional confirmed supplies from the SDCWA AFG, water supplies are sufficiently available to meet the proposed project’s demand in normal, single dry, and multiple dry years, provided that the water shortage contingency planning measures identified in PDMWD’s 2015 UWMP and the SDCWA’s 2015 UWMP are implemented in dry years. In addition, efforts underway by Metropolitan, SDCWA, and PDMWD to diversify and augment their supplies provide further assurance of the sufficiency of the water supply for the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on water supply availability.
2. Wastewater Capacity
Threshold: Would the Project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Finding: Less than significant. (EIR, § 4.17.5.3.)
Explanation: The proposed project would construct new public sewer infrastructure that would be owned, operated, and maintained by PDMWD. Sewage generated on the project site would be treated at the existing Ray Stoyer WRF or at the new WRF to be constructed as part of the ECAWP Project. In instances where the WRF is offline for maintenance, capital improvement, etc., sewage generated on the project site would be diverted to the City of San Diego’s Metropolitan Sewerage System. PDMWD’s existing Ray Stoyer WRF does not have adequate capacity alone to serve the sewer demand generated by the proposed project. A combination of the WRF and the available capacity in the San Diego Metropolitan Sewerage System (Metro) would provide sufficient capacity to serve the proposed project.
The Sewer Service Study prepared for the proposed project used flow generation rates developed in PDMWD’s 2015 Comprehensive Facilities Master Plan. The study analyzed average dry weather flow (ADWF), peak dry weather flow (PDWF), and peak wet weather flow RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
84 (PWWF) scenarios. The average daily flow was analyzed for the proposed project under both the preferred land use plan with school and the land use plan without school. Based on the analysis performed, the school site would produce an ADWF of 15,000 GPD while the alternative residential use would generate an ADWF of just under 11,000 GPD. Therefore, the preferred land use plan with school is used because it would generate a higher ADWF and thus represents a worst-case scenario based on PDMWD’s 2015
Comprehensive Facilities Master Plan consumption criteria. The proposed project would generate approximately 591,158 GPD of wastewater. This equates to approximately 662 AFY.
According to the 2015 UWMP, PDMWD’s wastewater collection system consists of sewer mains, lift stations, and flow diversion structures. Almost all of the collected wastewater flows to the PDMWD’s influent pump station. Up to 2,240 AFY of wastewater is pumped to the PDMWD WRF and 2,175 AFY is pumped to the Metro system where it receives advanced primary treatment at the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant. In total, PDMWD can collect approximately 4,426 AFY, or 3,951,277 GPD. However, the PDMWD’s Ray Stoyer WRF was analyzed for adequate treatment capacity for the proposed project, which can treat up to 2,240 AFY.
According to PDMWD’s 2015 UWMP, the Ray Stoyer WRF treated approximately 2,175 AFY in 2015.
The proposed project would generate approximately 662 AFY, or 591,158 GPD ADWF. In addition, PDMWD’s 2015 Comprehensive Facilities Master Plan has already included 1,380 residential units on the project site consistent with the Santee General Plan as part of the ADWF future projections. Therefore, a portion of the proposed project’s sewer demand totaling approximately 392 AFY has already been planned for by PDMWD. Further, there are plans to expand the existing PDMWD influent pump station and Ray Stoyer WRF through the ECAWP Program. This program would increase the capacity of the wastewater system to approximately 6,725 AFY by 2040, consistent with buildout of the proposed project. However, the remaining sewer demand of approximately 270 AFY from the proposed project would be capable of being treated by PDMWD facilities with or without this expansion. Thus, PDMWD has sufficient existing or planned capacity to receive and treat wastewater from the project site. The proposed project would have a less than significant impact on wastewater treatment capacity.
3. Solid Waste
RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
85 Threshold: Would the Project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Finding: Less than significant. EIR, § 4.17.5.4.)
Explanation: Construction activities including clearing, grubbing, grading, and building would occur and produce green waste, scraps, and other debris typical of construction. Operation of the proposed project would require services to pick up solid waste generated by the proposed land uses on the project site.
Residential and commercial trash hauling and industrial solid waste, green waste, and recycling collection and disposal services for the proposed project would be provided by Waste Management, Inc., under a contractual franchise agreement with the City. Waste Management, Inc., would provide trash, recycling, and yard waste pickup services on a weekly basis for residential customers and up to seven times per week for business customers. Waste
Management Inc., identified in the solid waste service letter that they are capable of adequately serving the proposed project and would not need to provide additional services or expand existing facilities to do so.
Solid waste from the proposed project that is not recycled or diverted would be hauled to Sycamore Landfill, a 349-acre site at 8514 Mast Boulevard approximately 1.7 miles southwest of the project site.
Sycamore Landfill is fully permitted as a Class III landfill and accepts only routine household and commercial waste; thus, hazardous wastes are not collected. According to the Solid Waste Information System database maintained by CalRecycle, the landfill’s maximum permitted capacity is approximately 147,908,000 cubic yards with a current remaining capacity of approximately 113,972,637 cubic yards as of 2016. Based on the remaining capacity and disposal rates, the Sycamore Landfill is expected to close December 31, 2042 (CalRecycle 2019).
Based on CalRecycle’s 2017 waste disposal rate of approximately
6.2 pounds per day per resident and recycling rate of 42 percent, the residential portion of the proposed project would dispose of approximately 28,675 pounds per day of waste (7,974 residents x
6.2 pounds per day – 42 percent) under the preferred land use plan with school and 28,289 pounds per day (8,145 residents x 6.2 pounds per day – 42 percent) under the land use plan without school.
Based on CalRecycle’s employee disposal rate of 11.9 pounds per employee per day and an employee recycling rate of 62 percent, the commercial portion of the proposed project would generate RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
86 approximately 2,035 pounds per day (450 employees x 11.9 pounds per day – 62 percent) under the preferred land use plan with school and approximately 904 pounds per day (200 employees x 11.9 pounds per day – 62 percent) under the land use plan without school.
The total waste generated for the proposed project would be approximately 30,710 pounds of municipal solid waste per day under the preferred land use plan with school and approximately 29,193 pounds of municipal solid waste per day under the land use plan without school. Converting Sycamore Landfill’s remaining capacity to pounds, it has approximately 192 billion pound capacity as of 2016.
Thus, the landfill has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project. In addition, waste diversion rates are expected to continuously increase as more waste is diverted from the landfills as mandated by AB 1826 and SB 939. Therefore, the proposed project would not generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals and impacts would be less than significant.
4. Solid Waste Laws
Threshold: Will the Project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Finding: Less than significant. (EIR, § 4.17.5.5.)
Explanation: Development of the proposed project would result in an increase in domestic municipal solid waste generation. Solid waste generated by the proposed project would be hauled away by Waste
Management, Inc., to Sycamore Landfill in the City of San Diego. As California laws get more stringent, the amount of waste sent and managed at Sycamore Landfill would be expected to decrease.
Waste Management, Inc., is required to implement measures to divert 65 percent of waste generated during construction/demolition activities. Santee Municipal Code, Section 9.04.080, also requires that any covered project submit a completed C&D debris
management plan that identifies waste materials expected to be generated by the proposed project at the time of demolition or building permit application.
Standard solid waste practices identified in AB 939 and AB 1826 would be implemented throughout operation of the proposed project.
Example measures include waste characterization, source reduction, recycling, composting, education and public information, special waste, household hazardous waste, and programs for organic waste. Waste and recycling for project construction and operation would comply with CALGreen and current regulations, RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
87 such as SB 1374, designed to divert waste from landfills. Effective January 1, 2017, all jurisdictions are required to divert 65 percent of construction waste. The proposed project would also comply with the City’s Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance (Santee Municipal Code, Chapter 9.04) requiring the diversion of 65 percent of construction waste as required under AB 939.
Non-residential development and attached residential development in the proposed project would comply with the trash enclosure requirements. Detached residential development and attached residential development where private garages are attached to individual units would participate in the residential curbside pickup program managed by Waste Management, Inc. Solid waste
containers for these units, which would be stored in private side or rear yards or in garages, would be picked up from the street curbside or alley edge on collection days. In addition, the proposed project would be required to institute recycling services to divert at least 90 percent of the waste generated and 70 percent of non-hazardous construction waste, and provide recycling and composting services (Mitigation Measure GHG-2), which includes providing recycling containers within multi-family residential communities and nonresidential buildings and providing composting containers and compost collection services within commercial and office facilities.
Proposed development on the project site would involve the reuse of on-site rock materials, such as large boulders, rock cobble, decomposed granite, and processed rock. There are large quantities of rock cobble existing on site. Rock cobble would be collected and used in the construction of water quality and landscape features. It is also anticipated that a temporary aggregate processing operation would be set up on site during construction. The aggregate processing plant would produce roadway sub-base and other aggregate materials for use on site. In addition to rock materials, there are large deposits of decomposed granite on site, which would be reused for trails and other landscape-related purposes. Use of onsite materials would eliminate the need for importing and exporting rough or finished materials, reducing the number of solid waste disposal truck trips and associated construction-related vehicle emissions in support of the Sustainable Santee Plan (2020).
The design of residences on the project site would be constructed of durable materials and simple design to minimize materials waste.
The Architectural Design Guidelines for the proposed project include recommendations for efficient residence designs that can potentially reduce the amount of lumber and other building materials needed.
Strategies include simple massing forms and efficient framing techniques, use of rapidly renewable resources, and installation of RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
88 durable material that require less frequent replacement. Therefore, the proposed project would comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Impacts would be less than significant.
R. WILDFIRE
1. Emergency Response Plan or Evacuation Plan
Threshold: Would the Project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Finding: Less than significant. (Recirculated Sections of Final Revised EIR, § 4.18.5.1.)
Explanation: The proposed project’s Wildland Fire Evacuation Plan (Appendix P2 of the Recirculated Sections of Final Revised EIR) was prepared based on the 2018 Unified San Diego County Emergency Services Organization and County of San Diego Operational Area (OA) Emergency Operations Plan (County EOP), its Evacuation Annex Q (Evacuation Annex Q), and the 2020 City of Santee Emergency Operations Plan (City EOP), which references the County EOP for purposes of evacuation planning. These plans provide a framework for implementing well-coordinated emergency response and evacuations between many agencies, organizations, and
jurisdictions. In the event of a wildfire or other emergency, the agencies follow these pre-plans and utilize experience, situational awareness, and available resources to move people from areas of higher, to areas of lower, potential risk.
The proposed project would provide supplemental project-specific information to these plans and inform area residents of what they can anticipate during an evacuation event. In the event of an actual wildfire emergency, law enforcement and fire agencies charged with managing evacuations likely would not refer to a project-specific evacuation plan but would rely on the protocols established by these pre-plans (EOPs and Evacuation Annex Q) as a “playbook” to use for guiding anticipated evacuation timeframes under the most probable scenarios. In an actual wildfire emergency, unified command would take into account numerous factors including wind speeds and direction, humidity, topography, fuel loading, emergency access routes, evacuation routes, shelter-in-place options, time needed to evacuate, fire-hardening of structures (or lack thereof), and other variables, and issue specific evacuation or shelter-in-place directives consistent with the process and protocols outlined in the City and County’s EOPs.
RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
89 However, the proposed project’s Wildland Fire Evacuation Plan acts as a site-specific supplement to the EOPs, describing the “playbook” for evacuation of the project site based on and consistent with the County and City EOPs.
During the project’s construction phase, appropriate actions would be implemented to maintain evacuation routes so that they are available if needed. Temporary road closures or detours during construction would be coordinated with SFD and others, as necessary, and an alternate route provided so that evacuations and emergency responses would not be significantly impacted.
The project site is located within the SFD’s jurisdiction with the closest existing station (Fire Station 5) located at 9130 Carlton Hills Drive in the City of Santee. Fire department response from Fire Station 5 to the furthest lot in the northeast corner of Orchard Village was calculated at 9 minutes and 49 seconds, according to the Insurance Service Office travel time formula. The City of Santee’s Quality of Life Standard encourages all new development to be located within the response time of 6 minutes or less 90 percent of the time from the closest fire station responsible for serving the parcel. Accordingly, the Fanita Ranch project proposes to include a new fire station, which is analyzed in the EIR (Fire Station 20). The new fire station would be fully staffed and equipped to operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The new fire station would be able to respond to all of the proposed project’s buildable lots within a 4- minute travel time, compliant with the City’s goal of 6 minutes or less.
Additionally, an off-site fire force (3 engines, 14 firefighters, and battalion chief) would be able to be on site within 8 minutes to assist the initial response. Providing a new fire station would assist in, not impair, emergency response.
The project would meet or exceed the Code requirements for access roads, including the 2019 California Fire Code, Appendix D and Santee’s local amendments to the California Fire Code. The proposed project would provide internal roads for emergency access and evacuation access throughout the site. Internal streets would provide residents the option to evacuate from at least two points in two different directions from each neighborhood. The roadways are designed to meet or exceed Fire Code requirements, including unobstructed travel lane widths consistent with the Fanita Ranch Development Plan standards, unobstructed travel lanes, adequate parking, 28-foot inside radius, grade maximums, and signals at intersections. Two external points of ingress/egress are provided to/from the project – Fanita Parkway and Cuyamaca Street – which RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
90 can be used for a combination of evacuation and emergency access.
These two routes would lead to three main arteries traveling south off site (Fanita Parkway, Cuyamaca Street, and Magnolia Avenue) and numerous east/west connections off site during an emergency evacuation event. The project would not cut off or impair existing evacuation routes. It would also provide roadway improvements to improve existing evacuation conditions.
The internal roadways from the residences to existing and planned off-site travel routes would be fuel-modified passageways. Project access roads that traverse areas of natural vegetation (consistent with current fuels) would provide a minimum of 50 feet of modified fuel areas along both sides of the road. These 50-foot buffers would reduce ignitions from vehicle-related causes (catalytic converter, brake-related, tossed cigarette, etc.) and provide a set back from wildland fuels.
The project’s Wildland Fire Evacuation Plan (Appendix P1 of the Recirculated Sections of Final Revised EIR) is consistent with the County EOP and City EOP, which serve as the roadmap for emergency response, including wildfire emergencies in Santee. In response to the trial court’s ruling, the Fanita Ranch Wildland Fire Evacuation Plan provides important population, education and preparedness information and a sophisticated evacuation modeling approach. The modeling and analysis portion of the Wildland Fire Evacuation Plan focus on ensuring the project and surrounding community can be evacuated within a reasonable time frame and that contingency plans are available to emergency managers.
Wildfire evacuations from the site would be focused on early relocation from the project site long before a fire would threaten the project or its access routes.
Evacuations would follow the “Ready, Set, Go!” model, which is the model adopted by most emergency agencies in California. Fanita Ranch would provide emergency decision makers with the
contingency option of temporarily refuging people on site, in their homes, at the designated Village core areas, or other protected spaces that would be available in the project’s developed areas.
These areas may be determined to be safer than evacuating in some fire scenarios.
A condensed version of the Wildland Fire Evacuation Plan would be provided to homeowner’s, renters, business owners and employees, and other persons regularly at the project site. In addition, the Wildland Fire Evacuation Plan would be posted on the community’s website with regular reminders so that all residents are aware of the RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
91 evacuation routes, of the fluidity of wildfire events, and of the options (including evacuation routes, temporarily sheltering on site) that may be presented to them by responding law enforcement and/or fire personnel, Reverse 911, or other officials. An annual evacuation awareness program would be conducted as well as on-line access to fire awareness educational material on the communities’ website.
In addition to these emergency response and evacuation-specific actions, the project would incorporate redundant measures to improve fire prevention and defensibility at the project site and adjacent properties, which would improve the Fire Department’s ability to respond to and extinguish fires promptly in order to keep them from spreading. While these measures do not directly address emergency response and evacuation, they show the numerous features that would reduce the need for emergency response and evacuation in the first place.
Based on the reasons described above, the proposed project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
.
2. Pollutant Concentrations
Threshold: Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, would the Project exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of wildfire?
Finding: Less than significant. (Recirculated Sections of Final Revised EIR, § 4.18.5.2.)
Explanation: The wildland fire risk in the vicinity of the proposed project site has been analyzed according to a standard used throughout the County (San Diego County Guidelines for Determining Significance – Wildland Fire and Fire Protection [2010]). It has been determined that wildfires may occur in wildland areas on and surrounding the project site as they have historically. Additionally, increased vehicle traffic and human presence on the project site could increase the potential for wildfire ignitions during operation.
Construction. The proposed project is located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) and heat or sparks from
construction equipment, vehicles, and the use of flammable hazardous materials have the potential to ignite adjacent vegetation and start a fire, especially during weather events that include low humidity and high wind speeds. The proposed project would RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
92 implement the FPP (Appendix P1 of the Recirculated Sections of Final Revised EIR), prepared in compliance with the requirements of the Santee Municipal Code and Ordinances, the 2019 California Fire and Building Codes, and the County’s 2010 FPP Guidelines for Determining Significance. The potential risk of wildfire ignition and spread associated with construction of the proposed project can be managed so that the potential for vegetation ignition is substantially reduced. In addition, pre-planning and construction personnel training for fire awareness, reporting, and suppression not only results in lower probability of ignition but also in higher probability of fire control and extinguishment in its early stages. Data indicate that 95 percent of all wildfire ignitions are controlled during initial attack (Smalley 2008). Further, the project’s Construction Fire Prevention Plan (CFPP) provides guidance for such management and preplanning for Fanita Ranch to increase the probability that any construction-cause fires are prevented or extinguished promptly.
Additionally, the proposed project would use construction measures as identified in the FPP to avoid construction-related wildfire impacts.
These measures include having adequate water available to service construction activities, implementing the CFPP and the FPP provisions, providing proper wildfire awareness, reporting, and suppression training to construction personnel, and requiring that all construction-phase components of the fuel modification are complete prior to delivery of combustible materials/lumber to the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not exacerbate wildfire risks or expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or uncontrolled spread of wildfire during construction, and impacts would be less than significant.
Operation. The proposed project would implement the FPP that has been prepared in compliance with the requirements of the Santee Municipal Code and Ordinances, the 2019 California Fire and Building Codes, and the County’s 2010 FPP Guidelines for Determining Significance. Slopes at the project site and in the region are variable, but do include steep topography that can facilitate fire spread. Conversely, prevailing winds, which are from the west and southwest and typically include higher humidity and lower wind speeds, would not tend to facilitate aggressive fire spread. However, the occurrence of the Santa Ana winds, which are dry and much higher velocity, could facilitate fire spread. The project’s FPP contemplated these conditions and designed fire protection features that are site specific and focused on protecting the project’s buildings and residents while simultaneously minimizing the likelihood for onsite fire to burn off site into open space.
The proposed project would include a variety of fire protection RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
93 features that form a redundant system of protection to minimize the likelihood of wildfire exposing people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. The proposed project would provide a fire hardened landscape, ignition-resistant residences and other buildings, and conversion of fuels to maintained developed areas with designated review of all landscaping and fuel modification areas and highly ignition-resistant structures. The project site would implement the Wildland Fire Evacuation Plan compliant with City and County requirements, and if evacuation is not considered the preferred approach, such as during a short-notice evacuation, the proposed project offers a contingency option of temporarily sheltering on site.
Ignition-Resistant Structures. The Santee City Council adopted a wildland-urban interface (WUI) development standard in November 2004 and then amended the Fire Code with adoption in June 2006.
Measures were also adopted into the 2007 California Building Code and have been retained and enhanced in code updates since then, including the 2019 California Building and Fire Codes. The following project features are required for new development in WUI areas and form the basis of the system of protection necessary to minimize structural ignitions and facilitate access by emergency responders as identified in the FPP (Appendix P1 of the Recirculated Sections of Final Revised EIR): Application of the latest adopted ignitionresistant building codes; Non-combustible or ignition-resistant exterior wall coverings; Multi-pane glazing with a minimum of one tempered pane; Ember resistant vents; Interior, automatic fire sprinklers for all structures; Modern infrastructure, access roads, and water delivery system; Maintained fuel modification areas; and Fire apparatus access roads throughout the proposed project.
Effective Fuel Modification Zones. The proposed fuel modification zones (FMZs) are designed to minimize wildfire encroaching upon the community and minimize the likelihood that an on-site ignition would spread into the Habitat Preserve areas. The proposed FMZs would provide separation from the unmaintained vegetation occurring outside the FMZs. The FMZs would include low-fuel, maintained vegetation, including 65 feet of irrigated zone, resulting in high vegetation moisture, which is ignition resistant. The FMZs would provide a buffer of reduced fuel densities, lack of fuel continuity, and a reduction in the receptiveness of the landscape to ignition and fire spread.
Ignition Sources. The types of potential ignition sources that currently exist in the project area include overhead power lines, vehicles, roadways (SR-67), and off-site residential neighborhoods. The proposed project would introduce potential ignition sources, RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
94 particularly more people in the area. While it is true that humans are the cause of most fires in California, equipment and powerlines are the predominant human fire causes in San Diego County, followed by roadway ignitions (Romero-Calcerrada et al. 2008). There is no data available that links increases in wildfires with the development of ignition-resistant communities such as the proposed project. The proposed project would include a robust fire protection system, as described previously and detailed further in the FPP (Appendix P1).
This same robust fire protection system would provide protections from onsite fire spreading to off-site vegetation. The landscape throughout the project and on its perimeter would be highly maintained and much of it irrigated (all zone 1 setback areas, common areas throughout the community and private yards), which would further reduce its ignition potential (Appendix P1). Structures would be highly ignition resistant on the exterior and the interiors would be protected with automatic sprinkler systems, which have a very high success rate for confining fires or extinguishing them.
Therefore, accidental fires within the proposed project’s landscape areas or on-site structures would have limited ability to spread.
The proposed project would be fire adapted with a strong resident outreach program that raises fire awareness among its residents, as defined further in the Wildland Fire Evacuation Plan (Appendix P2 of Recirculated Sections of Final Revised EIR). The project population would provide a heightened early wildfire detection network for the City and surrounding areas.
The proposed project would convert nearly 986 acres of ignitable fuels to lower flammability landscape and hardscape, include better access throughout the site, provide managed and maintained landscapes, and place more fire aware individuals on the ground that would reduce the likelihood of arson, off-road vehicles, shooting, or other non-authorized recreational-based activities that cause fires, some of which is currently occurring on the undeveloped project site.
In addition, the project would include a fire station equipped with trained firefighters that would be able to respond quickly to reported fires.
Fires originating off site would not have continuous fuels across the development footprint. Once fires reach the FMZs, they would be expected to progressively reduce in intensity until starved of fuels, which would occur well away from the site’s structures. Burning vegetation embers may land on project structures, but are not likely to result in ignition based on ember decay rates and the types of noncombustible and ignition-resistant construction materials that would comprise project buildings. Ember-resistant venting would be used on all structures within the proposed project, addressing one of the RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
95 biggest causes of wildfire structure losses. Ongoing inspections and maintenance that would occur in the proposed project’s landscape and fuel modification areas would assure that the FMZs continually meet the requirements of the SFD and the proposed project’s FPP (Appendix P1 of the Recirculated Sections of Final Revised EIR).
Fire Protection Features that Lower Wildfire Ignition Risk. The ignition-resistant landscapes and structures and the numerous specific requirements would minimize the ability for an on-site fire to spread to off-site fuels, as follows:
Ignition-resistant, planned, and maintained landscape. Site landscaping of common areas and FMZs would be subject to strict plant types that are lower-ignition plants, with those closest to structures requiring irrigation to maintain high plant moistures that equate to difficult ignition. These areas would be closest to structures, where ignitions would be expected to be highest, but would be prevented through these ongoing maintenance efforts.
Wide FMZ around perimeter of proposed project. The wide FMZ, between 115 and 165 feet wide, includes specifically selected plant species, very low fuel densities (only 30 percent retention of native plants in outer zones and irrigated inner zones), and ongoing HOAfunded and applied maintenance, resulting in a wide buffer between the developed areas and the off-site native fuels.
Twice-annual FMZ inspections. The HOA would have a contracted, third-party, SFD-approved FMZ inspector perform two inspections per year to ensure that FMZs are maintained in a condition that is consistent with the City’s and FPP’s requirements and would provide a benefit of a wide barrier separating wildland fuels from on-site ignitions.
Ignition-resistant structures. Structures would be built to the California Building Code, Chapter 7A, ignition-resistant requirements that have been developed and codified as a direct result of after-fire save and loss assessments. These measures would result in homes that are designed, built, and maintained to withstand fire and embers associated with wildfires. The wide FMZs would not result in wildfire directly next to these structures. Homes and buildings can be built in the VHFHSZs and WUI areas when they are part of an overall approach that considers wildfire and provides design features that address the related risks. A structure in a VHFHSZ that is built to these specifications can be at lower risk than an older structure in a non-FHSZ. The ignition resistance of on-site structures would result in a low incidence of structural fires, further minimizing the potential for project-related wildfires.
RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
96 Interior fire sprinklers. Sprinklers in residences would be designed to provide additional time for occupants to escape the residence.
Sprinklers in multi-family and commercial structures would be designed to provide structural protection. The common benefit of fire sprinklers is that they are successful at assisting responding firefighters by either extinguishing a structural fire or containing the fire to the room of origin and delaying flash over. This benefit also reduces the potential for an open space vegetation ignition by minimizing the possibility for structure fires to grow large and uncontrollable, resulting in embers that are blown into wildland areas.
Fire access roads. Streets provide access for firefighting apparatus.
Proposed project streets would provide code-consistent access throughout the community, including access from existing dead-end streets south of the proposed project. Better access to wildland areas may result in faster wildfire response and continuation of the fire agencies’ successful control of wildfires at small sizes.
On-site fire station. The on-site fire station would result in fast response and additional resources for the SFD. Fires, whether on site or in the open space, would receive fast response, which is important for successful containment and, in the case of fires occurring during extreme fire weather, for fast size up and additional resource requests.
Water. Providing firefighting water throughout the proposed project with hundreds of fire hydrants accessible by fire engines is a critical component of both structural and vegetation fires. The proposed project would provide firefighting water volume, availability, and sustained pressures to the satisfaction of the SFD. Water accessibility helps firefighters control structural fires and helps protect structures from and extinguish wildfires.
The proposed project would comply with and, in some cases, exceed the applicable fire and building codes (2019 California Fire and Building Codes and Santee Municipal Code and Ordinances) and would include a layered fire protection system inclusive of sitespecific measures that would result in a community that is less susceptible to wildfire than surrounding landscapes and that would facilitate firefighter and medical aid response. Tables within the FPP (Appendix P1 of the Recirculated Sections of Final Revised EIR) summarize the Code-required safety measures as well as proposed measures that exceed Code requirements. These project features, combined with the proposed ignition-resistant construction materials, would be consistent with the adopted the SFD Fire and Building Codes and would not exacerbate or expose project occupants to RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
97 unacceptable wildfire risk.
Occupant Exposure. The proposed project has identified a population of approximately 7,974 residents under the preferred land use plan with school and 8,145 residents under the land use plan without school. Given the proposed project site’s location in a VHFHSZ, several fire protection systems have been included in the proposed project design, or are otherwise required by relevant codes and standards. Fire protection systems for the proposed project that serve to minimize occupant exposure to wildfire impacts are described below and detailed further in Section 6 of the FPP (Appendix P1 of Recirculated Sections of Final Revised EIR).
A public water system would be installed with a redundant or looped water supply for fire protection and system reliability in the event of a large-water-demand fire. The public water system would provide a minimum fire flow of 2,500 gallons per minute for 3 hours of fire flow for single-family and multi-family residential and 3,500 gallons per minute for 4 hours of fire flow for commercial areas with 300-foot spacing between hydrants, a dedicated fire water pipeline system, and appropriate hose connections.
Construction of proposed project structures would comply with the latest ignition-resistant building codes found in Chapter 7A of the California Building Code, as adopted by City, and any additional restrictions or requirements adopted locally by the SFD.
Sprinklers designed by a licensed fire protection engineer or fire sprinkler contractor would be installed in all structures for each occupancy type. A private booster pump and secondary power source would be installed for approximately 21 single-family residences in Vineyard Village where the area experiences residual pressures of less than 40 pounds per square inch during peakhour demand conditions.
Defensible space areas (FMZs) would be installed and maintained along the southern edge of the project site and interior open space areas of 115 feet wide. The proposed project’s FMZs on the northern and eastern edges of the project site would be extended to 165 feet in width because these areas are adjacent to native landscapes in the Habitat Preserve that produce higher flame lengths. Both FMZs would reduce the potential for extreme fire behavior adjacent to developed areas and provide a working area for firefighters to conduct suppression activities.
Unobstructed travel lanes to the SFD’s satisfaction would be installed for on-site access roads and vehicle turnarounds, meeting RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
98 appropriate loading standards per the Fanita Ranch Development Plan. Roadways adjacent to natural areas would provide 50 feet of fuel modification area on each side of the street. The proposed project would further provide at least two routes that lead to at least three main arteries for evacuation. If evacuation is not considered the preferred approach, such as during a short-notice evacuation, the proposed project would offer a contingency option of temporarily sheltering on site.
As described throughout this section, the proposed project has been designed to adhere to the most recent ignition-resistant building codes applicable to developments in VHFHSZs, including
defensibility features, and would not result in the exposure of project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or uncontrolled spread of wildfire due to slope, prevailing winds, or other factors.
Therefore, impacts from operation of the proposed project would be less than significant
Risk from Adding New Residents. In addition, the FPP for the proposed project (Appendix P1 of Recirculated Sections of Final Revised EIR) analyzed the wildfire risk associated with adding new residents to a previously undeveloped area. Human-related activities are responsible for the majority of California wildfires (Appendix P1 of Recirculated Sections of Final Revised EIR). Certain human activities can result in sparks, flames, or heat that may ignite vegetative fuels without proper prevention measures in place. These ignitions predominantly occur as accidents but may also be purposeful, such as arson. Roadways are a particularly high source for wildfire ignitions due to high usage and vehicle-caused fires (catalytic converter failure, overheated brakes, dragging chains, tossed cigarette, and others). In Southern California and the County, the population living at, working in, or traveling through the WUI is vast and provides a significant opportunity for ignitions every day.
However, it is a relatively rare event when a wildfire occurs and an even rarer event when a wildfire escapes initial containment efforts.
Approximately 90 to 95 percent of wildfires are controlled below 10 acres.
Research indicates that the type of dense, master planned developments, like the proposed project, are not associated with increased vegetation ignitions. During preparation of the FPP (Appendix P1 of Recirculated Sections of Final Revised EIR), a summary of the wildfire ignitions included in the CAL FIRE FRAP database was reviewed, dating back over 100 years. It found that, in the County, equipment-caused fires were the most numerous, and these also accounted for most of the area burned, followed closely by the area burned by power line fires. Ignitions classified as RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
99 equipment-caused frequently resulted from exhaust or sparks from power saws or other equipment with gas or electrical motors, such as lawn mowers, trimmers, or tractors and associated with lower density housing. In the County, ignitions were more likely to occur close to streets and structures and at intermediate structure densities.
Housing density directly influences susceptibility to fire because, in higher density developments, there is one interface (the community perimeter) with the wildlands. Lower density development creates more structural exposure to wildlands, less or no ongoing landscape maintenance (an intermix rather than interface), and consequently, more difficulty for limited fire resources to protect well-spaced homes. The intermix includes housing amidst the unmaintained fuels, whereas the proposed project would convert fuels within the footprint and provide a wide, managed fuel modification zone separating homes from unmaintained fuel areas and creating a condition that makes defense easier.
The research reviewed during preparation of the FPP concludes that lower density housing poses a higher ignition risk than higher density communities. A vast WUI already exists in the area adjacent to the project site, dominated by older, more fire-vulnerable structures, constructed before stringent Fire Code requirements were imposed on residential development, with varying levels of maintained fuel modification buffers. As discussed in detail throughout the FPP, the proposed project is an ignition-resistant community designed to include professionally managed and maintained fire protection components, modern Fire Code-compliant safety features, and specific measures provided where ignitions are most likely to occur (such as roadways). Therefore, the development of the proposed project would not be expected to materially increase the risk of vegetation ignitions.
Moreover, frequent fires and lower density housing growth may lead to the expansion of highly flammable exotic grasses that can further increase the probability of ignitions. This is not the case with the proposed project because the landscapes would be managed and maintained to remove exotic fuels that may establish over time. As discussed previously, research indicates that it is less likely for higher density developments to be impacted by wildfires than lower density developments. The same protections that starve wildfires of fuels and minimize or prevent wildfires from transitioning into a higher density community such as the proposed project also serve to minimize or prevent on-site fires from transitioning into wildlands.
Further, the proposed project’s requirement that structures include interior fire sprinklers would significantly reduce the likelihood that a RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
100
building fire would spread to the point of flashover, where a structure burns beyond control and produces embers. Interior sprinklers are very efficient, keeping fires to the room of origin or extinguishing the fire before the responding firefighters arrive. Similarly, the irrigated FMZs are positioned throughout the development areas and the first zones on the perimeter of the proposed project. Irrigated zones include plants with high internal moisture and spacing between plants and plant groups that make it difficult to ignite and spread from plant to plant. Lastly, the proposed on-site fire station and additional humans on the site would result in fast detection of fires and firefighter response, a key in limiting the growth of fires beyond the incipient stage. Currently, trails exist in and around the proposed project’s development footprint and are frequented by a myriad of locals for hiking, mountain biking, horseback riding, and motorcycle and all-terrain vehicle use. If a wildfire were to ignite from human activity on these trails today, fire detection and response could be delayed due to the remoteness of the area, which is not directly visible from populated areas. Delayed detection would contribute to delayed response to the scene due to the lack of site access. Fire size up (determining the needed firefighting resources) and requests for additional resources, including aerial support, would also be delayed in comparison to post-construction of the proposed project.
With the proposed project, motorized activities on the trails would be prohibited and enforced. If a hiker or mountain biker were to start a fire, detection and response would be anticipated on a fast timeline due to the residents living in the proposed community who would have the ability to detect fires throughout the property. The quick detection and call to 911 would result in a fast response from the onsite fire station, which would be located, staffed, and equipped to reach anywhere on the project site in 6 minutes or less travel time. If a fire is detected and cannot be accessed by a responding fire engine, it would be sized up, and additional aerial and other support would be requested quickly.
Therefore, based on the factors discussed previously, the addition of new residents on the previously undeveloped project site would not exacerbate the spread of wildfire. Impacts would be less than significant.
3. Infrastructure Risks
Threshold: Would the Project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
101
Finding: Less than significant. (Recirculated Sections of Final Revised EIR, § 4.18.5.3.)
Explanation: Potable Water Supply. The proposed project would be provided water by Padre Dam Municipal Water District (PDMWD) and sufficient water supplies would be available to serve the proposed project. The potable water system for the proposed project would include transmission and distribution pipelines, two storage reservoirs, and two pump stations. The proposed water system would be designed to provide a minimum of 2,500 gallons per minute for 3 hours of fire flow for single-family and multi-family residential and 3,500 gallons per minute for 4 hours of fire flow for commercial areas with fire hydrants spaced on average every 300 feet, consistent with the SFD hydrant spacing requirements (City of Santee 1991). The proposed water system would be a public water system throughout the project site, designed and installed per PDMWD and SFD requirements. PDMWD provided a water
availability/will serve form to the proposed project (Appendix P1 of Recirculated Sections of Final Revised EIR).
The proposed project would implement construction measures outlined in the CFPP to avoid construction-related wildfire impacts from installation of potable water supply infrastructure. These measures would include but not be limited to having adequate water available to serve construction activities and providing proper wildfire awareness, reporting, and suppression training to construction personnel. Maintenance of potable water supply infrastructure would adhere to policies proposed in the FPP, including implementation of fuel treatment areas along project streets and fire-safe maintenance practices. In addition, water storage reservoirs and access roads would have minimum 3-foot-wide FMZs on either side. The potable water storage reservoirs would also serve as emergency water storage facilities. Fire hydrants would be spaced along Fanita Parkway, Cuyamaca Street, and Magnolia Avenue per the SFD design standards. Fire hydrant spacing on neighborhood street would be 300 feet apart. Therefore, installation and maintenance of the proposed potable water supply system would not exacerbate wildfire risk. Impacts would be less than significant.
Sanitary Sewer System Management. PDMWD would provide
sanitary sewer service for the proposed project. A new gravity sewer system, consisting of 8-inch, 10-inch, and 12-inch pipes, would be constructed on the site to collect and convey wastewater to a 15-inch trunk sewer. Ultimately, the wastewater would be conveyed by a gravity system west of Orchard Village on PDMWD property through a 15-inch diameter pipe to a headworks facility that would provide screening and grit removal for the proposed project’s sanitary flows RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
102
or would be conveyed by gravity to the existing 18-inch and 24-inch City of San Diego Metropolitan Wastewater Interceptor. The new gravity sewer system would be installed to existing code standards and PDMWD requirements. The proposed project would implement construction measures outlined in the CFPP to avoid constructionrelated wildfire impacts from installation of sanitary sewer system infrastructure. These measures would include having adequate water available to serve construction activities and providing proper wildfire awareness, reporting, and suppression training to construction personnel. Maintenance of sanitary sewer system infrastructure would adhere to policies proposed in the FPP, including implementation of fuel treatment areas along project streets and fire-safe maintenance practices. Therefore, with implementation of the measures described previously, the installation and maintenance of the proposed sanitary sewer system would not exacerbate wildfire risk. Impacts would be less than significant.
Stormwater Management. The proposed project would install a series of swales, catch basins and culverts that direct stormwater to hydromodification/water quality basins. Operation of these stormwater features are static, do not generate heat/sparks, and would not impede site access or otherwise hinder evacuation or emergency response efforts. The proposed project would implement construction measures outlined in the CFPP to avoid constructionrelated wildfire impacts from installation of stormwater management infrastructure. These measures would include but not be limited to having adequate water available to serve construction activities and providing proper wildfire awareness, reporting, and suppression training to construction personnel. Maintenance of stormwater management infrastructure would adhere to policies proposed in the FPP, including implementation of fuel treatment areas along project streets and fire-safe maintenance practices. Therefore, with implementation of the measures listed above, installation and maintenance of the proposed stormwater management features would not exacerbate wildfire risk. Impacts would be less than significant.
Electrical Power and Natural Gas Infrastructure. The proposed project powerlines and natural gas lines would be installed below ground. During construction activities associated with electrical power and natural gas line undergrounding, the proposed project would implement construction measures outlined in the CFPP to avoid construction-related wildfire impacts from installation of underground power and natural gas line infrastructure. These measures would include having adequate water available to serve construction activities and providing proper wildfire awareness, RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
103
reporting, and suppression training to construction personnel.
Maintenance of underground power and natural gas line
infrastructure would adhere to policies proposed in the FPP, including implementation of fuel treatment areas along project streets and fire-safe maintenance practices. Because the proposed project power and natural gas lines would be below ground, operation of the power lines would not exacerbate wildfire risk.
Therefore, with implementation of the mitigation measures listed previously, the installation and maintenance of the proposed electrical and natural gas infrastructure would not exacerbate wildfire risk. Impacts would be less than significant.
Fire Protection Infrastructure. The proposed project would designate a 1.5-acre site for a new fire station, apparatus, and trained firefighters in Fanita Commons to serve the project site and ensure adequate emergency response times. A temporary or permanent onsite fire station would be operational prior to the first residential occupancy, and a permanent station would be operational in accordance with City conditions. Additional fire protection infrastructure would include installation of a fire hydrant network, a dedicated fire water pipeline system to provide adequate fire flow to the project site, and Fire Department hose connections throughout the project site. Water reservoirs would also serve as emergency water storage. These features are static, do not generate heat or sparks, and would not impede site access or otherwise hinder evacuation or emergency response efforts. The availability of the onsite fire suppression network and water supply would reduce potential wildfire impacts.
The proposed project would implement construction measures outlined in the CFPP to avoid construction-related wildfire impacts from installation of fire protection infrastructure. These measures would include having adequate water available to service construction activities and providing proper wildfire awareness, reporting, and suppression training to construction personnel.
Maintenance of fire protection infrastructure would adhere to policies proposed in the FPP, including implementation of fuel treatment areas along project streets and fire-safe maintenance practices.
Therefore, installation and maintenance of the proposed fire protection infrastructure would not exacerbate wildfire risk. Impacts would be less than significant.
Fuel Modification Zones. Fuel modification for the proposed project would be implemented along the entire exterior perimeter, roadways, and interior landscaped areas adjacent to natural open space. FMZs are passive measures and would not impede site access or otherwise hinder evacuation or emergency response efforts.
RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
104
Presence of FMZs would reduce fuel volumes, moderate fire behavior near structures, and reduce potential wildfire impacts. Fuel modification in the proposed project would be governed by the FPP.
FMZs would be designated depending on location. Vegetation management would be completed twice per year. Property owners and private lot owners would be responsible for vegetation management on their lots. Open Space would be owned, maintained and managed by the HOA in compliance with the FPP.
Installation of FMZs would not result in additional temporary or permanent impacts beyond those identified in this EIR. Vegetation management requirements during construction would be
implemented at commencement and throughout each construction phase. Vegetation management would be performed pursuant to the FPP and the SFD requirements on building locations prior to the start of work and prior to any import of combustible construction materials.
Adequate fuel breaks, as approved by the SFD, would be created around grading, site work, and other construction activities in areas where there is flammable vegetation. Fuel breaks would range between 50 and 150 feet around grading activities, depending on available space.
Maintenance of FMZs may require heat- or spark-generating equipment; however, the proposed project would implement fire-safe maintenance practices and fuel treatment areas detailed in the CFPP and FPP to avoid wildfire impacts. These measures would include but not be limited to having adequate water available to service construction activities and providing proper wildfire awareness, reporting, and suppression training to construction personnel.
Additionally, the proposed project would exceed fire prevention regulations by providing a CFPP, code-exceeding FMZs, FMZ inspections, fire-resistant landscaping plan, and HOA wildfire education and outreach. Refer to tables within the FPP for a full list of project fire safety features (Appendix P1 of Recirculated Sections of Final Revised EIR). Therefore, installation and maintenance of the proposed FMZs would not exacerbate wildfire risk. Impacts would be less than significant.
On- and Off-Site Roadway Improvements. The proposed project would improve and construct new segments of three of the Santee General Plan Mobility Element streets: Fanita Parkway, Cuyamaca Street, and Magnolia Avenue.
Improvements would also occur at the terminus of Carlton Hills Boulevard and at existing dead-end streets that terminate at the project site boundary. Roadway improvements would also include construction of new internal systems of public and private streets.
RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
105
Residential collector streets of various types would connect the three villages. East of Cuyamaca Street, two residential collectors (Street “V” and Street “W”) would provide access to Vineyard Village.
Residential streets would include conventional two-way streets with parallel parking and 5-foot-wide sidewalks on both sides. In certain areas of the proposed development, split residential streets would occur. Split residential streets would be one-way streets separated by a median or park with parallel parking and 5-foot-wide sidewalks on both sides. Private streets would be composed of local two-way streets with parallel parking and a 5-foot-wide sidewalk on one side and a 5-foot-wide street tree easement on the other side. Private driveways are anticipated in Orchard Village.
All on- and off-site roadway improvements would adhere to the construction measures outlined in the CFPP and FPP to reduce risk of ignition from construction activities. These measures would include having adequate water available to service construction activities and providing proper wildfire awareness, reporting, and suppression training to construction personnel. Maintenance of onand off-site roadways would adhere to policies proposed in the FPP, including implementation of fuel treatment areas along project streets and fire-safe maintenance practices. Therefore, installation and maintenance of proposed on- and off-site roadway
improvements would not exacerbate wildfire risk. Impacts would be less than significant.
.
4. Runoff Risks
Threshold: Would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Finding: Less than significant. (Recirculated Sections of Final Revised EIR, § 4.18.5.4.)
Explanation: The proposed project’s hillsides are moderately steep in many areas and may be susceptible to erosion, landslides, and debris flow, particularly following wildfire. However, CAL FIRE mapping data indicates low to moderate erosion potential on the proposed project’s hillside areas. Areas of low erosion potential on the proposed project site are associated with lower elevations where proposed development is concentrated. Erosion potential increases on the slopes surrounding the proposed development area.
However, the irrigated and maintained landscaping in the proposed RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
106
project would be ignition resistant and not expected to be burned or removed entirely should a fire occur on the project site, unlike postfire conditions in native vegetation where complete removal is common. Considering these project site features and characteristics, post-fire conditions are not expected to increase risks associated with runoff and erosion. The proposed project would conform to design requirements associated with proper site preparation and grading practices and would implement surface drainage
improvements and erosion-control measures and construction best management practices (BMPs). During construction, BMPs would be implemented throughout work areas in quantities and design as necessitated by grade and conditions. Areas of non-native vegetation and unvegetated areas within the construction footprint would receive erosion-control BMPs. Construction BMPs (e.g., fiber rolls, gravel bags) would be used on and around the grading operations as specified in the stormwater pollution prevention plan to stabilize graded slopes. In addition, the proposed project does not propose development in areas adjacent to existing structures or people. The proposed development would not occur below slopes that are not stabilized or manufactured; therefore, the risk of a landslide would be low.
The proposed project’s slopes would manage runoff through various required measures and BMPs designed specifically to shed water from slopes in a controlled manner. The proposed project would install interceptor drainage ditches on hillsides throughout the developed areas to deliver upland surface runoff around buildings, retaining walls, roadways, and other built structures. To manage potential debris flows and landslide impacts, water quality and detention basins are also proposed at locations adjacent to proposed development sites. The water quality and detention basins would be constructed adjacent to proposed roadways, parking lots, or maintenance paths to facilitate inspection and maintenance.
Implementation of these project features would minimize potential flooding, runoff, or slope instability impacts that may occur post-fire.
Therefore, potential impacts associated with post-fire flooding, runoff, or slope instability would be less than significant.
5. Emergency Response and Evacuation Plans
Threshold: Would implementation of the proposed project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Finding: Less than significant. (Recirculated Sections of Final Revised EIR, § 4.18.5.5.)
RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
107
Explanation: The proposed project would have a significant impact if it were to interfere with the City’s adopted EOP (2020). The City’s EOP addresses the planned response to extraordinary emergency situations associated with natural and human-caused disasters. The plan describes the overall responsibilities of government entities, as well as the Santee Emergency Management Organization for protecting life and property in the City. In addition, the Unified San Diego County Emergency Services Organization and County Operational Area EOP – Evacuation Annex was formed in the 1960s to assist the cities and the County in developing emergency plans by providing strategies, procedures, recommendations, and
organizational structures that can be used to implement a coordinated evacuation effort in the County Operational Area (County of San Diego 2018).
The project’s Wildland Fire Evacuation Plan (Appendix P2 of Recirculated Sections of Final Revised EIR) is based on the City’s EOP. According to the SFD, the project would not interfere with current evacuation and emergency plans. Additionally, the project has developed new project-specific evacuation and emergency responses plans, including the FPP and Wildland Fire Evacuation Plan.
The project’s interior street network and the existing regional street system that it connects with would provide multi-directional primary and secondary emergency evacuation routes consistent with, or exceeding, most communities in this area (Appendix P2, Wildland Fire Evacuation Plan, of the Recirculated Sections of Final Revised EIR). Further, the only proposed through routes on the project site would loop between Fanita Parkway and Cuyamaca Street on site and would not affect emergency response and evacuation plans elsewhere in Santee. Consistent with County Operational Area EOP – Evacuation Annex (County of San Diego 2018), major ground transportation corridors in the area would be used as primary evacuation routes during an evacuation effort. The street systems were evaluated to determine the best routes for fire response equipment and “probable” evacuation routes for relocating people to designated safety areas.
The primary roadways that would be used for evacuation from the project site are Fanita Parkway and Cuyamaca Street, the latter of which would connect to the proposed extension of Magnolia Avenue.
Note that the Magnolia Avenue extension would be constructed by the certificate of occupancy for the 1,500th equivalent dwelling unit.
The available evacuation routes prior to the Magnolia Avenue extension (Fanita Parkway and Cuyamaca Street) would meet the 2019 California Fire Code, Appendix D, and the Santee Municipal RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
108
Code and Ordinances for multiple access points; and, therefore, are considered adequate for emergency purposes for the interim period until the certificate of occupancy of the 1,500th equivalent dwelling unit. These streets provide access to major traffic corridors, including directly or indirectly to State Route (SR-) 52 to the south, SR-67 to the east, Interstate (I-) 8 to the south, I-125 to the south, and I-15 to the west (Appendix P2 of Recirculated Sections of Final Revised EIR).
During an emergency evacuation from the project site, the primary and secondary roadways may serve as egress for those leaving the project site and as ingress for responding emergency vehicles.
Because the roadways are designed to meet or exceed the County’s Consolidated Fire Code requirements, including unobstructed travel lane widths consistent with the Fanita Ranch Development Plan standards, unobstructed travel lanes, adequate parking, 28-foot inside radius, grade maximums, signals at intersections, and extremely wide roadside FMZs, potential conflicts that could reduce the roadway efficiency are minimized, allowing for smooth evacuations. Additionally, the streets would provide residents the option to evacuate from at least two points in two different directions from each neighborhood.
The project site’s primary evacuation routes would be accessed through a series of internal neighborhood roadways, which connect with the primary ingress/egress streets that intersect off-site primary and major evacuation routes. Based on the existing street network, the community would evacuate to the north (once off site), south, east, and west depending on the nature of the emergency.
There are at least two ingress/egress routes for the proposed project (see Figure 3-7, Vehicular Circulation Plan, in Chapter 3 of Recirculated Sections of Final Revised EIR):
• Southwest corner of the community: Fanita Parkway
provides access to Mast Boulevard and Carlton Oaks Road, both of which would offer travel options west and east in the City or onto the SR-52 or SR-67 on-ramps.
• South central portion of the community: Cuyamaca Street, the proposed project’s primary access, provides access to Mast Boulevard, Mission Gorge Road, and the SR-52 onramp. o East/southeastern portion of the community:
Magnolia Avenue provides access to Mast Boulevard,
Mission Gorge Road, SR-52 on-ramp, and SR-67 on-
RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
109
ramp. Both Mast Boulevard and Mission Gorge Road
connect to SR-52 to the west.
Depending on the nature of the emergency requiring evacuation, the majority of the community traffic would exit the proposed project via Cuyamaca Street or Magnolia Avenue via Cuyamaca Street. These are the most direct routes for the project site. Fanita Parkway may be used by the western portion of the project site, depending on the time available for evacuation and the need for additional movement via the southerly route. In a typical evacuation that allows several hours or more time (as experienced for most areas during the 2003, 2007, 2014, 2016, and 2017 wildfires), all traffic may be directed to the south and out Cuyamaca Street and/or Magnolia Avenue. If less time is available, fire and law enforcement officials may direct some neighborhoods to temporarily shelter in their residences. For further information, please refer to the project’s Wildland Fire Evacuation Plan (Appendix P2 of Recirculated Sections of Final Revised EIR).
An evacuation of any area requires significant coordination among numerous public, private, and community/nonprofit organizations.
Among the most important factors for successful evacuations in urban settings is control of intersections downstream of the evacuation area. If intersections are controlled by law enforcement, barricades, signal control, or other means, potential backups and slowed evacuations can be minimized. Another important aspect of successful evacuation is a managed and phased evacuation declaration. Evacuating in phases, based on vulnerability, location, or other factors, enables subsequent traffic surges on major roadways to be smoothed over a longer time frame and result in traffic levels that flow better than when mass evacuations include large evacuation areas at the same time (Appendix P2 of Recirculated Sections of Final Revised EIR).
The following emergency response operations could occur under an evacuation order:
Evacuation Points and Shelters. When the SDCSD implements an evacuation order, they coordinate with the responding fire agency, the Emergency Operation Center, and others to decide on a location to use as a temporary evacuation point. The SDCSD Office Dispatch Center would use the AlertSanDiego system to direct evacuees to the established temporary evacuation point or shelter. These evacuation points would serve as temporary safe zones for evacuees and would provide basic needs such as food, water, and restrooms. If residents are unable to evacuate and need transportation assistance to get to a temporary evacuation point or shelter, the SDCSD may establish transportation points to collect RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
110
and transport people without transportation resources to evacuation points. These points would be large, well known sites such as shopping centers, libraries, and schools. Transportation would be accessible to all populations, including people with disabilities and other access and functional needs.
Shelter-in-Place. Sheltering-in-place is the practice of going or remaining indoors during or following an emergency event. This procedure is recommended if there is little time for the public to react to an incident and it is safer for the public to stay indoors for a short time rather than travel outdoors. Sheltering-in-place also has many advantages because it can be implemented immediately, allowing people to remain in their familiar surroundings and providing individuals with everyday necessities such as telephones, radios, televisions, food, and clothing. However, the amount of time people can stay sheltered-in-place is dependent upon availability of food, water, medical care, utilities, and access to accurate and reliable information.
The decision on whether to evacuate or shelter-in-place is carefully considered with the timing and nature of the incident. Sheltering-inplace is the preferred method of protection for people who are not directly impacted or in the direct path of a hazard. This would reduce congestion and transportation demand on the major transportation routes for those who have been directed to evacuate by law enforcement or fire personnel. The proposed project would incorporate ignition-resistant construction and wide FMZs and provide defensibility throughout the site. Therefore, responding fire and law enforcement personnel would be able to direct project residents to temporarily refuge in their homes in the rare situation where that alternative is determined to be safer than evacuating.
As discussed, the proposed project would not impair the implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant.
6. Wildland Fires
Threshold: Would implementation of the proposed project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fire?
Finding: Less than significant. (Recirculated Sections of Final Revised EIR, § 4.18.5.6.)
Explanation: The wildland fire risk and features prescribed in the FPP (Appendix RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
111
P1 of the Recirculated Sections of Final Revised EIR) have been analyzed and developed to reduce risk to acceptable levels at Fanita Ranch by applying comprehensive guidelines developed by a technical panel of 17 professional fire prevention officers and fire protection specialists and planners. These guidelines are referred to as the San Diego County Guidelines for Determining Significance – Wildland Fire and Fire Protection (County of San Diego 2010). These guidelines have become a standard for FPPs in numerous fire agency jurisdictions because they use a holistic approach to understanding a site’s fire hazards, understanding how a project complies with safety requirements, and understanding where additional fire protection is needed, allowing the FPP to require more robust or equivalent alternative protections to Code requirements.
Wildfires may occur in undeveloped landscapes that surround the proposed project, but the number of fires would not be significantly increased in frequency, duration, or size with construction of the project due to implementation of many fire protection and prevention features. Construction activities can lead to increased potential for vegetation ignitions; however, the project addresses this potential risk through its focused CFPP (Appendix P1 of Recirculated Sections of Final Revised EIR). The CFPP’s fire prevention and safety measures, along with its limitations on work activities during fire weather, address the potential for ignitions and would not expose people to increased fire risk during the construction period. The project would include conversion of fuels from existing flammable fuels to highly ignition-resistant structures and maintained urbanized landscapes with designated SFD review. It would also include substantial FMZs, a funded entity to manage and maintain the FMZ, and third-party FMZ inspections twice per year to confirm the FMZ areas are maintained as designed and, therefore, would function as intended. As such, the development footprint would be largely converted from ignitable fuels to ignition-resistant landscape and structures that are provided with defensible space consistent with and exceeding the strictest Code standards. A 100-foot FMZ at the site perimeter adjacent to the existing neighborhood to the south would also be provided, monitored, and maintained as part of the proposed project to further reduce fire risk to those older homes. In addition, the project would provide for fast firefighter response on and off site (4-minute travel time to anywhere on site), would include an on-site fire station, and access for firefighters, early evacuations, water and fire flow to code, and other fire protection features described throughout this FPP.
In addition, as shown in the Wildland Fire Evacuation Plan (Appendix P2 of Recirculated Sections of Final Revised EIR), the project would provide two major routes for ingress and egress during an RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
112
emergency (Fanita Parkway and Cuyamaca Street), would not cut off or modify existing evacuation routes, and provide numerous roadway improvements in the City that would improve evacuation over existing conditions (including the Magnolia Avenue extension).
Evacuation modeling shows that, under the most likely wildfire evacuation scenario, it would take approximately 19 minutes to perform a surgical evacuation of the project and targeted, existing communities. Under a much less likely and conservative scenario, assuming all the project’s residences would be occupied and evacuated, it would take approximately 53 minutes to 1.5 hours. First responders would account for evacuation timing to adjust the lead time given in issuing evacuation orders, to better phase evacuation orders, and to adjust evacuation traffic control methods (such as controlling downstream traffic lights or officers directing traffic) to ensure project occupants and the surrounding community are able to safely evacuate.
In the event evacuation is not recommended as a result of the increased risk of evacuating, the project’s fire prevention features and shelter-in-place contingency would further mitigate risks to public safety. The project’s fire protection features would result in a redundant and layered fire protection system consistent with fire agency-designated shelter-in-place communities (e.g., Rancho Santa Fe shelter-in-place communities of (1) The Bridges, (2) The Crosby, (3) Cielo, (4) 4S Ranch, and (5) The Lakes; and the Santa Clarita Valley’s Stevenson Ranch community). Because of these fire protection features, maintenance, and enforcement requirements, it would be an option, and in some scenarios, the preferred option, for emergency managers to direct residents and visitors to temporarily shelter in their homes or designated shelter sites. This is based on the project’s ability to buffer wildfire and related heat away from the community’s structures and infrastructure, and protect against burning ember intrusion, while providing firefighters with safe areas and defensible space on site. The project’s redundant fire protection features, quick emergency response, evacuation routes and plans, and the contingency option of sheltering on site in protected spaces would ensure that people and structures would not be exposed to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.
Ignition-Resistant Structures The best mitigation to reduce a project’s potential to start on-site and off-site fires is to reduce the likelihood that the project’s structural elements would ignite (Gorte 2011; Maranghides & Mell 2012; Zhou 2013; Calkin et al. 2014; Mockrin et al. 2020). Incorporation of the latest structural ignitionresistant features and construction methods minimize the possibility that structures would ignite. Each facet of a building’s exterior construction and appendages are addressed within Chapter 7A of RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
113
the California Building Code, with a primary focus on requiring homes that can withstand heat, flame, and embers.
For example, the 2007 Witch Creek Fire was one of the most destructive fires in California’s history and destroyed thousands of homes in San Diego County. Years before the fire, Rancho Santa Fe was a community vulnerable to wildfire damage, as it was set into steep rolling hills covered in chaparral and at one point considered unsafe. However, in 1996, the community made strides to adapt to a very high fire hazard environment. The community implemented modern fire codes, developed defensible space rules, required home hardening measures, and imposed vegetation restrictions. Through this system-based approach, Rancho Santa Fe was able to transform into a fire-adapted community. As a result, when the Witch Creek fire spread to Rancho Santa Fe, no fire-hardened home was lost (Sommer 2019). San Diego County’s “after-action” investigation of the Witch Creek Fire concluded that “the fires demonstrated unequivocally that defensible space around homes works” and that “newer homes, built in accordance with new fire-safe building codes, withstood the fire better than older homes built to less stringent codes” (Appendix P1 of Recirculated Sections of Final Revised EIR).
These findings support the success of fire-hardening buildings and use of FMZs.
They also support the available option of hardened communities to offer temporary sheltering as a contingency plan when evacuation is considered undesirable, as discussed further below.
Newer master-planned communities constructed in accordance with modern fire-safe development standards also survived the 2003 Simi Fire, the 2008 Freeway Complex Fire, and the 2020 Silverado Fire, with no homes lost (Appendix P1 of Recirculated Sections of Final Revised EIR).
These recent examples demonstrate the protective value of ignitionresistant structures and modern fuel management techniques, both of which are discussed in greater detail below. Once a fire-hardened community is planned and built with fire- and ignition-resistant materials and infrastructure, long-term protection of the community and surrounding areas is dependent on ongoing maintenance (Sommer 2019). In addition to its numerous wildfire prevention measures, the project would include a homeowners association (HOA) responsible for long-term funding and maintenance of private roads and fire protection systems. This includes responsibility for fuel modification and vegetation management for all common areas of the project site, including roadside clearance areas and FMZs. HOAs are an effective fire protection feature as they can enforce defensible RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
114
space compliance and increase wildfire risk awareness through education. In comparison, many non-HOA communities have lower wildfire risk awareness and are less likely to implement defensible space and fire hazard reduction techniques on private properties or through the community (Steffey et al. 2020). The project’s HOA would also enforce homeowner compliance with the project’s fuel management plan on an ongoing basis. In addition, the HOA would provide project residents and occupants with ongoing education regarding wildfires so they may maintain an increased awareness of wildfire risk and the possibility that they may be directed to remain in their homes or moved to another on-site location during a wildfire.
These educational materials would include information on the need to timely maintain the landscape and structural components according to the applicable fire-safe standards. Moreover, the SFD would review and approve all HOA wildfire educational material and programs before printing and distribution. HOA oversight and community engagement were credited as one of the reasons why Rancho Santa Fe was able to survive the Witch Creek fire in 2007 (Sommer 2019).
Code-Required Fire Safety Features that Facilitate Sheltering in Place Most of the primary components of the proposed project’s layered fire protection system are required by Santee Fire and Building Codes, because they have been tested in the lab and in realtime wildfires and found to result in saved structures. They have been proven effective for minimizing structural vulnerability to wildfire. They also make shelter-in-place possible as an evacuation contingency option when evacuation is not possible.
Even though current Building and Fire Codes require these measures, at one time, many of them were used as mitigation measures for buildings in fire hazard areas, because they were known to reduce structure vulnerability to wildfire. These measures were adopted into the 2007 California Building Code and have been retained and enhanced in code updates since then. The following project features are required for new development in fire hazard areas and form the basis of the system to provide adequate access by emergency responders and provide the protection necessary to minimize structural ignitions:
• Application of the latest adopted ignition-resistant building codes.
• Nonflammable roofs, which would be Class “A” listed and firerated roof assembly, installed per manufacturer’s instructions, to approval of the City. Roofs would be made tight with no gaps or openings on ends or in valleys, or elsewhere between roof covering and decking, in order to prevent intrusion of RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
115
flame and embers. Any openings on ends of roof tiles would be enclosed to prevent intrusion of burning debris. When provided, roof valley flashings would not be less than 0.019 inch (No. 26 gage galvanized sheet) corrosion-resistant metal installed over a minimum 36-inch-wide underlayment
consisting of one layer of 72 pound ASTM 3909 cap sheet running the full length of the valley.
• Exterior wall coverings are to be non-combustible or ignition resistant.
• Multi-pane glazing with a minimum of one tempered pane. • Ember-resistant vents (recommend BrandGuard, O’Hagin, or similar vents).
o No vents in soffits, cornices, rakes, eaves, eave
overhangs or between rafters at eaves or in other
overhang areas. Gable end and dormer vents to be at
least 10 feet from property line or provided alternative design resistant to ember penetration. Vents in allowed locations to be protected with wire mesh having no
openings greater than 0.125 inch. Vent openings would
not exceed 144 square inches. Vents would be
designed to resist the intrusion of any burning embers
or debris.
o Vents would not be placed on roofs unless they are
approved for Class “A” roof assemblies (and contain an
approved baffle system (such as Brandguard or
O’Hagin vents) to stop intrusion of burning material) or are otherwise approved.
o Turbine vents would be prohibited.
• Interior, automatic fire sprinklers to code for occupancy type. • Eaves and soffits would meet the requirements of SFM 12- 7A-3 or be protected by ignition-resistant materials or noncombustible construction on the exposed underside, per City Building Code.
• There would be no use of paper-faced insulation or
combustible installation in attics or other ventilated areas. • There would be no use of plastic, vinyl (with the exception of vinyl windows with metal reinforcement and welded corners), or light wood on the exterior.
• Any vinyl frames to have welded corners and metal
reinforcement in the interlock area to maintain integrity of the frame certified to ANSI/AAMA/NWWDA 101/I.S 2 97
requirements.
• Skylights to be tempered glass.
• Rain gutters and downspouts to be non-combustible. They would be designed to prevent the accumulation of leaf litter or debris, which can ignite roof edges.
RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
116
• Doors to conform to SFM standard 12-7A-1, or would be of approved non-combustible construction or would be solid core wood having stiles and rails not less than 1 3/8 inches thick or have a 20-minute fire rating. Doors to comply with City Building Code, Chapter 7-A. Garage doors to be solid core
1.75-inch-thick wood or metal, to comply with code.
• Decks and their surfaces, stair treads, landings, risers, porches, balconies to comply with language in City Building Code, Chapter 7-A and be ignition-resistant construction, heavy timber, exterior approved fire retardant wood, or approved noncombustible materials.
• Decks or overhangs projecting over vegetated slopes are not permitted. Decks to be designed to resist failing due to the weight of a firefighter during fire conditions. There would be no plastic or vinyl decking or railings. The ends of decks to be enclosed with the same type of material as the remainder of the deck.
• There would be no combustible awnings, canopies, or similar combustible overhangs.
• No combustible fences to be allowed within 5 feet of structures on any lots. The first 5 feet from a structure would be noncombustible or meet the same fire-resistive standards as walls.
• All chimneys and other vents on heating appliances using solid or liquid fuel, including outdoor fireplaces and permanent barbeques and grills, to have spark arrestors that comply with the City Fire Code. The code requires that openings would not exceed 1/4- inch. Arrestors would be visible from the ground. • Any liquid propane gas (LPG) tanks (except small barbecue and outdoor heater tanks), firewood, hay storage, storage sheds, barns, and other combustibles would be located at least 30 feet from structures, and, within the FMZ, 30 feet from flammable vegetation. There would be no flammable
vegetation under or within 30 feet of LPG tanks, or tanks would be enclosed in an approved ignition-resistant enclosure with 10 feet clearance of flammable vegetation around it. In no case would a tank be closer than 10 feet from the structure.
City Fire Code requires 10 feet of clearance of native
vegetation, weeds, and brush from under and around LPG
tanks.
• Storage sheds, barns, and outbuildings to be constructed of approved non-combustible materials, including noncombustible Class A roofs and would be subject to the same restrictions as the main structure on lot.
• Modern infrastructure, access roads, and water delivery system.
RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
117
• Maintained FMZs.
• Fire apparatus access roads throughout the project’s
developed areas.
Notably, interior fire sprinklers, which would be provided in all structures (required by code since 2010), have an extremely high reliability track record (Appendix P1) of controlling fire in 96 percent of reported fires, and statistics indicate that fires in homes with sprinklers resulted in 82 percent lower property damage and 68 percent lower loss of life (Hall 2013). Although not designed for wildland fire defense, should embers succeed in entering a structure, sprinklers provide an additional layer of life safety and structure protection.
Effective Fuel Modification Zones Provisions for modified fuel areas of at least 100 feet separating wildland fuels from structures have reduced the number of fuel-related structure losses by providing separation between structures and radiant heat generated by wildland fuels. FMZs of 100 feet in width that are correctly designed, installed, and maintained over time have been shown to provide effective defensible space. The project’s FMZs have been customized dependent on the anticipated adjacent fire behavior to exceed this 100-foot standard. The project provides FMZs of a minimum of 115 feet and, in areas where the potential wildfire hazard was determined to be higher, the FMZs around the project have been extended to 165 feet wide. A 100-foot FMZ at the site perimeter adjacent to the existing neighborhood to the south would also be provided, monitored, and maintained as part of the project to further reduce fire risk to those older homes.
The FMZs are designed to minimize wildfire encroaching upon the community and minimize the likelihood that an ignition from the developed area spreads into the open space by separating the natural vegetation occurring outside the FMZs from the
development. FMZs include reduced fuel densities, lack of fuel continuity, and a reduction in the receptiveness of the landscape to ignition and fire spread. Vegetation within the FMZs would be maintained as required by SFD and Development Plan. Irrigated zones provide a high plant/fuel moisture, making it more difficult to ignite (USFS 2015). Positioning the low plant density, irrigated zone directly adjacent to structures provides a significant buffer between a house or other landscape fire and native vegetation. This type of green barrier can have the same benefit of buffering preserved open space areas (and adjacent communities) from accidental on-site ignitions, while also providing positive ecological impacts by preventing/blocking surface fire and crown fires, serving as green ember catchers, and reducing overall erosion impacts (Wang et al.
RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
118
2021).
The entire project site would represent a large fire break. Fires from off site would not have continuous fuels across the development footprint and, therefore, would be expected to burn around and/or over the developed landscape via spotting. Burning vegetation embers may land on project structures but are not likely to result in ignition based on ember decay rates and the types of noncombustible and ignition-resistant materials and venting that would be used within the project, and the ongoing inspections and maintenance that would occur in the project’s landscaped areas and FMZs. Fuel treatments and landscape design protect homes and also serve as a buffer for natural areas and surrounding communities. FMZs were originally implemented by CAL FIRE to protect natural resources from urban area ignition sources. Over the years, FMZs have become essential to setting urban areas back from wildland areas serving the dual purpose of protecting structures and people while buffering natural areas from urban ignitions, thus reducing the potential for urban fires to spread into wildland areas.
Research shows reducing structural exposure to wildland vegetation through the implementation of defensible space practices can address a wide range of highly valued resources, including critical habitat, vegetation conditions, and watershed health (Scott et al. 2016.) As a result, master-planned communities can be hardened against fire and reduce off-site impacts to wildfire, including existing communities.
Research has indicated that the closer a fire is to a structure, the higher the level of heat exposure (Cohen 2000). However, studies indicate that given certain assumptions (e.g., 10 meters of lowfuel landscape, no open windows), wildfire does not spread to homes unless the fuel and heat requirements (of the home) are sufficient for ignition and continued combustion (Cohen 1995; Alexander 1998).
Construction materials and methods can prevent or minimize ignitions. Similar case studies indicate that with nonflammable roofs and vegetation modification from 10–18 meters (roughly 32–60 feet) in Southern California fires, 85–95 percent of the homes survived (Appendix P1; Foote and Gilless 1996).
These results support Cohen’s (2000) findings that if a community’s homes have a sufficiently low home ignitability (i.e., Santee Municipal Code, City Ordinance No. 570), the community can survive exposure to wildfire with minor fire impacts. This provides the option of addressing the wildland fire threat to structures at the residential location without excessive wildland fuel reduction, including within adjacent open space areas. Rather, focusing the effort in the landscapes nearest the project footprint would provide the best fire RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
119
protection. Cohen’s (1995) studies suggest, as a rule-of-thumb, larger flame lengths and widths require wider FMZs to reduce structure ignition. For example, valid structure ignition assessment modeling (SIAM) results indicate that a 20-foot-high flame has minimal radiant heat to ignite a structure (bare wood) beyond 33 feet (horizontal distance). By contrast, a 70-foot-high flame may require about 130 feet of clearance to prevent structure ignitions from radiant heat (Cohen and Butler 1996). This study utilized bare wood, which is far more combustible than the ignition-resistant exterior walls that would be used for the project.
Based on scientifically modeled fire behavior calculations for the site, flame lengths under the most extreme fire weather conditions within the natural open space areas to the north and east of the project could approach 66 feet in height. Under normal summer weather conditions, flame lengths could approach 19 to 28 feet in height along the southern and western edges of the project site, respectively. As such, FMZs along the southern edge and interior open space areas are typically 115 feet wide, whereas the project’s FMZs on the northern and eastern edges in areas adjacent to the higher flame length producing native landscapes were extended to 165 feet in width. This results in fire buffers that are between 3 and 5 times the predicted longest flame lengths directly adjacent the fuel modification area under typical weather conditions and approximately 2 to 3 times as wide as predicted adjacent flame lengths under extreme weather conditions.
Based on the studies referenced above, the proposed FMZ distances would be sufficient to prevent structure ignitions at the project even under the most extreme fire weather conditions (Appendix P1 of Recirculated Sections of Final Revised EIR).
In addition, internal roadways and off-site travel routes (Fanita Parkway, Cuyamaca Street, and the Magnolia Avenue extension) would be fuel-modified passageways. This means that proposed project access roads that traverse areas of natural vegetation would, in addition to consisting of inflammable asphalt/hardscape with ignition-resistant landscaping, provide a minimum of 50-foot buffer of modified fuel areas along both sides of the road. These 50-foot FMZ adjacent to roadways would further reduce ignitions from vehiclerelated causes (catalytic converter, brake-related, tossed cigarette, etc.), provide a setback from wildland fuels, improve evacuation safety, and act as a further fire break in a wildfire event.
Ember Protection Embers are frequently formed from burning vegetation and become lofted in the air through convective columns and wind. As wildfire fronts advance through landscapes or RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
120
communities on the ground, the embers also are thrown ahead of the flaming front, launching thousands of glowing embers into the air.
Also known as firebrands, these specks of burning debris can glide for up to 40 kilometers (approximately 24 miles) before landing and can cause up to 90 percent of home and business fires during wildfires (Bouvet et al. 2021).
Embers have been the focus of some local building codes since the 1990s; but, became a statewide focus when Chapter 7A of the building code was adopted, which focuses on building ignition resistance, including protecting against embers. Embers can ignite new fires when they land in favorable fuel beds. Urbanized landscapes that are hardened against fire through careful plant selection, irrigation and maintenance along with roads, ignitionresistant buildings, and other hardscape do not provide embers with readily ignitable fuel.
The project’s fire hazard assessment includes the potential exposure to airborne embers. Proposed fire protection features would include requirements to address embers and minimize the potential for ember-caused structure damage or loss. Specifically, (1) emberresistant vents would be included in all structures; (2) all structures would include interior fire sprinklers, which are highly successful and provide an additional layer of protection should embers succeed in entering a structure; and (3) landscaping would be planted and maintained as ember-resistant. With implementation of these fire protection features, the proposed project would not be vulnerable to embers, and structures would resist ember penetration and ignition.
Evacuation Mass evacuation during wildfires is no longer used in Santee or San Diego County. Instead, populated areas are evacuated in phases based on proximity to the event and risk levels.
For example, the project’s wildfire evacuations would likely include the relocation of perimeter residents, either to on-site shelter sites or off site rather than mass evacuating the entire community (Appendix P1 of Recirculated Sections of Final Revised EIR).
The wildfire evacuation scenarios selected for analysis were based on a comprehensive approach that included consultation with the SFD, review of fire history, analysis of Cedar Fire evacuations in Santee, fire behavior science, area topography, fuel types and the evolved approach to evacuations, which is targeted/surgical instead of areawide. Accordingly, given the highest probability wildfire scenarios that would result in evacuation, the perimeter populations in certain locations may be targeted for evacuation. The entire project would provide significant protection against exposure to wildfire.
However, some perimeter units, based solely on their closer RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
121
proximity to native fuels, may be selected for occupant relocation as a precautionary measure. This may be combined with targeted evacuations of perimeter populations within existing communities to the south of the project, as indicated in the evacuation modeling analysis (Appendix P2 of Recirculated Sections of Final Revised EIR).
Targeted evacuation is consistent with County/City Annex Q (Evacuation) and with management of recent San Diego County wildfires (for example, the 2017 Lilac Fire) where the phased/surgical evacuation practice was implemented with success. The result of this type of evacuation is that residents in locations closest to a wildfire burning in open space areas are temporarily moved from the vicinity and vehicle congestion on evacuation routes is minimized, enabling a more efficient evacuation. Under the most probable evacuation scenario, the project evacuees, along with neighboring community residents could be evacuated to designated safety areas within 19 minutes (Appendix P2 of Recirculated Sections of Final Revised EIR). If they were relocated to other internal project areas, the evacuation time would be even lower and have no impact on existing off-site communities, except for up to approximately 25 percent of evacuees who decided to leave the area despite not being asked to evacuate off site, known as shadow evacuees (Sorenson and Vogt 2006).
The evacuation modeling conducted for the project site and Santee vicinity utilizes larger, mass evacuation scenarios as well as more realistic, targeted or phased evacuation scenarios. San Diego County experienced large wildfires in 2003, 2007, and 2010. The experience gained from these large wildfire evacuations resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars in investment into better technology, communication, predictive modeling, coordination, and response resources. The County and jurisdictions within the County now benefit from all of these investments, and the most relevant to the project modeling is the investment in evacuation technologies. The 2007 Witch Fire resulted in a mass evacuation of nearly 500,000 people due to the approach used at that time (San Diego County Grand Jury 2007–2008). It was realized afterward that a more accurate system was needed that relied on real-time fire behavior information along with area pre-plans. San Diego County’s EOP Evacuation Annex (Annex Q) specifically addresses new capabilities for phased evacuations.
Phased Evacuation The purpose of a phased evacuation is to reduce congestion and transportation demand on designated evacuation routes by controlling access to evacuation routes in stages and sections. This strategy can also be used to prioritize the RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
122
evacuation of certain communities in proximity to the immediate danger. A phased evacuation effort would need to be enforced by law enforcement agencies and coordinated with the Operational Area Emergency Operations Center and affected jurisdictions.
Evacuations in Santee and throughout San Diego County are now managed by a system that enables emergency managers to
designate small areas in a surgical approach that can target neighborhoods, blocks, or streets for alert messaging. This system was utilized with success in the 2017 Lilac Fire in northern San Diego County. In this evacuation, a larger area of approximately 44,000 households, was given a message via the wireless emergency alert system that evacuations may be declared and residents should be prepared to leave when notified. Following this mass notification, numerous targeted evacuation notices were sent via the
AlertSanDiego system, in a staggered approach and based on realtime fire behavior and spread rates, road congestion, and other factors. This phased approach to evacuation notices resulted in a successful evacuation and use of available resources (CAL FIRE/San Diego County Fire 2017).
The Department of Homeland Security (Appendix P1 of Recirculated Sections of Final Revised EIR) provides supporting data for why jurisdictions have moved to the targeted/surgical evacuation approach that leverages the power of situational awareness to support decision-making. According to its “Planning Considerations:
Evacuation and Shelter in Place” document, the Department indicated that delineated zones provide benefits to the agencies and community members. Evacuation and shelter-in-place zones promote phased, zone-based evacuation targeted to the most vulnerable areas, which allows jurisdictions to prioritize evacuation orders to the most vulnerable zones first and limit the need to evacuate large areas not under the threat. The zones help:
• Jurisdictions to understand transportation network throughput and capacity, critical transportation and resource needs, estimated evacuation clearance times, and shelter demand. • Planners to develop planning factors and assumptions to inform goals and objectives. • Community members to
understand protective actions to take during an emergency. • Shelters to limit traffic congestion and select locations suitable for the evacuated population.
As shown in the Wildland Fire Evacuation Plan (Appendix P2 of Recirculated Sections of Final Revised EIR), the project would provide two major routes for ingress and egress during an emergency (Fanita Parkway and Cuyamaca Street), would not cut RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
123
off or modify existing evacuation routes, and provide numerous roadway improvements in the City that would improve evacuation over existing conditions (including the Magnolia Avenue extension).
Further, internal roadways and off-site travel routes (Fanita Parkway, Cuyamaca Street, and the Magnolia Avenue extension) would be fuel-modified passageways, consisting of inflammable
asphalt/hardscape with ignition-resistant irrigated landscaping with an additional minimum 50-foot buffer of modified fuel areas along both sides of the road. These fuel-modified passageways would improve evacuation safety and act as a further fire break in a wildfire event.
In addition, evacuation modeling conducted by Chen Ryan Associates (Appendix P2 of Recirculated Sections of Final Revised EIR) shows that, conservatively assuming all the project’s residences would be occupied and evacuated, it would take approximately 53 minutes to 1.5 hours for all vehicles to exit the site.
In a more realistic evacuation event where a portion of the project site and a portion of the existing area residents are evacuated, which would focus on those within approximately ¼ mile of unmaintained open space areas, the evacuation time would be up to approximately
1.3 hours, which is considered a reasonable time frame (Rohde & Associates 2019–2021; SFD 2022; Appendix P1).
Further, the most probable wildfire evacuation scenario, which would follow the latest evacuation strategies of targeted/surgical evacuations, would move certain perimeter residents from the project and the existing community and is modeled to be accomplished within 19 minutes (Appendix P2 of Recirculated Sections of Final Revised EIR). First responders would account for evacuation timing to adjust the lead time given when issuing evacuation orders, to better phase evacuation orders, and to adjust evacuation traffic control methods (such as controlling downstream traffic lights or officers directing traffic) to ensure proposed project occupants and the surrounding community are able to safely evacuate in the primary evacuation scenario.
In the event evacuation off site is not recommended because of the increased risk of evacuating, the project’s fire prevention features and shelter-in-place contingency would further mitigate risks to public safety.
Temporary Refuge and Shelter-in-Place The fire protection features detailed in the preceding sections that would be incorporated into the project make it a shelter-in-place-capable community. Wildfire would not be able to burn into the community due to perimeter FMZs and interior fire-resistant landscapes and RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
124
hardscape, which would not readily facilitate fire ignitions or spread.
Structures would be setback from unmaintained native fuels such that there would not be exposure to heat or flames. The structures would also include special vents that are ember resistant. Embers are the primary reason structures are lost in wildfires. Ember penetration into home attics or crawl spaces, for example, can ignite materials inside the home and go unnoticed for considerable periods of time until the structure is fully involved. Project structures would meet the most stringent ember-resistant requirements established in the California Building Code. Further, all structures would include interior fire sprinklers to provide an additional layer of protection should embers succeed in entering a structure.
Structures that are built to withstand the impact of wildfire are buildings that can be used for temporary shelter-in-place. Sheltering in place or taking temporary refuge when evacuation is considered undesirable is not a new idea. Sheltering in place has been a useful tool in the emergency management toolbox since the 1950s. In some wildfire scenarios, temporarily sheltering in a protected structure is safer than evacuating. Huntzinger (2010) states that: “If sheltering in place can provide the community with the same level of protection from an emergency incident as mass evacuation, this will be the recommended practice to use.” By contrast, many civilian deaths have occurred when residents evacuated late and were exposed to wildfire on unprotected roadways (Braun 2002; CFA 2004).
For example, the SDCSD indicated in multiple public hearings (Harmony Grove Village South Planning Commission Hearing, May 24 2018) that the reason people lost their lives on Highland Valley Road during the 2003 Cedar Fire, was that they initially ignored evacuation declarations and then decided to leave when the fire was too close (late evacuation). There are two primary ways to avoid this outcome: 1) the Ready, Set, Go! Evacuation model that results in prepared residents who are ready to go when given the message to leave; and 2) a shelter-in-place contingency which provides another option to a late evacuation where the evacuees risk being exposed to wildfires on roadways, project residents will be provided ongoing education and public outreach on Ready, Set, Go! and could temporarily shelter on site, if directed.
One example of a fire-hardened community performing extremely well and not requiring evacuation includes the 3,500 home Stevenson Ranch in Santa Clarita Valley, California. A 2003 wildfire threatened the community under extreme weather conditions.
However, due to community fire-hardening efforts, including FMZs, the fire burned around the community and did not require evacuation.
There was no loss of life or property damage, and little fire service RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
125
intervention (Foote 2004). The project has been designed with the same types of fire hardening to provide a shelter in-place contingency and would perform similarly under wildfire conditions.
If all communities focused on shelter-in-place capability, similar to Stevenson Ranch and the project, most or all fire resources could focus on fire control instead of structure defense (Foote 2004). Thus, not only could project residents shelter-in-place safely while fire burns around the community, fire resources could be directed toward better controlling and fighting the fire as the community acts as a “fire break.” Further, first responders could utilize resources to focus efforts on defense of less fire-resistant communities. Nasiatke (2003) points out that another advantage to sheltering in place is a substantial reduction in the number of evacuees that would need to be managed, which is a serious problem experienced in large or mass evacuations.
Shelter-in-place may be implemented in a manner where residents are instructed to remain in their homes while firefighters perform their structure protection function; or it would allow for partial relocation, whereby residents in perimeter homes on the north/west/east edges or within certain individual neighborhoods on site are temporarily relocated to internal areas or to the Fanita Commons Village Center.
These areas represent the most fire-protected areas of the site in the event future residents are instructed not to evacuate.
The evidence shows that if emergency managers determine shelterin-place is preferred for the proposed project, project residents would not be exposed to a significant risk of loss, injury or death from a wildland fire. The fire-safe site would act as a fire break within more ignition-prone fuels. The project’s property/structures would likely survive, providing an opportunity for residents to shelter-in-place.
Safety would also be improved by the project providing a contingency shelter-inplace option to late, unsafe evacuation practices. And the contingency for project residents to shelter in-place may improve safety to off-site residences by freeing up fire resources elsewhere.
Summary and Expert Review The project has been designed and planned by fire protection experts with over 100 years of fire protection and evacuation experience to meet or exceed the most stringent applicable fire protection requirements and provide for a highly defensible community. The planned approach incorporates redundant measures that would improve fire prevention and defensibility at the project site and adjacent properties including ignition-resistant structures, proven fire safety features, projectspecific FMZs, and ember protection. The project would provide two major routes out of the site for ingress and egress during an RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
126
emergency (Fanita Parkway and Cuyamaca Street), would not cut off or modify existing evacuation routes, and would provide numerous roadway improvements in the City that would improve evacuation over existing conditions (including the Magnolia Avenue extension). In addition, evacuation modeling by Chen Ryan Associates (Appendix P2 of Recirculated Sections of Final Revised EIR) shows that under the most probable wildfire evacuation scenario, it would require approximately 19 minutes to evacuate the targeted areas of the project and the existing community. Under a more conservative scenario assuming all the project’s residences would be occupied and evacuated, it would take approximately 53 minutes to 1.5 hours to safely evacuate all vehicles. In the event evacuation is not recommended for residents of the project during a wildfire event (i.e., because of inadequate lead time), the fire protection features detailed above describe why the project would be considered a shelter-in-place-capable community, which would safely provide homes and public spaces in which people may take temporary refuge.
The input of fire protection experts was integrated into the FPP (Appendix P1 of Recirculated Sections of Final Revised EIR). The SFD has accepted the FPP and recognizes that the features incorporated into the project would result in a defensible community that does not substantially increase fire safety risks to life or property.
For all these reasons, the proposed project would not increase exposure of people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death from a wildland fire.
7. Fire Protection Facilities
Threshold: Would the proposed project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, or the need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for fire protection?
Finding: Less than significant. (Recirculated Sections of Final Revised EIR, § 4.18.5.7.)
Explanation: Under the preferred land use plan with school, the proposed project would develop 2,949 new residential units, which would generate approximately 7,974 residents. Under the land use plan without school, the proposed project would develop 3,008 residential units, and generate approximately 8,145 residents. Using the City’s current per capita call generation factor of 100 calls per 1,000 persons, the RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
127
project site is projected to add approximately 950 calls per year to the SFD’s existing call load. Under the land use plan without school, the additional population would increase the annual calculated call volume to 889 calls per year.
Due to increased demand and larger service area, response times to emergencies may exceed established response time goals. The primary standard used in the City to determine adequate levels of service is response time. The Santee General Plan (City of Santee 2003) states the goal is to provide an average maximum initial response time of no more than 6 minutes for fire, rescue and emergency medical services with an average maximum response time of no more than 10 minutes for supporting paramedic transport units 90 percent of the time. Secondary to response time is the number of personnel necessary to perform critical tasks required to safely mitigate emergencies.
According to the Fire Service Letter prepared for the proposed project (Appendix M of Final Revised EIR), fire stations and personnel within the City are currently operating at capacity. To accommodate the increased demand and larger service area, the proposed project designates a 1.5-acre site for a new fire station and requires firefighting apparatus and trained firefighters in Fanita Commons to serve the project site and ensure adequate response times. The new station specifications regarding size, staffing, and layout would be determined through coordination between the applicant and the City (Appendix P1 of Recirculated Sections of Final Revised EIR).
The SFD has indicated it can and would serve the project site with the addition of an adequately staffed and equipped fire station (Appendix M of Final Revised EIR). The station design would comply with City building and design standards, including City Ordinance No. 457, Article 86, Amended – Fire Protection Plan Wildland-Urban Interface Areas. Either a permanent or a temporary fire station must be constructed prior to the occupancy of any residential units in the proposed project.
The project would provide a fully constructed and staffed permanent fire station. In addition, a temporary fire station site equipped with apparatus and personnel may be provided on site until a permanent fire station is complete. The temporary fire station must be in an area that would meet a response time maximum of no more than 6 minutes to all areas of the proposed project. The temporary fire station would be fully equipped and staffed 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. The final location must be approved by the Santee Fire Chief. The applicant may choose to provide a permanent fire station RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
128
in lieu of a temporary station. The Santee Fire Chief confirmed the addition of the new fire station, equipment, and staff on the project site would adequately serve the project site while maintaining current response standards (Appendix M of Final Revised EIR). Travel time from the new permanent station to the most remote (distant) lot on the project site is calculated at 3 minutes and 26 seconds. This would allow just under 2 minutes for dispatch and turnout and would meet the Santee General Plan response time goal of no more than 6 minutes (Appendix P1 of Recirculated Sections of Final Revised EIR).
Fire flow pressure would be required to be a minimum of 2,500 gallons per minute for 3 hours of fire flow for single-family and multifamily residential and 3,500 gallons per minute for 4 hours of fire flow for commercial areas. New construction in the City requires the installation of fire sprinklers, which would further reduce the potential for fire loss on the project site. Other fire protection mechanisms are discussed in Section 4.18, Wildfire, of the Recirculated Sections of Final Revised EIR. To address fire and life safety issues on new development, the City’s Fire Marshal reviews proposed residential, commercial, and industrial projects through the City’s Development Review process to ensure that adequate fire hydrant locations, water flow pressures, access for emergency vehicles, and other requirements are met, which would also reduce the need for fire protection services (City of Santee 2003).
The on-site fire station would be constructed to serve the increased development and population associated with the proposed project and would be a project component located within the boundaries of the project site. The physical environmental impacts associated with the proposed project’s construction and operational activities are analyzed in Sections 4.1 through 4.18 of this EIR. Because the proposed project would provide an on-site fire station to serve the anticipated increase in development and population, it would not require construction or expansion of additional new fire protection facilities off site. Therefore, impacts associated with the need for new or expanded fire facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for fire protection would not result in a new significant impact.
8. Inadequate Emergency Access
Threshold: Would the proposed project result in inadequate emergency access? Finding: Less than significant. (Recirculated Sections of Final Revised EIR, § 4.18.5.8.)
RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
129
Explanation: The project site is currently undeveloped and there is no existing roadway Infrastructure on site. The project proposes the extension of Fanita Parkway, Cuyamaca Street, and Magnolia Avenue to allow access to and from the project site with planned improvements on the existing segments and intersections to accommodate additional project traffic.
The project’s FPP (Appendix P1 of the Recirculated Sections of Final Revised EIR) and Wildland Fire Evacuation Plan (Appendix P2 of the Recirculated Sections of Final Revised EIR) were prepared for the proposed project to address emergency access and evacuation in the case of a wildfire. The project would provide emergency access that would meet current City requirements throughout the proposed development areas. The proposed internal looped roadways would be built to the currently adopted California Fire Code and City Ordinance 545 (Sections 503.2.1, 503.2.3) requirements and provide travel lane widths consistent with the Fanita Ranch Development Plan standards, adequate parking, 28-foot inside radius, grade maximums, signals at intersections, and extremely wide roadside FMZs. Interior residential streets would be designed to accommodate a minimum of a 77,000-pound fire truck. All dead-end streets would meet SFD requirements. Additionally, the streets would provide residents the option to evacuate from at least two routes that lead to three main arteries.
The project site would have two points of primary access for emergency response and evacuation. Depending on the nature of the emergency, future residents would exit to the south on Fanita Parkway or Cuyamaca Street.
It is anticipated that the majority of the community traffic would exit the project site via Cuyamaca Street, which would also connect to the extension of Magnolia Avenue. These are the most direct routes to the project site. Both streets would include bike lanes that could be used as an additional emergency lane for first responders. These streets would provide access to major traffic corridors including directly or indirectly to SR-52 to the south, SR-67 to the east, I-8 to the south, I-125 to the south, and I-15 to the west.
Fanita Parkway would be used for emergency access by the western portion of the proposed project development. The planned extension and improvements to Fanita Parkway, Cuyamaca Street, and Magnolia Avenue south of the project site would be sized to provide adequate access for fire equipment and personnel. The proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
130
SECTION III: IMPACTS THAT ARE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION
INCORPORATED
The City Council hereby finds that Mitigation Measures have been identified in the EIR and these Findings that will avoid or substantially lessen the following potentially significant environmental impacts to a less than significant level. The potentially significant impacts, and the Mitigation Measures that will reduce them to a less than significant level, are as follows:
A. AIR QUALITY
1. Sensitive Receptors
Threshold: Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Finding: Less than significant with mitigation. (EIR, § 4.2.5.3.) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, section 15091(a)(1).)
Explanation: The project site is approximately 3 miles from the State Route (SR-) 52 and SR-67 freeways. According to the Transportation Impact Analysis, none of the major roadways within 500 feet of the project site would exceed the CARB screening level of 50,000 vehicles per day. No other toxic air contaminant (TAC)-emitting facilities exist in close vicinity to the project site. Therefore, future on-site residents would not be exposed to substantial emissions from existing off-site TAC-emitting sources.
Carbon Monoxide Hot Spots. The estimated worst-case 1-hour CO concentration at any intersection would be 2.7 ppm at the intersection of Mast Boulevard and the SR-52 westbound (WB) ramps. The concentration at that location, however, would not exceed the California 1-hour standard of 20 ppm or the federal 1- hour standard of 35 ppm. The maximum cumulative 8-hour CO concentration at the same intersection would be 1.9 ppm and would not exceed the California and federal 8-hour standard of 9 ppm.
Therefore, the increase in vehicle trips that would result from the proposed project would not result in a CO hot spot at any modeled intersection. Impacts would be less than significant.
Toxic Air Contaminants. The greatest potential for TAC emissions during project construction activities would be related to emissions of DPM associated with heavy equipment operations during site preparation, grading, and utilities construction activities.
RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
131
Construction-related activities would result in short-term emissions of DPM from off-road heavy-duty diesel equipment exhaust.
Construction of Phase 1 and Phase 2 would be primarily in the southwestern area of the project site, closest to existing sensitive receptors and, as such, was analyzed as the worst-case scenario.
Later construction phases in the eastern portion of the project site would be outside the 1,000-foot screening distance for potential impacts and emit lower levels of DPM because less earthwork would be required during these phases, resulting in less intensive construction activity. Cancer risk levels at off-site sensitive receptors and the first occupied on-site sensitive receptors would exceed the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) threshold during Phase 1 and Phase 2 construction of the proposed project. Noncancer risk levels at on-site and off-site sensitive receptors would not exceed the SDAPCD threshold, and impact would be less than significant.
The specific future uses or tenants of the commercial components of the proposed project are unknown at this time, but allowable uses include gasoline-dispensing stations that could emit TACs. However, location and operation details of these facilities are currently unknown.
Mitigation Measures AIR-3, AIR-4, and AIR-11 would be required to reduce residential cancer risk during Phase 1 and Phase 2 of construction. Mitigation Measure AIR-12 avoids siting new on-site toxic air contaminant sources in close vicinity of residences and schools and would ensure that operational impacts would be less than significant.
Project Operational Health Impacts. Although the proposed project is expected to exceed the County of San Diego’s numeric regional mass daily emission thresholds for VOC and PM10, this does not in itself constitute a significant health impact to the population adjacent to the project site and within the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB). The regional thresholds are based in part on Section 180 (e) of the CAA and are intended to provide a means of consistency in significance determination within the environmental review process.
Notwithstanding, simply exceeding the regional mass daily thresholds does not constitute a particular health impact to an individual nearby. The reason for this is that the mass daily thresholds are in pounds per day emitted into the air whereas health effects are determined based on the concentration of emissions in the air at a particular location (e.g., parts per million by volume of air or micrograms per cubic meter of air). State and federal Ambient Air Quality Standards were developed to protect the most susceptible RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
132
population groups from adverse health effects and were established in terms of parts per million or micrograms per cubic meter for the applicable emissions.
The SDAPCD does not require localized air quality impact analysis and has not established localized significance thresholds for operational emissions from land development. Compared to project construction, operation of the proposed project would emit fewer criteria air pollutants, and the pollutants would be less toxic than the DPM emitted from off-road construction equipment. Moreover, the pollutants would be dispersed over the entire project site, which is much larger than the Phase 1 and Phase 2 construction area analyzed in the HRA. Further, the proposed project would not accommodate land uses that would generate a large number of heavy truck trips during operation. Residential and commercial land uses are not typical generators of substantial DPM. Therefore, the on-site and off-site sensitive receptors would be subject to lower health risks during project operation than during project construction.
Therefore, operation of the proposed project would not be expected to result in any basin-wide increase in health effects.
As noted in the Brief of Amicus Curiae filed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District in Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502 (SCAQMD 2015), the SCAQMD has
acknowledged that, for criteria pollutants, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to quantify operational health impacts from land development for various reasons, including modeling limitations, as well as where in the atmosphere air pollutants interact and form. Furthermore, as noted in the Brief of Amicus Curiae by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) in the Sierra Club litigation, currently available modeling tools are not equipped to provide a meaningful analysis of the correlation between an individual development project’s air pollutant emissions and specific human health impacts (SJVAPCD 2015). The SJVAPCD explained that “running the photochemical grid model used for predicting ozone attainment with emissions solely from one project would thus not be likely to yield valid information given the relative scale involved” (SJVAPCD 2015). O3 is not directly emitted into the air but is instead formed as ozone precursors undergo complex chemical reactions through sunlight exposure (SJVAPCD 2015).
In fact, the SJVAPCD indicated that even a project with criteria pollutant emissions that exceed a CEQA threshold does not necessarily cause localized human health impacts because, even when faced with relatively high emissions, the SJVAPCD cannot determine “whether and to what extent emissions from an individual RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
133
project directly impact human health in a particular area” (SJVAPCD 2015). On that point, the SCAQMD reiterated that “an agency should not be required to perform analyses that do not produce reliable or meaningful results” (SCAQMD 2015).
Additionally, the SCAQMD acknowledges that health effects quantification from O3, as an example, is correlated with the increases in ambient level of O3 in the air (concentration) that an individual person breathes. The SCAQMD goes on to state that it would take a large amount of additional emissions to cause a modeled increase in ambient O3 levels over the entire region. The SCAQMD states that based on its own modeling in the 2012 AQMP, a reduction of 432 tons/864,000 pounds per day of NOx and a reduction of 187 tons/374,000 pounds per day of VOCs would reduce O3 levels at the highest monitored site by only 9 parts per billion. As such, the SCAQMD concludes that it is not currently possible to accurately quantify O3-related health impacts caused by NOx or VOC emissions from relatively small projects (defined as projects with regional scope) due to photochemistry and regional model limitations (SCAQMD 2015).
The SCAQMD has only been able to correlate potential health outcomes for very large emissions sources as part of its rulemaking activity. Specifically, 6,620 pounds per day of NOx and 89,180 pounds per day of VOC were expected to result in approximately 20 premature deaths per year and 89,947 school absences due to O3.
The proposed project would generate far less than 6,620 pounds per day of NOx or 89,190 pounds per day of VOC emissions. With implementation of Mitigation Measures AIR-6 through AIR-10 and GHG-4, the proposed project would generate a maximum of 70.65 pounds per day of NOx during construction and 65.02 or 66.70 pounds per day of NOx during operation (approximately 1 percent of 6,620 pounds per day). The proposed project would also generate a maximum of 10.98 pounds per day of VOC emissions during construction and 136.32 or 137.37 pounds per day of VOC emissions during operation (0.15 percent of 89,190 pounds per day).
Therefore, the proposed project’s emissions are not sufficiently high to use a regional modeling program to correlate health effects on a basin-wide level.
AIR-3: Tier 4 Construction Equipment. The City of Santee shall require heavy-duty, diesel-powered construction equipment used on the project site during construction to be powered by California Air Resources Board-certified Tier 4 (Final) or newer engines and diesel-powered haul trucks to be 2010 model year or newer that conform to 2010 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
134
truck standards. This requirement shall be included in the construction contractor’s contract specifications and the project construction documents, including the grading plan, which shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Santee prior to issuance of a grading permit. This mitigation measure applies to all construction phases.
AIR-4: Construction Equipment Maintenance. The City of Santee shall require the project construction contractor to maintain construction equipment engines in good condition and in proper tune per the manufacturer’s specification for the duration of construction. Contract specifications shall be included in project construction documents, including the grading plan, which shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Santee prior to issuance of a grading permit.
AIR-11: Construction Buffer Area. The City of Santee shall require the applicant to complete Phase 1 earthmoving and paving
activities within 300 feet from the southwestern corner of the Village Center in Fanita Commons before any residents occupy the Village Center. The applicant shall also integrate the Phase 2 grading and utilities activities within 500 feet from the southwestern corner of the Village Center into Phase 1 so that activities are complete prior to occupation of the Fanita Commons Village Center.
AIR-12: New Source Review. The City of Santee shall require the applicant to avoid siting new on-site toxic air contaminant sources in the vicinity of residences and schools. Gasolinedispensing facilities with a throughput of less than 3.6 million gallons per year must have the gasoline dispensers at least 50 feet from the nearest residential land use, daycare center, or school. In addition, gasoline-dispensing facilities with a throughput of 3.6 million gallons per year or more, distribution centers, and dry cleaning operations are prohibited within the project.
The City Council finds Mitigation Measures AIR-3, AIR-4, AIR-11 and AIR-12 are feasible, are adopted, and will further reduce impacts to sensitive receptors. Mitigation Measures AIR-3, AIR-4 and AIR11 will ensure impacts from DPM concentrations during Phase 1 and Phase 2 construction and roadway construction are mitigated to a less than significant level by reducing on-site and off-site maximum cancer risk to below SDAPCD’s threshold of 10 in one million.
Mitigation Measure AIR-12 will ensure operational impacts are less than significant by avoiding siting toxic air contaminant sources in close vicinity of residences or schools. Accordingly, the City Council RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
135
finds that, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081(a)(1) and State CEQA Guidelines section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project that mitigate or avoid the potentially significant impacts of the proposed Project to sensitive receptors, as identified in the EIR.
Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant. Mitigation measures will further reduce impacts to sensitive receptors. (EIR, §
4.2.5.3.)
B. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
1. Sensitive Species
Threshold: 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 Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Finding: Less than significant with mitigation. (EIR, § 4.3.5.1.) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, section 15091(a)(1).)
Explanation:
Sensitive Plant Species
Direct Impacts. Impacts to the following species would not be significant due to the lack of sensitivity of the species (not state or federally listed, CRPR List 3 or 4, or not listed by CNPS): San Diego sagewort, small-flowered morning-glory, Palmer’s grapplinghook, graceful tarplant, California adder’s-tongue, ashy spike-moss, chaparral rein orchid, and San Diego County viguiera. None of these species are proposed for coverage by the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan. Each of these species is a CRPR 4 species, which are relatively common in this portion of the County and are not considered significantly rare. Therefore, impacts to these nonCovered Species would not be significant under CEQA, and direct impacts would be less than significant.
Other sensitive plant species that occur in the region (e.g., Encinitas baccharis [Baccharis vanessae], gabbro-endemic species, clayendemic species) were not detected in focused surveys; therefore, there would be no significant direct impacts to these species.
RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
136
Implementation of the proposed project would result in direct impacts to covered special-status plant species, including San Diego goldenstar, variegated dudleya, San Diego barrel cactus, and willowy monardella. All permanent and temporary impacts, in both on- and off-site areas, to these species would be significant.
A total of 117.56 acres of USFWS-designated Critical Habitat for willowy monardella occur along the northwestern boundary of the project site. The majority of the Critical Habitat (110.54 acres) would be in the Habitat Preserve, and only 7.02 acres would be impacted from project implementation. Although 7.02 acres of Critical Habitat for willowy monardella would be both permanently (4.39 acres) and temporarily (2.63 acres) impacted, only 1.39 acres of it is suitable habitat for this species despite being designated. Impacts would occur to one willowy monardella individual in the Critical Habitat area, adjacent to the detention basin (temporary impact). Impacts to the 49 individuals along the existing retained trails and adjacent to proposed trail creation areas would be avoided. Impacts to this species would be significant.
According to the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan, impacts to individual mature oak trees (i.e., oak trees with at least one trunk of 6-inch or more diameter at breast height [DBH] or multi-trunked native oak trees with aggregate diameter of 10-inch DBH) would be significant and require mitigation. Direct impacts to Coulter’s saltbush would also occur, resulting in a significant impact to this species.
Permanent and temporary impacts to covered special-status plant species, including San Diego goldenstar, variegated dudleya, San Diego barrel cactus, and willowy monardella, in both on- and off-site areas, are considered significant and would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2. The Preserve Management Plan addresses potential indirect impacts to sensitive plant species from soil erosion, litter, fire, and hydrologic changes occurring within the Habitat Preserve (Mitigation Measure BIO-1). Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 would preserve or restore sensitive vegetation communities that provide suitable habitat for these species and provide translocation for certain species. It is assumed that this is a Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan Covered Project and that impacts to covered narrow endemic species are subject to the narrow endemic species policy identified in the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan, included in the proposed project as Mitigation Measure BIO-3 that requires 100 percent conservation within open space (i.e., hardline preserve) and 80 percent conservation through translocation within permanent impact (i.e., take-authorized) areas. Direct impacts to the RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
137
non-covered CRPR 1B species Coulter’s saltbush would also be subject to the narrow endemic plant species policy (Mitigation Measure BIO-3). Direct impacts to Engelmann oak (five individuals) would be reduced to a less than significant level through Mitigation Measure BIO-4, which would replant seedling oak trees at a 3:1 ratio according to the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan.
Indirect Impacts. Indirect impacts to special-status plants would primarily result from adverse edge effects. During construction of the proposed project, edge effects may include dust, which could disrupt plant vitality in the short term, as well as construction-related soil erosion and runoff.
Permanent indirect edge effects could include intrusions by humans and domestic pets and possible trampling of individual plants, unauthorized trail use, invasion by exotic plant and wildlife species, exposure to urban pollutants, soil erosion, litter, fire, and hydrological changes (e.g., changes in surface and groundwater level and quality). Not only can altered hydrology directly affect special-status plants, increased moisture associated with irrigation and runoff can attract invasive Argentine ants (Linepithema humile), which could displace native ants (e.g., harvester ants (Messor spp., Pogonomyrmex spp.) that are potential pollinators and seed dispersers for special-status plants. Argentine ants are ineffective at seed dispersal and can wreak ecological havoc, disrupt ecosystem processes, and threaten future stability.
Application of Mitigation Measures BIO-5 through BIO-7 would reduce indirect impacts to special-status plant species to a less than significant level through preparing a SWPPP, conducting preconstruction surveys, and implementing standard best management practices and requirements that address erosion and runoff, including the construction-related minimization measures required by the MSCP, federal Clean Water Act, and NPDES.
Mitigation Measure BIO-9 would reduce permanent indirect impacts to special-status plants by planting cactus species in brush management zones, temporary impact areas, and between
roadways and open space to help protect against incursions by domestic pets, children, or recreationists. Additionally, Mitigation Measure BIO-10 would require that all herbicides used during landscaping activities be contained within the proposed project’s impact footprint and weed control treatments include all legally permitted chemical, manual, and mechanical methods applied with the authorization of the County agriculture commissioner.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-11 would establish control measures for, and quarterly monitoring of, Argentine ants along the construction–Habitat Preserve interface to reduce impacts RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
138
to native ants so that the impact to special-status plant species would be less than significant.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-11 would reduce direct and indirect permanent and temporary impacts to sensitive plant species to below a level of significance.
Sensitive Wildlife Species
Direct Impacts. Implementation of the proposed project would result in the direct loss of habitat, including foraging habitat, for the majority of the special-status wildlife species described in Section 4.3.1.4 of the EIR, as well as those species with modeled suitable habitat and a moderate potential to occur on the project site. These species include the following: western spadefoot, southern California legless lizard, California glossy snake, San Diego tiger whiptail, red diamondback rattlesnake, Blainville’s horned lizard, Coronado Island skink, Belding’s orange-throated whiptail, coast patch-nosed snake, two-striped garter snake, Cooper’s hawk, Southern California rufouscrowned sparrow, grasshopper sparrow, golden eagle, Bell’s sage sparrow, northern harrier, American peregrine falcon, long-eared owl, oak titmouse, coastal cactus wren, merlin, yellow-breasted chat, prairie falcon, loggerhead shrike, coastal California gnatcatcher, rufous hummingbird, Brewer’s sparrow, yellow warbler, least Bell’s vireo, white-tailed kite, California horned lark, San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit, Dulzura pocket mouse, northwestern San Diego pocket mouse, San Diego desert woodrat, pallid bat, western mastiff bat, Townsend’s big-eared bat, western red bat, western yellow bat, longeared myotis, western small-footed myotis, Yuma myotis, big freetailed bat, pocketed free-tailed bat, San Diego fairy shrimp, Quino checkerspot butterfly, and Hermes copper butterfly.
No direct impacts are expected to osprey because this species was observed perched on site but foraging within nearby Santee Lakes Recreation Preserve, and there is no suitable foraging or nesting habitat for this species on site. Willow flycatcher has a low potential to nest on site since only one willow flycatcher was observed in May 2017 during focused surveys and was not observed during subsequent visits. In accordance with the survey protocol guidelines, this individual was determined to be a migrant subspecies and not southwestern willow flycatcher. Therefore, direct impacts to breeding willow flycatchers would not occur.
A total of 2,407.40 acres of USFWS-designated Critical Habitat for coastal California gnatcatcher occur on the project site.
Implementation of the proposed project would result in impacts to 987.58 acres of Critical Habitat for coastal California gnatcatcher, RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
139
including both permanent and temporary impacts; however, only 399.19 acres would be considered suitable habitat for this species.
Impacts would occur to 12 coastal California gnatcatcher use areas within the designated Critical Habitat area.
A total of 2,426.06 acres of proposed USFWS Critical Habitat for Hermes copper butterfly occur on the project site. It should be noted that the USFWS modeling used to prepare the proposed Critical Habitat designations is based on a combination of internal and external opinion and buffering of assumed habitat and does not take into account the site-specific suitable habitat. In this instance, suitable habitat refers to redberry buckthorn within 15 feet of California buckwheat. Therefore, proposed USFWS Critical Habitat designations can overestimate the actual suitable habitat within an area and include many acres of unsuitable habitat (e.g., areas where redberry buckthorn and/or California buckwheat are not present).
Implementation of the proposed project would result in impacts to 974.11 acres of proposed Critical Habitat for Hermes copper butterfly, including both permanent and temporary impacts; however, only 52.97 acres would be considered potentially suitable habitat for this species.
It is assumed that this is a hardline Covered Project under the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan. As such, impacts to covered narrow endemic species are subject to the narrow endemic species policy identified in the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan which requires 100 percent conservation within open space (i.e., hardline preserve) and 80 percent conservation through translocation within permanent impact (i.e., take-authorized) areas.
Indirect Impacts. Temporary construction-related indirect impacts to wildlife generally include noise, vibration, lighting, increased human activity, hydrologic and water quality (e.g., chemical pollution, increased turbidity, excessive sedimentation, flow interruptions, and changes in water temperature), and trash and garbage, which can attract predators, such as American crows, common ravens, and coyotes, and mesopredators, such as raccoons and striped skunks.
Permanent development-related indirect impacts to wildlife generally include noise, lighting, increased predation or harassment by pet, stray, and feral cats and dogs as well as other mesopredators, invasion by exotic wildlife species, pesticide use, altered fire regimes, and increased roadkill.
Due to the probable increase in manicured lawns and decrease in overall open space, there may be increased parasitism of native birds by brown-headed cowbirds (Molothrus ater). Parasitism to shrub nesting bird species would be a significant indirect permanent RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
140
impact. Implementation of the proposed project would result in potentially significant impacts to nesting birds.
Permanent indirect impacts to special-status wildlife species could occur from Argentine ants. Argentine ants are known to displace native insects that are the main prey base for many special-status wildlife species and possibly help promote other non-native invertebrates such as earwigs and sowbugs, which could affect the Quino checkerspot butterfly.
Western spadefoot and San Diego fairy shrimp are generally vulnerable to exotic wildlife (including African clawed frog) and disease (e.g., viruses and chytridiomycosis caused by the chytrid fungus). The lower seasonal basins in the western portion of the project site (typically adjacent to Goodan Ranch/Sycamore Canyon County Preserve) support predatory African clawed frogs. This species could have a negative permanent effect on remaining San Diego fairy shrimp, western spadefoot, and other native amphibians that use the basins as breeding resources and could also have a negative effect on the success of created basins in which they could invade. Implementation of the proposed project would result in potentially significant indirect impacts to western spadefoot and San Diego fairy shrimp.
Project construction could result in temporary construction and permanent development-related indirect impacts to individuals and suitable habitat for reptile species and small mammals.
Implementation of the proposed project would result in potentially significant impacts to special-status reptiles and small mammal species. In addition to general temporary construction-related and permanent development-related indirect effects to host plants on site (e.g., dust, trampling, non-native species), the Quino checkerspot butterfly and Hermes copper butterfly are vulnerable to pesticides that could kill individuals and wildfire that could eliminate host plants and kill individuals, including adults and larvae. Adult butterflies also would be at risk of habitat fragmentation, isolation and vehicle collisions when dispersing. Wildfires may result in loss of habitat for these species as well.
Permanent development-related indirect impacts may occur to grasshopper sparrow from altered fire regimes. The grasshopper sparrow prefers fairly continuous grassland (preferably native grasslands) for foraging and nesting with occasional taller grasses, forbs, or shrubs for song perches. The reduction or elimination of wildfires on the project site could cause the annual grassland habitat to permanently revert back to scrub habitat and contribute to a potentially significant impact to the grasshopper sparrow.
RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
141
Mitigation Measures BIO-1, BIO-2, BIO-6 through BIO-8, and BIO10 through BIO-20 would mitigate all direct and indirect permanent and temporary impacts to sensitive wildlife species to below a level of significance. EIR Table 4.3-8a lists special-status wildlife species that would be subject to direct impacts from project development and the mitigation measure proposed to reduce the impact to less than significant for each species.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-6 through BIO-10 and BIO-20 and BIO-21 would reduce indirect impacts to sensitive wildlife species on the project site to a less than significant level through non-invasive herbicide use; conformance with the SWPPP; biological monitoring; signs/fencing; planting of cactus patches, poison oak, and stinging nettle along the development–Habitat Preserve interface; non-invasive herbicide use; and implementation of a Fire Protection Plan.
Impacts to special-status amphibian and reptile species would be reduced to a less than significant level through implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1, preserving suitable habitat, and BIO-2, restoring temporary impacts to suitable habitat. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-11 would reduce indirect impacts to native ants to less than significant through control measures and quarterly monitoring of Argentine ants that would occur along the construction–Habitat Preserve interface. In addition, implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-12 and BIO-13 would reduce impacts to western spadefoot to less than significant requiring a Vernal Pool Mitigation Plan and relocating individuals in impact areas to suitable breeding habitat outside of impact areas. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-19, which would monitor for presence of African clawed frogs within seasonal basins and require eradication if needed, would reduce potential impacts to western spadefoot and San Diego fairy shrimp to a less than significant level.
Impacts to nesting birds would be reduced to a less than significant level through implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-14, nesting bird surveys; BIO-15, restoring temporary impacts in wetland areas; BIO-16, utilizing a coastal cactus wren management plan; and BIO17, brown-headed cowbird trapping on the project site.
Impacts to special-status mammal species would be reduced to a less than significant level through implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, management of the Habitat Preserve.
Impacts to special-status invertebrate species would be reduced to a less than significant level through implementation of Mitigation RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
142
Measures BIO-1, BIO-12, and BIO-18, restoring and enhancing suitable habitat.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1, BIO-2, BIO-6 through BIO-10, and Mitigation Measures BIO-11 through BIO-21 would reduce potentially significant direct and indirect impacts to specialstatus wildlife species to less than significant.
BIO-1: Preserve Management Plan. Within the on-site Habitat Preserve, the applicant shall preserve in perpetuity a total of 1,650.38 acres of on-site Multiple Species Conservation Program open space including 1,518.50 acres within the Habitat Preserve (including 1,448.84 acres of sensitive upland habitats), 10.52 acres of proposed trails, 6.88 acres of San Diego Gas & Electric access road, and 114.47 acres of on-site temporary impacts that shall become part of the Habitat Preserve once restored (see Mitigation Measure BIO-2, Upland Restoration Plan).
Preservation of on-site open space requires recordation of a Habitat Preserve conservation easement and in-perpetuity management by the Preserve Manager in accordance with the Preserve Management Plan, which would be funded by an
endowment or other acceptable permanent funding
mechanism. The Preserve Management Plan includes a
combination of active and passive restoration programs to gradually increase biological resources within open space areas through periodic treatments, mainly involving seed application on a landscape level combined with weed control activities.
An example diagram of a Preserve Management Plan is included in the Biological Resources Report for the Fanita Ranch Project (Appendix D), Figure 6-1, Potential Restoration Treatment Areas, and an example diagram of the rotational hexagonal treatment areas is included as Figure 6-2, Habitat Treatment Areas, but the actual distribution of restoration and long-term treatment blocks is in the Preserve Management Plan and the restoration plans. As shown in Appendix D, Figure 6-2,
Conceptual Habitat Treatment Areas, the Habitat Preserve was divided into Zones A and B. Zone A includes areas that will receive treatment on a rotational basis, whereas Zone B will receive as-needed treatment since this area of the Habitat Preserve is more intact than in Zone A. Each hexagon is approximately 12 acres and numbered 1 through 8, which
represents the year that treatment activities will take place within that hexagon. This would be separate from the
treatments occurring from restoration activities associated with the proposed project’s temporary impacts. Some of these RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
143
treatments shall be directed to increase biological resources for specific Covered Species such as Quino checkerspot butterfly, Hermes copper butterfly, coastal California gnatcatcher, and coastal cactus wren. It is anticipated that gradual habitat enhancements shall focus on mapped disturbed habitat and mapped disturbed native vegetation communities such as
coastal sage scrub and valley grasslands. The Preserve
Management Plan addresses the salvage of individual plants of sensitive species from the project development impact footprint prior to construction and translocation into open space areas.
The Preserve Management Plan addresses long-term,
permanently funded management of the on-site open space that accomplishes the goal of maintaining appropriate, high-value native plant communities throughout the Habitat Preserve. The Preserve Management Plan addresses management and
monitoring of vegetation communities through specific
minimum survey and management requirements. Multiple
Species Conservation Program-level monitoring is the
responsibility of the City of Santee or designee. The Preserve Management Plan discusses appropriate signage and fencing to protect certain sensitive resources, trash receptacle placement, and bicycle access and speed limits in the Habitat Preserve. The Preserve Management Plan also designates and describes all permitted land uses and activities (e.g., trails and utilities) in the open space area and how impacts to preserved vegetation communities shall be avoided and minimized. The Preserve Management Plan includes long-term management
and monitoring measures for four covered plant species
(variegated dudleya, San Diego goldenstar, willowy monardella, and San Diego barrel cactus) and one sensitive plant species (Coulter’s saltbush) to maximize the likelihood of their longterm viability.
As identified in Table 4.3-9, temporary impacts to 116.45 acres (including on- and off-site areas) of sensitive upland vegetation communities are expected with project implementation. All onsite temporary impacts, totaling 114.47 acres, shall become part of the Habitat Preserve once restored, including 110.59 acres of on-site sensitive upland vegetation communities.
Table 4.3-9. Restoration Requirement for Temporary Impacts to Sensitive Upland Vegetation Communities
Vegetation Community
Temporary
Impacts
(On Site)
Temporary
Impacts
(Off Site) Mitigation Ratio 1
Total Restoration
Requirement
(Acres)
Scrub and Chaparral
RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
144
Table 4.3-9. Restoration Requirement for Temporary Impacts to Sensitive Upland Vegetation Communities
Vegetation Community
Temporary
Impacts
(On Site)
Temporary
Impacts
(Off Site) Mitigation Ratio 1
Total Restoration
Requirement
(Acres)
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub 33.09 1.33 1:1 34.42
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub (Disturbed) 4.20 3.28 1:1 7.48 Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub/Valley Needlegrass
Grassland
0.50 0.09 1:1 0.60
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub/Valley Needlegrass
Grassland (Disturbed)
1.48 0.94 1:1 2.41
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub–Baccharis-dominated 0.62 — 1:1 0.62 Granitic Southern Mixed Chaparral 45.53 — 1:1 45.53
Scrub and Chaparral Subtotal 85.43 5.64 — 91.07
Grasslands, Vernal Pools, Meadows, and Other Herb Communities Valley Needlegrass Grassland 7.92 — 2:1 15.85
Valley Needlegrass Grassland (Disturbed) 5.84 — 2:1 11.68 Non-Native Grassland 11.40 0.21 1:1 11.61
Grasslands Subtotal 25.16 0.21 — 39.14
Total Acreage2 110.59 5.86 — 130.21
1 Mitigation ratios are based on Table 5-14 in the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan (City of Santee 2018). 2 Totals may not sum due to rounding.
BIO-2: Upland Restoration Plan. Temporary impacts to sensitive upland vegetation communities occurring in both on- and offsite improvement areas are anticipated to require a total of 130.21 acres of restoration. Temporary impacts shall require restoration in place. A 1:1 ratio of in-place restoration for impacts to native grassland areas (i.e., valley and needlegrass grassland [including disturbed]), in addition to a 1:1 ratio of preservation and/or creation of native grassland within the Habitat Preserve, would satisfy the 2:1 mitigation ratio for impacts to native grassland outlined in Table 5-14 in the Draft Santee Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan.
Restoration and creation of native grassland will have the added benefit of increasing suitable habitat for grasshopper sparrow.
Temporary impact areas shall be restored to the appropriate native vegetation community type. In order to determine the appropriate restored habitat, the Upland Restoration Plan includes an evaluation of restoration suitability specific to proposed vegetation types, soil preparation, plant palettes, irrigation, erosion control, maintenance and monitoring program, and success criteria. All areas shall be monitored for a minimum of 5 years to maximize the likelihood of
RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
145
establishment of intended plant communities. If temporary impact areas are not considered appropriate for restoration of the sensitive native plant community that originally was mapped in that area, these areas shall be considered
permanently impacted and mitigated in conformance with
mitigation ratios for permanent impacts to sensitive upland vegetation communities as outlined in Mitigation Measure BIO1, Preserve Management Plan. There is currently a surplus of approximately 145.51 acres in the Habitat Preserve that would be available to accommodate these additional impacts if deemed necessary. The Upland Restoration Plan is included as Appendix Q in the Biological Resources Report for the Fanita Ranch Project.
BIO-3: Narrow Endemic Plant Species. Mitigation requirements for impacts to special-status plant species proposed under the Draft Santee Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan shall seek to establish adequate preservation of the species to ensure long-term population stability. The narrow endemic species policy identified in the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan requires 100 percent conservation in open space (i.e., hardline preserve) and 80 percent conservation through translocation in permanent impact (i.e., take-authorized) areas.
Based on the current project impacts, two special-status plant species (Coulter’s saltbush and San Diego goldenstar) shall require translocation of individuals and/or planting to meet the 80 percent conservation in take-authorized areas. Conservation of Coulter’s saltbush, although not a Covered Species, shall be treated in a manner consistent with the narrow endemic policy of the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan. Implementation of this policy ensures adequate conservation of each species in the subarea and regionally in the MSCP Plan area. Mitigation requirements are summarized in Table 4.3-10.
Table 4.3-10. Mitigation Requirements for Impacts to Sensitive Plant Species Species/Status
(Federal/State/CNPS/
Draft Santee
MSCP Subarea Plan)
Total
Individuals
Individuals
Impacted
(Percent
Impacted)
Habitat Preserve
Individuals (Percent
Conserved)
Individuals
Needed to Meet
the 80%
Conservation
Requirement
Translocation
Requirement1
(Individuals)
Coulter’s saltbush
(Atriplex coulteri)2
None/None/1B.2/None
65 15 (23%) 50* (77%) 52 2
RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
146
Table 4.3-10. Mitigation Requirements for Impacts to Sensitive Plant Species Species/Status
(Federal/State/CNPS/
Draft Santee
MSCP Subarea Plan)
Total
Individuals
Individuals
Impacted
(Percent
Impacted)
Habitat Preserve
Individuals (Percent
Conserved)
Individuals
Needed to Meet
the 80%
Conservation
Requirement
Translocation
Requirement1
(Individuals)
San Diego goldenstar
(Bloomeria
clevelandii)2
None/None/1B.1/Cover
ed
18,318 7,964 (44%) 10,354 (56%) 14,654 4,300
Variegated dudleya
(Dudleya variegata)3
None/None/1B.2/Cover
ed NE
8,942 786 (9%) 8,156 (91%) 7,154 0
San Diego barrel
cactus (Ferocactus
viridescens)3
None/None/2B.1/Cover
ed
4,856 585 (12%) 4,270 (88%) 3,885 0
Willowy monardella
(Monardella viminea)
FE/CE/1B.1/Covered
1,622 1** (<1%) 1,621 (99%) 1,298 0
Notes: CNPS = California Native Plant Society; MSCP = Multiple Species Conservation Program. 1 The number of individuals proposed for translocation is the minimum needed to meet 80 percent preservation. It is likely that more individuals will be translocated to ensure translocation success. 2 Species that require translocation to meet 80 percent preservation. 3 This species meets the 80 percent preservation; however, individuals occurring within the impact area will be targeted for collection and translocation.
* It should be noted that these individuals do not occur with the Habitat Preserve. However, since they occur in the impact neutral area and will not be impacted with project implementation, they are considered preserved. ** All impacts to the 49 individuals occurring along existing retained trails and adjacent to proposed trail creation areas would be avoided through the maintenance and management of trails as outlined in the Public Access Plan (Appendix D).
Status Legend
Federal
FE: Federally listed as endangered.
State
CE: State-listed as endangered.
CRPR: California Rare Plant Rank (previously known as the CNPS List) 1B: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere 2B: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere 4: Plants of limited distribution – a watch list
Threat Rank
.1 – Seriously threatened in California (over 80 percent of occurrences threatened/high degree and immediacy of threat) .2 – Fairly threatened in California (20–80 percent occurrences threatened/moderate degree and immediacy of threat) Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan (City of Santee 2018)
Covered: Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan Covered Species Coulter’s saltbush and San Diego goldenstar require
translocation or planting of impacted populations in order to adequately mitigate project impacts. Translocation requires evaluation of the donor site for suitability of translocation method and of the receptor site for suitability of sustaining Coulter’s saltbush and San Diego goldenstar. The translocation program is detailed in the Upland Restoration Plan and Preserve RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
147
Management Plan and will be integrated with the overall uplands and wetlands restoration of the project site.
The rare plant mitigation component of the Upland Restoration Plan discusses appropriate methods for plant salvage and/or growing and planting; in general, the impacted population of the sensitive plant shall be targeted for salvage and translocation in order to meet the 80 percent minimum translocation survival rate. Where this is not feasible, germination and growing of appropriate genetic stock shall occur and be planted on site in suitable receptor sites. Success of the translocation program in the receptor sites such that the plant and acreage goals as required in Table 4.3-10 are established shall be measured through 5 years of monitoring and annual reporting to the City of Santee.
BIO-4: Oak Tree Restoration. Impacts to 5 individual Engelmann oak trees and 17 individual oak trees in the coast live oak woodland vegetation community shall be mitigated at a ratio of 3:1; that is, three established sleeve-sized seedlings for each mature tree (i.e., oak trees with at least one trunk of 6-inch or more diameter at breast height or multi-trunked native oak trees with aggregate diameter of 10-inch diameter at breast height) to be impacted by the proposed project. Therefore, a total of 66 oak trees shall be planted to meet the 3:1 mitigation ratio requirement. Oak tree restoration is included as a component of the Wetland Mitigation Plan (included in the Biological Resources Report for the Fanita Ranch Project as Appendix S), which shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Santee prior to issuance of mass grading permits. The oak tree restoration component of the Wetland Mitigation Plan shall be used to guide the oak restoration effort. Replanting shall occur in the general areas where grasslands occur adjacent to existing oak trees and shall be conducted by a City of Santeeapproved contractor. “Established” shall be defined as 5 years of sustained life without the assistance of irrigation and growth rates that are similar to those of naturally occurring reference oak trees. In the event the “established” success criteria cannot be achieved, the applicant and the City of Santee shall jointly agree on the implementation of remedial measures to mitigate for impacts to individual oak trees.
BIO-5: Preconstruction Surveys and Avoidance and Minimization Measures for Special-Status Plant Species. Within the 13.44 acres of off-site impact areas not previously surveyed along Magnolia Avenue and prior to the commencement of
construction activities in suitable habitat, a preconstruction RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
148
survey shall be conducted in suitable habitat, determined by the project biologist, to determine whether special-status plants are present in the construction zone or within 50 feet of the construction zone boundary. Focused surveys for specialstatus plant species shall be conducted by a qualified biologist according to the California Native Plant Society Botanical Survey Guidelines, Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Populations and Natural Communities, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service General Rare Plant Survey Guidelines. The preconstruction survey shall be conducted during a period when the target species would be observable and identifiable (e.g., blooming period for annuals).
The target species list will include all species observed on the project site and those that have a high to moderate potential to occur in the construction zone or within 50 feet of the construction zone.
Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures
If any covered narrow endemic plant species are detected during the preconstruction surveys, impacts would be subject to the narrow endemic species policy (Mitigation Measure BIO3, Narrow Endemic Plant Species), and the location and number of individuals will be mapped and analyzed. If impacts to any covered narrow endemic species exceeds the threshold for the narrow endemic species policy, the following measures shall be implemented:
1. Special-status plants in the vicinity of the disturbance shall be temporarily fenced or prominently flagged and a 50-foot buffer established around the populations to prevent
inadvertent encroachment by vehicles and equipment during the activity.
2. Seeds/bulbs shall be collected and stored in appropriate storage conditions (e.g., cool and dry), and
dispersed/transplanted following the construction activity and reapplication of salvaged topsoil.
3. The top 6 inches of topsoil shall be salvaged, stockpiled, and replaced as soon as practicable after project completion. The salvaged topsoil shall be redistributed at the same depth and contoured to blend with surrounding grades.
BIO-6: Land Use Adjacency Guidelines. Mitigation for potential permanent indirect impacts to vegetation communities, wildlife, and jurisdictional resources shall require implementation of RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
149
Land Use Adjacency Guidelines as specified in the Draft Santee Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan or the Preserve Management Plan. The City of Santee shall ensure that all project development adjacent to the boundary of the Habitat Preserve adhere to the following adjacency guidelines as outlined in the Draft Santee Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan:
• Drainage — All developed and paved areas must prevent the release of toxins, chemicals, petroleum products, excess water, exotic plant materials, and other elements that might degrade or harm the natural environment or ecosystem
processes within the preserves. This shall be accomplished using a variety of methods, including natural detention basins, grass swales, or mechanical trapping devices. The project design shall comply with the Standard Urban Stormwater
Management Plan such that stormwater flows conveyed from the project site do not adversely affect off-site vegetation communities or jurisdictional resources by significantly altering natural hydrologic patterns.
• Lighting — Lighting of all developed areas adjacent to the Habitat Preserve shall be directed away from the Habitat Preserve wherever feasible and consistent with public safety.
Low-pressure sodium lighting shall be used whenever possible. • Noise — Uses adjacent to the Habitat Preserve shall be designed to minimize noise impacts. Berms or walls shall be constructed adjacent to commercial areas and any other use that may introduce noises that could affect or interfere with wildlife utilization of the Habitat Preserve.
• Invasive species — No invasive non-native plant or
wildlife species shall be introduced into areas immediately adjacent to the Habitat Preserve. All open space slopes immediately adjacent to the Habitat Preserve shall be planted with native species that reflect the adjacent native habitat. • Buffers — There are no requirements for buffers outside the Habitat Preserve, except as may be required for wetlands pursuant to federal and/or state permits or by California Environmental Quality Act mitigation conditions.
• Fuel modification zones — Fuel modification zones shall be fully contained adjacent to the project’s development. Prior to implementing the project development adjacent to the Habitat Preserve, the local fire authority shall review and approve proposed fuel modification treatments to ensure that no new fuel modification will be required within the Habitat Preserve.
RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
150
Conformance with the Land Use Adjacency Guidelines listed above shall be made a condition of project approval and shall be included in Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions.
BIO-7: Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. The applicant shall prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan pursuant to National Pollution Discharge Elimination System General Construction Permit (Water Quality Order 99-08-DWQ). The Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan shall include, at a minimum, the best management practices listed below. The combined implementation of these requirements shall protect adjacent habitats and special-status species during
construction to the maximum extent practicable with the goal of providing multiple beneficial uses. At a minimum, the following measures and/or restrictions shall be incorporated into the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and noted on
construction plans, where appropriate, to avoid impacts on special-status species, sensitive vegetation communities, and/or jurisdictional aquatic resources during construction. An approved biologist (see Mitigation Measure BIO-8, Approved Biologist) shall verify the implementation of the following design requirements:
1. Fully covered trash receptacles that are wildlife-proof and weather-proof shall be installed and used by the operator to contain all food, food scraps, food wrappers, beverage
containers, and other miscellaneous trash. Littering shall be prohibited, and trash shall be removed from construction areas daily. All food-related trash and garbage shall be removed from the construction sites on a daily basis.
2. Pets on or adjacent to construction sites shall not be permitted by the contractor.
3. Any equipment or vehicles driven and/or operated shall abide by a speed limit of 15 miles per hour during daylight hours and 10 miles per hour during dark hours.
4. Construction activity shall not be permitted in jurisdictional aquatic resources, except as authorized by applicable law and permit(s), including permits and authorizations
approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Regional Water Quality Control Board.
5. Temporary structures and storage of construction materials shall not be located in jurisdictional aquatic resources.
RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
151
6. Staging/storage areas for construction equipment and materials shall not be located in jurisdictional aquatic resources.
7. Any equipment or vehicles driven and/or operated in
jurisdictional aquatic resources, as authorized by applicable law and permit(s), shall be checked and maintained by the operator daily to prevent leaks of oil or other petroleum products that could be deleterious to aquatic life if
introduced to the watercourse.
8. No stationary equipment, such as motors, pumps,
generators, and welders, or fuel storage tanks, shall be located within jurisdictional aquatic resources.
9. No debris, bark, slash sawdust, rubbish, cement or concrete, or washing thereof; oil; or petroleum products shall occur where it may be washed by rainfall or runoff into
jurisdictional aquatic resources.
10. When construction operations are completed, any excess materials or debris shall be removed from the work area according to the conditions outlined in the permit(s).
11. No equipment maintenance shall be performed within or near jurisdictional aquatic resources, where petroleum
products or other pollutants from the equipment may enter these areas.
BIO-8: Approved Biologist. To prevent inadvertent disturbance to areas outside the limits of grading, all grading locations shall be monitored by a biologist. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit for areas adjacent to open space, the applicant shall retain a City of Santee-approved biologist for monitoring activities. The biologist shall monitor all grading and other significant ground-disturbing activities in or adjacent to open space areas. The biologist shall monitor these activities to ensure that the applicant complies with the appropriate standard conditions and mitigation measures, including the following:
1. Prior to the commencement of clearing and grading operations or other activities involving significant soil disturbance, all open space areas shall be identified with temporary fencing or other markers clearly visible to construction personnel.
RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
152
2. A contractor education program shall be implemented for all workers and subcontractors and shall include a description of environmental restrictions relevant to construction and the penalties for violations. A chain of command and protocol for communicating problems or potential construction changes that may affect biological resources shall be established with the contractor and the City of Santee. Workers shall be made aware of what resources require protection through the use of photos or on-the-ground demonstration.
3. A monitoring biologist acceptable to the City of Santee shall be on site during any clearing of natural vegetation (i.e., annual ground cover, shrubs, or trees). The monitoring biologist shall flush special-status species (i.e., avian or other mobile species) from occupied habitat areas immediately prior to brush clearing and earthmoving activities.
4. Following the completion of initial clearing/grading/ earthmoving activities, all open space areas to be avoided by construction equipment and personnel shall be marked with temporary fencing and other appropriate markers clearly visible to construction personnel. No construction access, parking, or storage of equipment or materials shall be permitted within such marked areas.
5. In areas bordering the open space area, vehicle transportation routes between cut-and-fill locations shall be restricted to a minimal number consistent with project construction
requirements. Waste dirt or rubble shall not be deposited on adjacent protected habitats. Regular preconstruction meetings involving the monitoring biologist, construction supervisors, and equipment operators shall be conducted and documented to ensure maximum practicable adherence to these measures.
6. The monitoring biologist shall verify that the construction site is implementing the following Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan best management practices:
a. Dust-control fencing
b. Removal of construction debris and a clean work area RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
153
c. Covered trash receptacles that are wildlife-proof and weather-proof
d. Prohibition of pets on the construction site
e. A speed limit of 15 miles per hour during the daylight hours and 10 miles per hour during nighttime hours
7. Open space areas in the likely dust drift radius of construction areas shall be periodically sprayed with water to reduce accumulated dust on the leaves, as recommended by the
monitoring biologist.
8. Oversee the construction site so that cover and/or escape routes for wildlife from excavated areas shall be provided on a daily basis. All steep trenches, holes, and excavations during construction shall be covered at night with backfill, plywood, metal plates, or other means, and the edges covered with soils and plastic sheeting such that small wildlife cannot access them. Soil piles shall be covered at night to prevent wildlife from burrowing in. The edges of the sheeting shall be weighed down by sandbags. These areas may also be fenced to prevent
wildlife from gaining access. Exposed trenches, holes, and excavations shall be inspected twice daily (i.e., each morning and prior to sealing the exposed area) by an approved biologist to monitor for wildlife entrapment. Excavations shall provide an earthen ramp to allow for a wildlife escape route.
BIO-9: Habitat Preserve Protection. In order to protect against incursions by domestic pets, children, or recreationists, brush management zones, temporary impact zones between
roadways, manufactured slopes in development areas, and open space shall be planted with native cactus species, and redberry buckthorn as appropriate. Native cactus shall be planted so that it does not hinder fire access but shall be clustered so that it discourages or inhibits encroachment. An added benefit is that these areas eventually could support coastal cactus wren. Suitable areas, acreages, and methods are addressed in the Preserve Management Plan.
BIO-10: Weed Control Treatments. Weed control treatments shall include all legally permitted chemical, manual, and mechanical methods applied with the authorization of the County of San Diego agriculture commissioner. The application of herbicides RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
154
shall be in compliance with all state and federal laws and regulations under the prescription of a pest control advisor and implemented by a licensed applicator. Where manual and/or mechanical methods are used, disposal of the plant debris shall follow the regulations set by the County of San Diego
agriculture commissioner. The timing of the weed control treatment shall be determined for each plant species in consultation with the pest control advisor, the County of San Diego agriculture commissioner, and the California Invasive Plant Council with the goal of controlling populations before they start producing seeds. Additionally, the herbicides used during landscaping activities shall be contained within the proposed project’s impact footprint.
BIO-11: Argentine Ant Control and Monitoring. Upon initiating construction, including landscaping in the development area, quarterly monitoring by a qualified biologist shall be initiated for Argentine ants along the development–Habitat Preserve interface at sentinel locations where invasions could occur (e.g., where moist microhabitats that attract Argentine ants may be created). A qualified biologist shall determine the monitoring locations. Ant pitfall traps, bait sampling, or similarly appropriate sampling method shall be placed in these sentinel locations and operated on a quarterly basis to detect invasion by Argentine ants. If Argentine ants are detected during monitoring, direct control measures shall be implemented immediately to help prevent the invasion from worsening.
These direct controls may include but are not limited to nest/mound insecticide treatment or available natural control methods being developed. A general reconnaissance of the infested area shall also be conducted to identify and correct the possible source of the invasion, such as uncontrolled urban runoff, leaking pipes, or collected water. Quarterly monitoring reports, as needed, shall be submitted to the City of Santee Development Services Department. Monitoring reports shall include remedial recommendations and issue resolution
discussions when necessary. Monitoring and control of
Argentine ants shall occur in perpetuity and shall be included in the Preserve Management Plan (included as Appendix P in the Biological Technical Report for the Fanita Ranch Project).
See Biological Technical Report for the Fanita Ranch Project, Appendix P, for additional details on monitoring methods and control of Argentine ants within the Habitat Preserve.
BIO-12: Vernal Pool Mitigation Plan. A Vernal Pool Mitigation Plan (Appendix R of the Biological Resources Technical Report for the Fanita Ranch Project) has been prepared and would allow RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
155
disturbance of seasonal basin features (i.e., natural vernal pools and street ruts containing vernal pool indicator plant and wildlife species). The Vernal Pool Mitigation Plan is subject to approval from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and shall comply with Clean Water Act Section 404 and 401 permit/certification by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Regional Water Quality Control Board, respectively, as well as federal Endangered Species Act requirements. The Vernal Pool Mitigation Plan describes and identifies those areas slated for preservation, rehabilitation and enhancement, and requires the creation of new seasonal basin resources within the Habitat Preserve as mitigation for anticipated development impacts.
The Vernal Pool Mitigation Plan is focused on seasonal basin features and associated upland watershed habitat
enhancement opportunities and cover the following: vernal pool design and location, planting plan (planting palettes for both vernal pool and upland watershed habitats), and
supplemental water program; maintenance and monitoring
guidelines; San Diego fairy shrimp and western spadefoot translocation; and ownership arrangements and long-term management strategy.
Natural vernal pools shall be mitigated at a 4:1 ratio, including preservation and management of existing pools,
rehabilitation/enhancement of existing features within the Habitat Preserve, and creation of new features. Constructed pools (i.e., artificial features and street ruts) shall be mitigated through rehabilitation/enhancement and/or creation at a 3:1 or 2:1 ratio, depending on whether the feature supports plant or wildlife indicator species. Rehabilitation/enhancement shall occur in existing features within the Habitat Preserve that are not included as vernal pools (i.e., street ruts lacking vernal pool indicator species). This would entail repairing degraded features through the manipulation of surface topography to improve the overall ecological function of the vernal pool, control of invasive species, and planting of appropriate native species. Creation would consist of establishing new vernal pools in areas where they did not previously occur and/or the returning of areas to a pre-existing condition through
manipulation of surface topography to support inundation and ponding for vernal pools. Created features shall exhibit the same or improved characteristics as those within the impact area currently supporting fairy shrimp, indicator vernal pool plant species, and western spadefoot, and shall maintain comparable individual pool sizes and watersheds.
RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
156
Existing permanently impacted features that support San Diego fairy shrimp and indicator vernal pool plant species shall have the top 1 to 3 inches of soil removed and set aside prior to mass grading. This soil shall be kept in a dry location until it is deposited into the new features. Once the created or enhanced pools are proven to hold water for the appropriate amount of time, they shall be inoculated with the soil from the impacted features. The acreage of surface area that shall be created shall be verified using on-site soil hydrologic properties and modeling of rainfall seasons. The target surface area acreage is
0.50 acre, based on the acreage of impacted features recorded of which 0.40 acre shall need to include creation of new pools (Table 4.3-11). The Vernal Pool Mitigation Plan is included as Appendix R in the Biological Technical Report for the Fanita Ranch Project. This plan may be modified and augmented
pending U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and wildlife agency (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Wildlife) review.
Table 4.3-11 identifies mitigation requirements for impacts to vernal pools.
Table 4.3-11. Mitigation Requirements for Impacts to Vernal Pools Vernal Pool Type Impacts
Mitigation
Ratio1
Mitigation
Acreage
Mitigation Credits
(Habitat Preserve)
Total Mitigation
Requirement2
(Acres)
Natural Vernal Pool 0.02 4:1 0.09 0.10 +<0. 01
Street Rut – containing
plant indicator species
0.03 3:1 0.08 0.13 +0. 05
Street Rut – containing
wildlife indicator species
0.36* 2:1 0.72 0.17 -0.56
Total Acreage 0.41* — 0.90 0.40** 0.50
Notes: Totals may not sum due to rounding.
1 Mitigation ratios are based on the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan (City of Santee 2018). 2 Mitigation shall include both rehabilitation/enhancement of existing features within the Habitat Preserve and creation of new features. The exact breakdown by mitigation type shall be included in the Vernal Pool Mitigation Plan. * This total includes 0.01 acre of off-site impacts.
** This acreage shall be included within the Habitat Preserve and shall be subject to long-term management and monitoring as directed by the Draft Santee Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan (City of Santee 2018).
BIO-13: Western Spadefoot Relocation. During the wet season prior to clearing or grading operations, biologists shall collect western spadefoot adults from areas within 300 meters of known
occupied pools. Adults shall be relocated to another area on the project site that has suitable breeding habitat and few or no western spadefoot individuals.
RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
157
Details on the western spadefoot relocation effort are included as a component of the Vernal Pool Mitigation Plan (included in the Biological Technical Report for the Fanita Ranch Project as Appendix R), available to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) for review, and is subject to approval by the wildlife agencies (U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Wildlife). The Western Spadefoot Relocation Plan includes, at a minimum, the following elements:
• The timing and methods for surveying, capturing, and
releasing adults. Long-term care methods shall also be
discussed if this option is used.
• Collection shall occur during the first three or four large rain events of the season. Ideally, these rain events shall produce a minimum of 0.20 inch during a 24-hour period.
BIO-14: Nesting Bird Survey. To avoid impacts to nesting migratory birds and raptors and other nesting birds, which are a sensitive biological resources pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and the California Fish and Game Code, breeding season avoidance shall be
implemented and included on all construction plans.
Except as specified below, there shall be no brushing, clearing and/or grading allowed during the breeding season of migratory birds (between February 15 and ) or raptors (January 1 and August 31) or coastal California gnatcatcher (between February 15 and August 15). If vegetation is to be cleared during the nesting season, all suitable habitat within 500 feet of the impact area shall be thoroughly surveyed for the presence of nesting birds by the qualified biologist no earlier than 72 hours prior to clearing. If project activities are delayed or suspended for more than 14 days during the nesting bird season, surveys should be repeated. The survey results shall be submitted by the
applicant to the City of Santee Director of Development Services. If any active nests are detected, the area shall be flagged and mapped on the construction plans along with an initial 100-foot buffer for non-listed passerines, 300-foot buffer for listed passerines (e.g., coastal California gnatcatcher), and up to a 500-foot maximum buffer for raptors. The nests shall be avoided and buffers maintained until the nesting cycle is complete or it is determined that the nest has failed. The final appropriate buffer distance, as well as cycle completion or nest failure, shall be determined by an approved biologist. Factors used to determine and guide the appropriate buffer distance shall include individual pair behavior responses, amount of buffering topography, proximity to existing disturbance, and RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
158
ambient noise levels. In addition, an approved biologist shall be present on the project site to monitor the vegetation removal to ensure that nests not detected during the initial survey are not disturbed (see Mitigation Measure BIO-8, Approved Biologist).
If the monitoring biologist determines that the nesting activities are being substantially disrupted by adjacent construction activity, the City of Santee shall be notified, and measures to avoid or minimize such impacts shall be developed. Such measures might include installation of noise barriers, increased buffering, stopping construction in the area, or other measures, as developed.
BIO-15: Wetland Mitigation Plan. A total of 9.81 acres of impacts to jurisdictional resources, including 8.04 acres of permanent impacts and 1.77 acres of temporary impacts, would occur on and off site. Impacts to jurisdictional resources require permits and authorizations by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and California
Department of Fish and Wildlife prior to impacts. The applicant shall provide the City of Santee with permits and authorizations from each resource agency demonstrating approval of project impacts to aquatic resources prior to the approval of the grading and improvement plans.
A Wetland Mitigation Plan (included in the Biological Resources Technical Report for the Fanita Ranch Project as Appendix S) has been prepared and describes the on-site mitigation
program to mitigate anticipated temporary and permanent development impacts to waters of the United States and wetland vegetation communities. Both on- and off-site mitigation sites are needed to provide full compensation for project impacts, and therefore, two plans shall be required. The off-site mitigation will provide wetland habitat through a combination of habitat preservation, enhancement, restoration, and creation.
With this program, wetland habitat that is comparable in habitat type and quality to the impact area shall be enhanced, restored, or created within the City of Santee’s jurisdiction and within the San Diego River and/or its tributaries. The off-site restoration program shall be subject to the same standards and rules as the on-site mitigation program, including management of access control, invasive species, and native vegetation cover and diversity. Off-site restoration shall include these management efforts and a program of revegetation of wetland species with planting and seeding. The off-site habitat creation shall also include potential topographic alteration to expand and create bed and bank areas appropriate for the establishment of new wetland habitat. At least 7.53 acres of off-site mitigation shall be RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
159
habitat creation and/or re-establishment. This total is based on the current aquatic resource assessment and impacts, and the no-net-loss requirement in the Draft Santee Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan. The off-site
preservation/enhancement component may occur at the 11-acre parcel, owned by the project applicant, adjacent to the lower Santee Lakes to satisfy the off-site preservation/enhancement requirement. The City of Santee has agreed to allow the remaining off-site creation/re-establishment mitigation component to be completed within City of Santee-owned lands in the same hydrologic unit, next to the San Diego River. Based on preliminary evaluations, several opportunities have been identified to provide off-site mitigation for the remaining creation/re-establishment mitigation component, indicating that it is feasible to accomplish the off-site compensatory mitigation.
The Wetland Mitigation Plan (Appendix S) is consistent with the USEPA’s 2008 Compensatory Mitigation Rule and subsequent guidance documents. The Wetland Mitigation Plan shall use the latest available tentative tract map to define the mitigation areas. The Wetland Mitigation Plan provides a description of project impacts and required mitigation at approved
replacement ratios. An implementation section includes the different types of wetland mitigation areas including treatments such as soil preparation, plant palettes, and temporary interim erosion control. Plant palettes incorporate sensitive species that will be impacted by the proposed project, as appropriate. A maintenance plan to promote the successful establishment of the target vegetation communities includes the specific activities to be performed over the 5-year maintenance period.
A monitoring plan is included that describes performance criteria for each vegetation community, monitoring frequency, and methods. The Wetland Mitigation Plan includes reporting requirements and contingency measures.
Since temporary impact areas are not appropriate for
restoration of jurisdictional resources, these areas shall be considered permanently impacted and shall be mitigated in conformance with the mitigation ratios for permanent impacts to jurisdictional resources. Mitigation ratios based on the Draft Santee Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan shall be included in the Wetland Mitigation Plan. A draft Wetland Mitigation Plan is included as Appendix S in the Biological Technical Report for the Fanita Ranch Project. This plan may be modified and augmented pending U.S. Army Corps of
RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
160
Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and
California Department of Fish and Wildlife review.
BIO-16: Coastal Cactus Wren Habitat Management. Coastal cactus wren is a Covered Species under the Draft Santee Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan. Because suitable and occupied habitat for this species shall be impacted by grading and construction of the proposed project, habitat enhancement and restoration of coastal cactus wren habitat shall occur.
Based on project impacts to 0.57 acre of suitable habitat, a 3:1 mitigation ratio resulting in a total of 1.71 acres of habitat enhancement and restoration would be required for mitigation.
This habitat restoration and enhancement is outlined within Upland Restoration Plan (Appendix Q), and the Preserve
Management Plan (Appendix P) of the Biological Technical Report for the Fanita Ranch Project. This habitat shall need to be similar in extent and density to currently occupied patches to be impacted and shall show use by coastal cactus wren prior to clearing of currently occupied habitat. Use is minimally intended to prove that impacted coastal cactus wren have identified where these patches are located so that they can colonize them once their current habitat patches are cleared. It is anticipated that restoration and enhancement activities shall begin prior to construction, where practicable, to provide the most amount of time for maturation.
In order to enhance habitat for coastal cactus wren, appropriate areas in the Habitat Preserve shall be planted with coast prickly pear (Opuntia littoralis) and coastal cholla (Cylindropuntia prolifera) in a matrix that is optimal for coastal cactus wren.
Studies performed on the Orange County Central Reserve
found that an interstitial mix of cactus and sage scrub or grasslands may be optimal. This ratio has been implemented into the Upland Restoration Plan and Preserve Management Plan where appropriate, but likely, greater than 20 percent 1- meter-high cactus cover associated with Sambucus mexicana shall be best. Minimally, three habitat patches shall be planted along primarily southern exposure slopes to increase the amount of suitable nesting habitat for coastal cactus wren outside of the proposed development footprint.
The habitat enhancement program is focused on improving habitat conditions for coastal cactus wren within portions of the project site that are identified for preservation and along manufactured slopes in development areas. Site selection shall be based on the following criteria:
RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
161
1. Slope aspect (prioritize southern exposures and
southwest-facing ridgelines)
2. Habitat quality (prioritize areas where some cacti were present, but with adequate space to support additional
cacti to improve habitat quality for coastal cactus wren)
3. Soil conditions (prioritize areas with similar soil
conditions compared to occupied cactus scrub habitat)
4. Proximity to occupied cactus patches (prioritize areas that are closer to documented coastal cactus wren
occurrences to provide opportunities for dispersal; try to enhance areas within 200 meter to 1,000 meter of
occupied habitat)
5. Access (prioritize areas that would be accessible to a planting and maintenance crew)
6. Cactus plantings along manufactured slope areas shall be planted so that they do not hinder fire access but shall be clustered so that they discourage or inhibit
encroachment by the public.
The approach to habitat enhancement shall include planting coast prickly pear and cholla by means of pad and segment cuttings in up to 10 selected enhancement areas. Cacti plants take several years to mature to the size that can support coastal cactus wren nesting. Therefore, the planted cuttings may be augmented with larger container plants in a subsequent year after the most successful planting sites can be determined. In addition, future preconstruction salvage of whole cactus plants and pads may be used to further enhance the structure of the cactus patch areas at the time of construction.
It is not expected that all 10 sites shall be successful or perform at equivalent levels. Therefore, a subset of planted areas shall be selected in the second year to focus maintenance efforts on sites with the greatest potential to develop into habitat suitable for coastal cactus wren occupation. The sites that develop into suitable habitat shall be monitored annually for coastal cactus wren use or occupation over a 5-year period in order to maintain a documented record of coastal cactus wren use of targeted areas for enhancement.
This measure shall also incorporate and implement
enhancement methods and implementation procedures; a 2- year maintenance, monitoring, and reporting program; and an adaptive management strategy as outlined in the Biological Technical Report for the Fanita Ranch Project.
RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
162
BIO-17: Brown-Headed Cowbird Trapping. A brown-headed cowbird trapping program shall be initiated on the project site as necessary. The trapping program includes the following:
trapping shall begin during the first phase of grading and continue for a period of 15 years or until an alternative control method is developed, which would then replace the trapping program through the 15-year period. The trapping program shall be based on the most current trapping methods. Three traps shall be set at appropriate locations within open space or adjacent to open space on site, though there is flexibility to install one at another location within the City of Santee’s sphere of influence (e.g., Santee Lakes Recreation Preserve) that might provide better local and regional benefits (e.g., along a river or creek or at a local equestrian center). Trapping shall be performed between April 1 and August 1 unless 21 days without brown-headed cowbirds occurs, then trapping may end for that year.
In order to establish whether a cowbird trapping program is necessary, focused surveys shall be conducted in and around the Habitat Preserve. A qualified biologist shall survey the Habitat Preserve during February, April, and May of each year during the construction phase through final buildout. If final buildout occurs before 10 years, then at least 10 years of surveys shall be required. During the survey, no single biologist may cover more than 300 acres of Habitat Preserve per day. If 10 or more males or 5 or more females or juveniles are observed on any single occasion, then trapping shall commence. No additional monitoring or trapping shall be required after 10 years even if the brown-headed cowbird occurrence thresholds have not been met. Since there is a small segment of trail designated for equestrian use, monitoring for brown-headed cowbirds is addressed in the Preserve Management Plan
(included as Appendix P in the Biological Technical Report for the Fanita Ranch Project) and that area shall be monitored and managed in accordance with that plan, even if the 10-year threshold has been met for the remainder of the Habitat Preserve. Yearly reporting of the trapping results shall be provided with the other Preserve Management Plan reporting and will minimally include the rationale for trap placement, number of target species, non-target species, mortalities of each, sex and age of each as able to be determined, comparison to prior trapping, and suggestions for the following year.
BIO-18: Restoration of Suitable Habitat for Quino Checkerspot Butterfly and Hermes Copper Butterfly. Mitigation for impacts to suitable habitat for Quino checkerspot butterfly shall include a RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
163
combination of in-perpetuity management of the Habitat
Preserve that shall focus on removal of non-native grasses, weedy material, and duff layers and the supplemental planting of dot-seed plantain (Plantago erecta), woolly plantain (Plantago patagonica), Coulter’s snapdragon (Antirrhinum coulterianum), rigid bird’s beak (Cordylanthus rigidus), owl’s clover (Castilleja exserta), Chinese houses (Collinsia concolor), and purple Chinese houses (Collinsia heterophylla) so that habitat is more suitable for Quino checkerspot butterfly. This shall include an endowment or other acceptable permanent funding mechanism and documented management plan as
outlined in the Preserve Management Plan (included as
Appendix P in the Biological Technical Report for the Fanita Ranch Project). Restoration/enhancement and creation of suitable habitat areas shall entail specific standards or guidelines on vegetation management. Tables 4.3-12 through
4.3-14 summarize the mitigation requirement scenarios based on the three potentially suitable habitat models for Quino checkerspot butterfly. Regardless of the model used,
approximately 1,096.57 acres of suitable habitat based on the most conservative 2009 extrapolation model shall be managed for Quino checkerspot butterfly and other compatible species such as coastal California gnatcatcher, San Diego fairy shrimp, and Hermes copper butterfly, providing a minimum 1.9:1
mitigation ratio.
Table 4.3-12. Mitigation Scenario Based on the 2009 Extrapolation Model for Impacts to Suitable Habitat for Quino Checkerspot Butterfly
Suitable Habitat Model
Impact
Acreage
Mitigation Acreage Credits (Habitat
Preserve Suitable Habitat)1
Ratio of Mitigation Achieved with
On-Site Habitat Preserve
2009 Extrapolation Model 581.39 1,096.57 1.9:1
Notes:
1 This is the total acreage included within the Habitat Preserve and shall be subject to long-term management and monitoring as directed by the Preserve Management Plan.
Table 4.3-13. Mitigation Scenario Based on the 1-Kilometer Model (All Known Observations) for Impacts to Suitable Habitat for Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Suitable Habitat Model Impact Acreage Mitigation Acreage Credits Ratio of Mitigation Acheived1 1-Kilometer (all known observations) 396.53
218.22* 0.6:1
878.35** 2.2:1
Total Suitable Habitat in the Habitat Preserve2 1,096.57 Notes:
1 Two mitigation ratios are provided based on (1) the amount of suitable habitat within the 1-kilometer buffer that overlaps the Habitat Preserve and (2) the remaining suitable habitat within the Habitat Preserve (based on the 2009 extrapolation model) outside the 1-kilometer buffer. 2 This is the total suitable habitat acreage included within the entire Habitat Preserve (based on the 2009 extrapolation model) and shall be subject to long-term management and monitoring as directed by the Preserve Management Plan. * Mitigation acreage available in the 1-kilometer buffer that overlaps the Habitat Preserve.
RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
164
** This total represents the amount of remaining suitable habitat available in the Habitat Preserve (based on the 2009 extrapolation model) outside the 1-kilometer buffers.
Table 4.3-14. Mitigation Scenario Based on the 1-Kilometer Model (Without the 2005 Observation) for Impacts to Suitable Habitat for Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Suitable Habitat Model Impact Acreage Mitigation Acreage Credits Ratio of Mitigation Acheived1 1-Kilometer (Without the 2005
Observation) 3.82
7.39* 1.9:1
1,089.18** 285:1
Total Suitable Habitat within the Habitat Preserve2 1,096.57 Notes:
1 Two mitigation ratios are provided based on (1) the amount of suitable habitat within the 1-kilometer buffer that overlaps the Habitat Preserve and (2) the remaining suitable habitat in the Habitat Preserve (based on the 2009 extrapolation model) outside the 1-kilometer buffer. 2 This is the total suitable habitat acreage included in the entire Habitat Preserve (based on the 2009 extrapolation model) and shall be subject to long-term management and monitoring as directed by the Preserve Management Plan. * Mitigation acreage available within the 1-kilometer buffer that overlaps the Habitat Preserve. ** This total represents the amount of remaining suitable habitat available in the Habitat Preserve (based on the 2009 Extrapolation model) outside the 1-kilometer buffer.
As described in the Draft Santee Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan, impacts to potentially suitable habitat for Hermes copper butterfly requires mitigation by preservation of suitable habitat at a ratio of 1:1, or 2:1 if the suitable habitat was previously occupied. Previously occupied habitat includes areas of potentially suitable habitat within 500 feet of a previously known occurrence of Hermes copper butterfly but where the butterfly was not identified during subsequent and more recent focused surveys. Mitigation of suitable habitat is included in the Preserve Management Plan (included as
Appendix P in the Biological Technical Report for the Fanita Ranch Project) and includes the following: preservation and management of existing suitable habitat in the Habitat Preserve, restoration/enhancement of existing suitable habitat in the Habitat Preserve, and creation of new suitable habitat areas in the Habitat Preserve and along manufactured slopes in
development areas, as appropriate. Restoration/enhancement and creation of new suitable habitat areas would entail repairing degraded habitat through the control of invasive species and/or planting of appropriate native species (i.e., redberry buckthorn within 15 feet of California buckwheat); see the Upland Restoration Plan included as Appendix Q in the Biological Technical Report for the Fanita Ranch Project for details. Table
4.3-15 summarizes the mitigation requirements for impacts to potentially suitable habitat for Hermes copper butterfly.
RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
165
Table 4.3-15. Mitigation Requirements for Impacts to Suitable Habitat for Hermes Copper Butterfly
Habitat Type Impact Acreage Mitigation Ratio1 Mitigation Acreage Mitigation Acreage
Credits (Habitat
Preserve)
Redberry Buckthorn within 15 feet of California Buckwheat Potentially Suitable
Habitat
44.73 1:1 44.73 79.29
Potentially Suitable
Habitat, Previously
Occupied
8.25 2:1 16.50 15.48
Total Acreage 52.98 — 61.23 94.772
Notes:
1 Mitigation ratios are based on the Draft Santee Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan (City of Santee 2018). 2 This acreage will be included in the Habitat Preserve and will be subject to long-term management and monitoring as directed by the Preserve Management Plan.
BIO-19: African Clawed Frog Trapping. African clawed frogs have been detected in the past within Sycamore Canyon Creek and vernal pool features on the project site. A monitoring and control program is included in the Preserve Management Plan (included as Appendix P in the Biological Technical Report for the Fanita Ranch Project) and designed to determine the presence of African clawed frogs within occupied fairy shrimp and western spadefoot features. Monitoring shall consist of surveying flowing and pooled portions of Sycamore Canyon Creek and restored and natural vernal pool features on the project site once per month from January through April while the proposed project is in construction. After construction is complete, these areas shall be surveyed for African clawed frogs once per year in March. If African clawed frogs are observed during the construction or post-construction monitoring, then control measures shall be implemented. Since different areas may require control each year, yearly updates shall be made as necessary.
BIO-20: Wildlife Protection. In order to generally protect wildlife species and habitat, the following measures shall be implemented:
1. Adequate fencing (i.e., wildlife safe that would prevent unnecessary snaring or injury) shall be erected to guide human users away from open space areas where open space abuts streets, parks, and trails.
2. Covenants, conditions, and restrictions shall include a section that forbids collection of native wildlife (e.g., coast horned lizards, toads, snakes) without obtaining the
RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
166
necessary collection permits from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the destroying of wildlife habitat.
3. Covenants, conditions, and restrictions shall include a notice describing the necessary role that coyotes, bobcats, and rattlesnakes have in the environment and shall make recommendations for keeping pets and pet food indoors and safe, and restrictions against controlling these and other native species unless there is a threat to life or property. The Preserve Manager’s phone number and email address shall be provided for residents to call when they feel threatened by wildlife or observe injured wildlife.
4. Covenants, conditions, and restrictions shall include a notice describing the trail and preserve restrictions.
5. Street signs, speed bumps, or other traffic-calming devices shall be employed along the residential collector Streets “V” and “W” to allow wildlife to cross more safely (see Biological Technical Report for the Fanita Ranch Project, Figures 5-7b and 5-7c). The posted speed limit on these streets shall be 25 miles per hour.
BIO-21: Fire Protection Plan. To minimize the potential exposure of the project site to fire hazards, all features of the Fire Protection Plan for the Fanita Ranch Project, prepared by Dudek (2020) and provided as EIR Appendix P1, shall be implemented in
conjunction with development of the proposed project.
The City Council finds that Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO21 are feasible, are adopted, and will further reduce impacts related to sensitive species. Accordingly, the City Council finds that, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081(a)(1) and State CEQA Guidelines section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project that mitigate or avoid the potentially significant impacts of the proposed Project to sensitive species, as identified in the EIR. Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant. Mitigation measures will further reduce impacts related to sensitive species. (EIR, § 4.3.5.1.)
2. Riparian Habitat
Threshold: 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 Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
167
Finding: Less than significant with mitigation. (EIR, § 4.3.5.2.) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, section 15091(a)(1).)
Explanation: Direct Impacts. Implementation of the proposed project would result in permanent impacts to approximately 927.90 acres of sensitive and non-sensitive vegetation communities and land covers on site and temporary impacts to approximately 114.47 acres on site. Of these on site permanent impacts, approximately 10.52 acres would result from new trail creation and retention of some existing trails. The proposed project would also impact a total of 32.60 acres of sensitive and non-sensitive vegetation communities off site, including 25.32 acres of permanent impacts and 7.29 acres of temporary impacts.
All temporary impact areas would be revegetated to pre-existing conditions following construction.
Sensitive vegetation communities that would be impacted on site include scrub and chaparral, grasslands, vernal pools, bog and marsh, riparian and bottomland habitat, and woodland communities.
Sensitive vegetation communities that would be impacted off site include scrub, grasslands, vernal pools, and unvegetated channel.
Within both on- and off-site areas, the proposed project would permanently or temporarily impact 988.77 acres of sensitive habitats, including 978.54 acres of sensitive uplands, 0.41 acre of vernal pools, and 9.81 acres of wetland habitats. All direct permanent and temporary impacts to sensitive vegetation communities both on and off site are considered significant.
Indirect Impacts. Indirect impacts to sensitive vegetation communities can result from invasion by exotic species, alteration of the natural fire regime, exposure to urban pollutants (e.g., fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and other hazardous materials), and trampling by humans and domestic pets. Permanent indirect impacts to riparian habitats and other sensitive natural communities from development of the proposed project would be potentially significant.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1, BIO-2, BIO-6 through BIO-12, and BIO-15 set forth above would mitigate all direct and indirect permanent and temporary impacts to riparian habitats and other sensitive natural communities to below a level of significance.
Permanent impacts to 862.09 acres (including on- and off-site areas) of sensitive upland vegetation communities are anticipated with project implementation. A total of 1,303.33 acres of mitigation would be required; however, the Habitat Preserve would conserve 1,448.84 RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
168
acres of sensitive upland vegetation communities, 145.51 acres greater than required by mitigation. Direct permanent and temporary impacts to sensitive upland communities would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2, which would preserve sensitive upland communities within the Habitat Preserve and restore temporary impacts to sensitive upland communities.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-6 through BIO-8, that include standard best management practices and other
requirements that address erosion and runoff, specifically the construction-related minimization measures required by the federal Clean Water Act, NPDES, and preparation of a SWPPP, would reduce indirect impacts to sensitive natural communities to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure BIO-9 would reduce permanent indirect impacts to sensitive vegetation communities by planting cactus species in brush management zones, temporary impact areas and between roadways and open space to help protect against incursions by domestic pets, children, or recreationists. Additionally, Mitigation Measure BIO-10 would require that all herbicides used during landscaping activities be contained within the proposed project’s impact footprint and weed control treatments include all legally permitted chemical, manual, and mechanical methods applied with the authorization of the County.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-11 would reduce permanent indirect impacts to special-status plant and wildlife species from Argentine ants to a less than significant level. This measure requires control measures and quarterly monitoring of Argentine ants along the construction–Habitat Preserve interface.
Impacts to vernal pools would be mitigated to a less than significant level through implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-12, which would require rehabilitation or enhancement and creation of new seasonal basin resources within the Habitat Preserve.
Direct permanent and temporary impacts to wetland vegetation communities would be reduced to less than significant through implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-15, which would require mitigation and permits from the agencies that have jurisdiction over them (i.e., ACOE, RWQCB, and/or CDFW).
Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-15 would utilize a Wetland Mitigation Plan to restore temporary impacts in wetland areas and reduce impacts to sensitive riparian and wetland RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
169
vegetation communities to less than significant. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1, BIO-2, BIO-6 through BIO-12, and BIO-15 would mitigate all direct and indirect permanent and temporary impacts to riparian habitats and other sensitive natural communities to below a level of significance.
The City Council finds that Mitigation Measures BIO-1, BIO-2, BIO6 through BIO-12 and BIO-15 are feasible, are adopted, and will further reduce impacts related to riparian habitat. Accordingly, the City Council finds that, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081(a)(1) and State CEQA Guidelines section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project that mitigate or avoid the potentially significant impacts of the proposed Project to riparian habitat, as identified in the EIR. Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant.
Mitigation measures will further reduce impacts related to riparian habitat. (EIR, § 4.3.5.2.)
3. Wetlands
Threshold: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Finding: Less than significant with mitigation. (EIR, § 4.3.5.3.) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, section 15091(a)(1).)
Explanation: Direct Impacts. Impacts to jurisdictional aquatic resources on the project site would be avoided and minimized through project design to the extent feasible. Nevertheless, potentially significant impacts to jurisdictional resources would occur with project implementation. In total, direct impacts to 9.81 acres (67,410 linear feet) of jurisdictional resources under the jurisdiction of the ACOE, RWQCB, and CDFW are expected with project implementation. These impacts consist of
1.83 acres (2,903 linear feet) of on-site wetland waters of the United States or state and riparian habitat; 3.82 acres (60,549 linear feet) of non-wetland waters of the United States, waters of the state, and CDFW streambeds (0.05-acres that are off site); and 0.02 acre (64 linear feet) of on-site non-wetland waters of the United States, waters of the state, and CDFW riparian habitat. In addition to these impacts, another 4.15 acres (3,895 linear feet) of riparian habitat on site under only CDFW jurisdiction would be impacted with project development.
RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
170
EIR Table 4.3-18 identifies impacts to jurisdictional aquatic resources, which would require permits and authorizations from the ACOE, CDFW, and RWQCB.
Indirect Impacts. Potential temporary indirect impacts to jurisdictional resources on and off site would primarily result from construction activities and include impacts related to or resulting from the generation of fugitive dust, changes in hydrology resulting from construction (including sedimentation and erosion), and the introduction of chemical pollutants (including herbicides). Long-term indirect impacts could result from the proximity of the proposed project to jurisdictional resources after construction. Permanent indirect impacts that could affect jurisdictional resources include generation of fugitive dust, habitat fragmentation, chemical pollutants, altered hydrology, non-native invasive species, increased human activity, alteration of the natural fire regime, and shading.
The implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-6, BIO-7, BIO-10, and BIO-15 set forth above would reduce project impacts to wetland resources to below a level of significance.
Mitigation for potential permanent indirect impacts to jurisdictional resources requires conformance with the Land Use Adjacency Guidelines as specified in the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan, as required by Mitigation Measure BIO-6. The guidelines include control of urban runoff, toxins and pollutants, public activities in open space, and deliberate planting of exotic invasive species, which would be required by implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-7. As required by Mitigation Measure BIO-7, a Standard Urban Stormwater Management Plan would be prepared in compliance with the federal Clean Water Act, NPDES, and SWPPP such that storm flows conveyed from the project site do not adversely affect off-site jurisdictional resources by significantly altering natural hydrologic patterns. Additionally, Mitigation Measure BIO-10 would reduce impacts to jurisdictional resources by requiring that all herbicides used during landscaping activities be contained within the proposed project’s impact footprint and weed control treatments include all legally permitted chemical, manual, and mechanical methods applied with the authorization of the County agriculture commissioner. Indirect impacts related to water quality would be less than significant.
Permanent and temporary impacts to 9.81 acres (including on- and off-site areas) under ACOE, RWQCB, and CDFW jurisdiction are expected with project implementation. A total of 24.07 acres of mitigation would be required based on mitigation ratios set forth in the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan (City of Santee 2018). The RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
171
Habitat Preserve would conserve 32.31 acres, the majority of which could only be used for the preservation component of the mitigation requirement. EIR Table 4.3-19 summarizes the proposed project’s temporary and permanent impacts and required mitigation ratios.
Mitigation Measure BIO-15 would require implementation of a Wetland Mitigation Plan to reduce permanent and temporary impacts to wetlands under the jurisdiction of ACOE, RWQCB, and CDFW to below a level of significance. Mitigation ratios based on the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan included in EIR Table 4.3-19 shall be included in the Wetland Mitigation Plan.
The City Council finds that Mitigation Measures BIO-6, BIO-7, BIO10 and BIO-15 are feasible, are adopted, and will further reduce impacts related to wetlands. Accordingly, the City Council finds that, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081(a)(1) and State CEQA Guidelines section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project that mitigate or avoid the potentially significant impacts of the proposed Project to wetlands, as identified in the EIR. Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant. Mitigation measures will further reduce impacts related to wetlands. (EIR, § 4.3.5.3.)
4. Wildlife Movement
Threshold: 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?
Finding: Less than significant with mitigation. (EIR, § 4.3.5.4.) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, section 15091(a)(1).)
Explanation: Direct Impacts. Currently the entire project site functions as both livein habitat for a wide variety of large and small wildlife, and functions as partial territory for the largest of mammals (i.e., mountain lion, mule deer, bobcat, and coyote). The entire project site allows for wildlife movement without distinct wildlife corridors and habitat linkages. The project site does not provide habitat for migratory fish species. The project site also acts as a movement corridor (e.g., Sycamore Canyon) between County open space, MCAS Miramar, and Santee Lakes Recreation Preserve.
RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
172
Wildlife corridors have been designated through MSCP planning in the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan, including the project site as a habitat block that promotes wildlife movement. Whether or not the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan is implemented, these areas would be important connections for wildlife between areas east, west, and north of the project site in a post-project scenario. Two locations pass through the western portion of the project site to MCAS Miramar, one connects the northeastern portion of the project site to lands within the County, and another crosses to the north to lands within the County (City of Santee 2018, Figure 4-3). As a result, there would be direct impacts to habitat linkages and wildlife corridors as a result of proposed project development.
The proposed project design provides for a primary wildlife corridor through the north-central portions of the proposed project, with a minimum width of 1,150 feet. This criterion meets generally accepted wildlife movement principles and Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan Guidelines. An additional corridor exists along the northern boundary of the project site, which is mostly 1,400 or more feet wide and buffers a canyon. It narrows to 619 feet for approximately 800 feet, but this area is adjacent to protected and managed County of San Diego Park Preserve lands. The entire northern edge buffers existing protected preserve lands to the north, which meets the Draft Santee MSCP Plan Guidelines. To the west, a large corridor buffering Sycamore Canyon Creek is provided. This corridor is between 1,000 and 400 feet wide (at the detention basin which could also be used for movement), but is further widened by the adjacent military base and conserved preserve areas along the entire boundary.
The open space configuration for the proposed project would maintain connectivity to the north into the Goodan Ranch/Sycamore Canyon County Preserve, to the east into open space County lands, and to the west into MCAS Miramar open space (which contains over 3,000 acres of coastal sage scrub and 9,000 acres of chaparral). All three corridors lead to, or buffer, a regional corridor along Sycamore Canyon. Therefore, the landscape-scale habitat connections for regional wildlife movement would not be substantially affected.
Depending on future development within the adjacent County lands to the east, the proposed project would provide another secondary wildlife corridor, varying in width from 508 feet to 1,400 feet, along the eastern boundary currently adjacent to extant habitat areas.
After buildout of the proposed project, wildlife movement to the portion of the open space Habitat Preserve in the southern portion of the project site may be constrained by village development to the north and the streets that would border the open space to the west (Fanita Parkway extension and improvements) and to the east RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
173
(Cuyamaca Street extension and improvements). In addition, wildlife movement to and from the central portion of the Habitat Preserve northeast of the proposed Farm would be constrained by the two, main proposed east–west traversing streets (Streets “V” and “W”) that would connect the village development. To avoid hindering wildlife movement at interior Streets “V” and “W,” as well as the Cuyamaca Street extension, a wildlife undercrossing would be constructed approximately 400 feet south of the project limits along Cuyamaca Street to adequately convey coyotes, mule deer, and smaller-sized wildlife using existing or manufactured topography.
The proposed crossing, which would measure 6.9 meters (22.5 feet) wide by 3.7 meters (12.0 feet) tall by 35.0 meters (115 feet) long (0.7 openness ratio), would meet the suggested 0.6 openness ratio suggested for mule deer and other mid-sized mammal species documented during camera studies listed in Biological Resources Technical Report (Appendix D), Table 4-8, including bobcat and coyote. Mountain lion would also use the undercrossing.
Despite the project design incorporating open space and wildlife movement corridors, development of the proposed project would still have the potential to result in significant direct impacts to wildlife movement corridors in the region, requiring mitigation.
Indirect Impacts. Permanent development-related indirect impacts to wildlife movement would include noise, vibration, lighting, increased human activity, altered fire regimes, and increased roadkill.
Development of the proposed project would result in significant indirect impacts to wildlife movement corridors both on and off site.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1, BIO-6, BIO-9, BIO10, and BIO-20 set forth above would preserve on-site habitat areas designed as wildlife movement corridors and provide links to off-site habitat areas. Mitigation Measures BIO-22 and BIO-23 would design and implement a wildlife corridor and crossings for wildlife movement in the northeastern part of the project site and under the Cuyamaca Street extension off site, respectively. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce impacts to wildlife corridors and habitat linkages to below a level of significance.
Due to the approximate 900-acre block of Habitat Preserve (Mitigation Measure BIO-1) in the southern portion of the project site, the loss or constraint of local wildlife movement opportunities would not adversely affect genetic exchange and diversity of populations at the landscape level. None of the wildlife species that would be affected or displaced by the loss or constraint of local movement areas have genetically unique or endemic populations that would be functionally isolated from other populations, and the regional habitat RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
174
linkages would ensure that genetic exchange and diversity of these species in the region would be maintained.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-6, BIO-7, BIO-9, and BIO-10 would reduce potential indirect impacts to wildlife movement corridors to less than significant levels through conformance with the Land Use Adjacency Guidelines as specified in the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan. Typical restrictions (e.g., best management practices) and requirements that address erosion, runoff and weed control treatments would be enforced, including the constructionrelated minimization measures required by the federal Clean Water Act, NPDES, and SWPPP, planting of cactus patches along the development–Habitat Preserve interface, and weed control treatments. Mitigation Measure BIO-20, which employs street signs, speed bumps, or other traffic-calming devices along the north and south collector streets to allow wildlife to cross more safely, would reduce long-term indirect impacts to wildlife movement to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure BIO-22, which would provide a wildlife corridor along the northern, western, and eastern project site boundaries, would reduce impacts to wildlife corridors to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure BIO-23, which requires the provision of wildlife undercrossings under Cuyamaca Street and Fanita Parkway, would reduce direct and indirect impacts to wildlife, including western spadefoot, to a less than significant level.
BIO-22: Wildlife Corridor. The project shall include an interior corridor that is minimally 1,200 feet wide and a northern corridor that is minimally 1,400 feet wide with the exception of one location that narrows to 600 feet for an approximate 800-foot length. This length is adjacent to the protected and managed Goodan
Ranch/Sycamore Canyon Preserve to the north so it would still function for wildlife movement of mountain lion, coastal California gnatcatcher, and all other species. The western boundary shall include a corridor that is mostly approximately 1,000 feet wide except at the southern edge where it narrows to 400 feet at the stormwater catch basin. This entire area is bordered and managed by the Marine Corps Air Station
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan. In order to retain wildlife movement to the north along the eastern boundary of the project site, a secondary corridor has been included.
Throughout the Habitat Preserve, the following measures shall be implemented:
RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
175
1. Lighting shall be directed toward development and shielded away from the Habitat Preserve.
2. Trails shall not be in use from dusk to dawn, pets must be on leashes, and trails shall only be used for hiking and biking with the exception of the extreme northeastern trail
(approximate 1,200-foot long section) that is already
established for equestrian use.
3. Trails shall be managed in accordance with the Public Access Plan (Appendix T to the Biological Technical Report for the Fanita Ranch Project), and disclosed in the
Covenants, Codes & Restrictions (CC&Rs):
a. Only the trail types discussed within the Public Access Plan shall be allowed;
b. Unnecessary trails shall be abandoned and restored in accordance with the Public Access Plan, Preserve
Management Plan (Appendix P to the Biological
Technical Report for the Fanita Ranch Project), and
Upland Restoration Plan (Appendix Q to the Biological
Technical Report for the Fanita Ranch Project); and
c. Trails shall be monitored on a regular basis and protected and maintained in accordance with the Public Access
Plan and Preserve Management Plan;
4. Trails may be temporarily closed to control unauthorized access.
5. Trails may be closed on a seasonal basis to protect Covered Species in the Habitat Preserve.
6. Streets “V” and “W,” which connect the Vineyard Village to Fanita Commons and Orchard Village, shall provide safety lighting that shall be button started with a timer shut-off delay such that lighting shall not permanently be on at night, but only on when needed for emergency purposes or
pedestrian safety.
BIO-23: Wildlife Undercrossings. A wildlife undercrossing shall be constructed approximately 400 feet south of the project site boundary within the Cuyamaca Street extension to adequately convey coyotes, mule deer, and smaller-sized wildlife. The wildlife undercrossing shall utilize existing or manufactured topography. The crossing shall be designed to provide a greater RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
176
than 0.6 openness ratio (calculated as width times height divided by length in meters; see the Biological Technical Report for the Fanita Ranch Project, Figures 5-7b and 5-7c, Wildlife Corridors and Crossings). Crossings shall have a raised floor and/or side platform to allow dry passage for wildlife when water is flowing.
In addition, a 48-inch reinforced concrete pipe culvert and directional curbs shall be constructed to allow western spadefoot and other small wildlife to cross under Fanita Parkway to reduce permanent indirect impacts to these species (see the Biological Technical Report for the Fanita Ranch Project, Figure 5-7a, Local Wildlife Corridors).
The City Council finds that Mitigation Measures BIO-1, BIO-6, BIO9, BIO-10, BIO-20, BIO-22 and BIO-23 are feasible, are adopted, and will further reduce impacts related to wildlife corridors.
Accordingly, the City Council finds that, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081(a)(1) and State CEQA Guidelines section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project that mitigate or avoid the potentially significant impacts of the proposed Project to wildlife corridors, as identified in the EIR. Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant. Mitigation measures will further reduce impacts related to wildlife corridors. (EIR, § 4.3.5.4.)
C. CULTURAL RESOURCES
1. Archaeological Resources
Threshold: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, section 15064.5?
Finding: Less than significant with mitigation. (EIR, § 4.4.5.2.) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, section 15091(a)(1).)
Explanation: According to the Cultural Resources Phase I Survey Report prepared by Atkins, a CHRIS records search, a review of aerial photographs, and a Phase I pedestrian survey were performed on the approximately 800 acres of the project APE and 17 miles of proposed trails. The CHRIS records search and the Phase I pedestrian survey identified 24 sites and 43 isolates throughout the project site. Based on the quality and integrity of the sites, Atkins RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
177
recommended 11 of these archaeological sites undergo Phase II testing.
In 2018, Rincon completed a Phase I survey of the Cuyamaca Street and Magnolia Avenue extensions and a portion of archaeological site CA-SDI-8243, none of which were surveyed previously. Rincon also evaluated the historic-period Fanita Rancho (CA-SDI-22504) property through an archival research and Phase I survey. Rincon completed Phase II testing of the 11 previously identified archaeological sites considered eligible or potentially eligible for the CRHR and one new site (CA-SDI-22503) identified during the Phase I pedestrian survey completed by Rincon for a total of 12 sites that underwent Phase II testing.
Based on the results of Rincon’s Phase II testing, two archaeological sites, CA-SDI-8243 and CA-SDI-8345, have been recommended eligible for the NRHP and CRHR due to their data potential. The 10 remaining sites are recommended as ineligible for the NRHP and CRHR or any local designations due to their lack of data potential and no further management considerations are recommended.
CA-SDI-8243: A portion of CA-SDI-8243 would be impacted by the proposed project. It is considered a large prehistoric habitation site that yielded 473 artifacts, which is the largest and most diverse assemblage of all the sites tested during the investigation. It contained ceremonial quartz crystals and human remains, among other artifacts, which suggests it likely acted as a regional habitation center. The constituents still present at the site retain the potential to continue yielding data pertinent to the research themes presented in the Phase II testing program. Based on the data potential of the site, the Phase II Cultural Resources Testing and Evaluations Report recommends site CA-SDI-8243 as eligible for the NRHP and CRHR under Criterion D/4: Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Because development of the proposed project would partially impact CA-SDI-8243, impacts would be potentially significant.
CA-SDI-8345: A portion of CA-SDI-8345 would be impacted by the proposed project. It is considered a habitation site that consists of several bedrock outcrops with milling features and groundstone tools that suggest this area was used for resource processing. In addition to these resource processing tools and habitation debris, such as faunal, ceramics, and lithics, a ceremonial artifact and the presence of human remains suggest this site functioned as a habitation site during the Late Prehistoric Period. The location of CA-SDI-8345 also provided a vantage point that would have allowed those occupying the Sycamore Canyon valley to look out over the City. The presence RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
178
of ceremonial object and the diversity of artifacts encountered suggest CA-SDI-8345 has the potential to yield significant information regarding prehistory and is also recommended eligible under Criterion D/4: Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Because development of the proposed project would partially impact CA-SDI-8345, impacts would be potentially significant.
Unknown Resources: The proposed project, which would involve substantial grading and excavation in native soils, would be located on currently undeveloped land resulting in considerable cuts into native terrain where cultural resources are known to occur.
Therefore, there is a potential for the presence of previously unknown archaeological resources or tribal cultural resources (TCRs) to be discovered. Depending on the sensitivity of these resources, impacts would be potentially significant.
Areas Located Outside the Area of Potential Effect: Although it is outside the scope of the proposed project’s potential effects to archaeological resources or TCRs, in an effort to cooperate with Barona, and in response to Barona’s request during consultation, the City shall include the following condition of approval for the proposed project to be completed prior to the issuance of grading permits.
In an effort to cooperate with Barona, the City has agreed that a surface inventory of sensitive areas adjacent to the proposed project’s development footprint (but outside of the APE) shall be a condition of approval for the proposed project and shall be completed prior to the issuance of grading permits. This inventory shall be completed by a qualified archaeologist who meets or exceeds the Secretary of Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for archaeology and a Native American monitor of Kumeyaay descent.
The inventory shall be limited to 300 feet from the development footprint and shall be focused on areas that are known to be sensitive for cultural resources. In the event a cultural resource or TCR is identified adjacent to the proposed project’s development footprint, the resource shall be recorded using the California Department of Parks and Recreation Series 523 forms, and environmental sensitive area fencing shall be put in place to protect the resource prior to ground-disturbing activities and shall remain in place until projectrelated ground disturbance is complete. Because these areas are outside of the proposed project’s development footprint and would not be impacted by the proposed project development, no further analysis beyond a surface inventory shall be completed.
Because portions of archaeological sites CA-SDI-8243 and CA-SDI8345 are located within the development footprint, impacts to these RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
179
resources would be potentially significant. Preservation in place is the preferred mitigation strategy under CEQA for archaeological sites. Preservation in place can be achieved by project design for avoidance, incorporation into an open space, or capping of the site and construction of features over the cap that will not directly impact the site. The proposed project has been designed to avoid or cap a minimum of 40 percent of CA-SDI-8243 and avoid a minimum of 60 percent of CA-SDI-8345 as shown on the Vesting Tentative Map.
On-site biological resources restoration for the proposed project is required under Mitigation Measures BIO-1, BIO-2, BIO-12, and BIO15. These mitigation measures require areas outside of the construction footprint on the project site to undergo biological resources restoration. At the time of the EIR public review, the exact locations of the restoration areas have yet to be established because consultation with regulatory agencies is ongoing. To protect cultural resources from unnecessary impacts, and in keeping with the requests of the consulting Native American tribes, cultural resources surveys shall be completed once consultation with regulatory agencies is completed, and the exact restoration areas are established. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-9 would avoid and mitigate potential impacts to cultural resources and TCRs from the on-site biological resources restoration required by Mitigation Measures BIO-1, BIO-2, BIO-12, and BIO-15.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-9 would reduce cultural resources and TCRs impacts to below a level of significance.
CUL-1: Site Capping Program. Prior to implementation of a site (or locus) capping program, a site capping plan shall be prepared by a qualified archaeologist who meets or exceeds the
Secretary of Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for archaeology. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Project Planner for the City of Santee with input from Native American tribal groups who have consulted on the project. The plan shall include the following or equivalent steps:
1. Retain an archaeological monitor and Native American monitor of Kumeyaay descent with ancestral ties to the San Diego region and at minimum one (1) year of monitoring
experience within Kumeyaay ancestral territory to observe the capping process.
2. Remove organic material from the archaeological site surface by hand, including brushing, raking, or use of power blower. Use of motorized vehicles for vegetation removal is RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
180
prohibited. All vegetation shall be removed at ground
surface such that no soil disturbance results.
3. Remaining root balls and masses in the ground after hand removal of vegetation stems and trunks shall be sprayed with topical pesticide per the pesticide manufacturer’s specifications to ensure no further growth. The resulting dead vegetation masses shall be left in place. Complete surface vegetation removal and die-off of root massing shall be achieved before geotextile placement.
4. No remedial grading, sub-grade preparation, or scarification shall occur before placement of the geotextile fabric.
5. A biaxial geogrid (Tensar BX1200, TX 160, or equivalent) shall be laid over the ground surface where capping is to take place, and a minimum buffer area to be determined by the City of Santee through consultation with a qualified archaeologist, the Native American groups who have
consulted on the project, and the most likely descendant as the final grading plans are prepared. The geogrid type and verification of its technological capability shall be provided by a qualified geotechnical engineer during plan check of final grading plans.
6. Placement of fill soils on top of the geotextile fabric shall be done in no greater than 8-inch lifts with rubber-tired
equipment.
7. Geotextile fabric shall be capable of preventing compaction and load impacts on underlying archaeological resources.
8. Fill soils shall have a pH ranging from 5.5 to 7.5 only.
9. Fill soils shall be free of archaeological resources (i.e., culturally sterile).
10.Fill soils shall be spread from the outside with rubber-track, heavy equipment such that the equipment would only be
working on top of the fill soils. The fill soils shall be placed ahead of the loading equipment so that the machine does not have contact with the archaeological site surface.
11.The fill soils shall be sufficiently moist so that they are cohesive under the weight of the heavy equipment as the material is spread out over the archaeological site and buffer area.
RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
181
12.After the first 12–18 inches of fill are laid, larger equipment may be used to increase the fill to desired grade.
Capping soils shall be visually distinguishable from the native soils below. A minimum of 24 inches of fill material shall be maintained between the surface of the archaeological cap and any ground-disturbing activities. Ground-disturbing activities include but are not limited to grading; excavation; compaction; placement of soil, sand, rock, gravel, or other material; clearing of vegetation; and construction, erection, or placement of any underground utilities, buildings, or structures. Restrictions shall be applied regarding species planted within the cap (deeprooted species would be avoided in areas where the cap does not exceed 10 feet). Additionally, chemical agents such as fertilizer shall be avoided in areas where the cap does not exceed 24 inches.
CUL-2: Phase III Data Recovery Excavation Program. For areas within CA-SDI-8243 and CA-SDI-8345 that cannot be avoided, capped, or designated as open space by the proposed project, a Phase III Data Recovery Excavation Program shall be completed to comprehensively document the resources and exhaust the data potential of the resources prior to the issuance of project grading permits. The Phase III Data Recovery Excavation Program shall be conducted by a qualified archaeologist who meets or exceeds the Secretary of Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for archaeology in accordance with the California Office of Historic Preservation’s 1990
Archaeological Resource Management Reports: Recommended Contents and Format; CEQA; California Public Resources
Code, Section 21084.1; and CEQA Guidelines, Section
15126.4(b).
Prior to implementing the field component of the Phase III Data Recovery Excavation Program, a Phase III Data Recovery Plan shall be prepared by the qualified archaeologist selected to carry out the program. The plan shall be prepared in
consultation with Native American groups who have
participated in consultation for the proposed project, and shall be reviewed and approved by the Project Planner at the City of Santee. The plan shall guide the Phase III Data Recovery Excavation Program. The plan shall, at minimum, include the following:
• Phase III research design including but not limited to the following:
− Summary of previous research completed for CA-SDI-
RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
182
8243 and CA-SDI-8345
− Discussion of relevant research questions that can be addressed by the resources. Relevant research topics
include but are not limited to the following:
Site chronology
Dietary reconstruction
Paleo-environment reconstruction
Settlement pattern
Introduction and use of artifact typologies, such as
projectile point typologies and ceramics
• Methods used to gather data
− Number of data recovery units to be excavated
The number of recovery units shall be determined
based on industry standards for establishing data
redundancy. Industry standard typically requires that
between 3 to 10 percent of intact site deposits
impacted by the proposed project be recovered and
analyzed as part of a Phase III Data Recovery Program.
The final percentage shall be determined based on the
percentage of the site to be impacted by the proposed
project, the research questions established for the
Phase III, in consideration of the guidelines
established by the Office of Historic Preservation for
Phase III Data Recovery Programs and in consultation
with the qualified archaeologist, City of Santee, and
Native American groups who have participated in
consultation for the project.
− Artifact screening methods to be used
• Procedures to follow in the event human remains are
discovered (Mitigation Measure CUL-10)
• Procedures for backfilling excavated units prior to the completion of the Phase III fieldwork
• Laboratory methods to analyze the artifacts, including but not limited to the following:
− Methods used to analyze ceramics, lithics, groundstone, and specialty items, such as beads
− Protein residue analysis
− Radiocarbon dating
− Ethnobotanical studies
• Curation procedures (Mitigation Measure CUL-8)
The Phase III data recovery fieldwork shall be completed in RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
183
accordance with the established plan by a qualified
archaeologist. The fieldwork shall be observed by a minimum of one Native American monitor. The Native American monitors shall be of Kumeyaay descent with ancestral ties to the San Diego region and at minimum 1 year of monitoring experience within Kumeyaay ancestral territory.
Following the completion of the Phase III data recovery fieldwork, the results shall be summarized in a Phase III Data Recovery Report. The report shall be completed by a qualified archaeologist and shall include the results of the fieldwork and laboratory analysis and address the research questions
established in the Phase III Data Recovery Plan. The report shall also include the California Department of Parks and Recreation Series 523 form updates for the sites CA-SDI-8243 and CA-SDI8345. The report shall be submitted to the consulting Native American groups and the Project Planner at the City of Santee for review. Upon acceptance of the final report, an electronic version of the final report shall be submitted to the South Coastal Information Center and the San Diego Archaeological Center.
CUL-3: Worker Environmental Awareness Program. Prior to the commencement of project-related ground-disturbing activities, including but not limited to site clearing, grubbing, trenching, and excavation, a qualified archaeologist who meets or exceeds the Secretary of Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for archaeology shall provide a Worker
Environmental Awareness Program for the general contractor, subcontractors, and construction workers participating in ground-disturbing activity for project construction. The Worker Environmental Awareness Program training shall describe the potential of exposing archaeological resources, types of cultural materials that may be encountered, and directions on the steps that shall be taken if such a find is encountered. This training may be presented alongside other environmental training programs required prior to construction. A Worker Environmental Awareness Program acknowledgment form shall be signed by workers who receive the training.
CUL-4: Cultural Resources Mitigation and Monitoring Program.
Following the completion of the Phase III Data Recovery Excavation Program, and prior to the start of any grounddisturbing activity for project construction, including but not limited to site clearing, grubbing, trenching, and excavation, a qualified archaeologist who meets or exceeds the Secretary of Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for
RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
184
archaeology shall be retained to prepare a Cultural Resources Mitigation and Monitoring Program for unanticipated
discoveries during project construction. The information gathered during the Phase III Data Recovery Excavation
Program will help to inform the Cultural Resources Mitigation and Monitoring Program. The Cultural Resources Mitigation and Monitoring Program shall be prepared in consultation with Native American tribes who have participated in consultation for the proposed project. The Cultural Resources Mitigation and Monitoring Program shall include provisions for archaeological and Native American monitoring of all ground disturbance related to construction of the proposed project, project construction schedule, procedures to be followed in the event of discovery of archaeological resources, and protocols for Native American coordination and input, including review of documents. The Cultural Resources Mitigation and Monitoring Program shall outline the role and responsibilities of Native American monitors. It shall include communication protocols and opportunity and timelines for review of cultural resources documents related to discoveries that are Native American in origin. The Cultural Resources Mitigation and Monitoring Program shall include provisions for Native American
monitoring during testing or data recovery efforts for unknown resources that are Native American in origin (Mitigation Measures CUL-6 and CUL-7). The Native American monitors shall be of Kumeyaay descent with ancestral ties to the San Diego region and at minimum 1 year of monitoring experience within Kumeyaay ancestral territory. Once completed, the Cultural Resources Mitigation and Monitoring Program shall be reviewed and approved by the Project Planner at the City of Santee prior to the start of any ground-disturbing activities.
CUL-5: Cultural Resources Construction Monitoring. A qualified archaeologist who meets or exceeds the Secretary of Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Archaeology shall be present during ground-disturbing activity for project
construction, including but not limited to site clearing, grubbing, trenching, and excavation, for the duration of the proposed project or until the qualified archaeologist determines monitoring is no longer necessary. The archaeological monitor shall prepare daily logs and submit weekly updates to the Project Planner at the City of Santee regarding the activities observed. In the event that previously unidentified prehistoric or historic archaeological materials or human remains are encountered during project construction, the significance of the discovery shall be assessed based on the steps outlined in the Cultural Resources Mitigation and Monitoring Program
RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
185
identified in Mitigation Measures CUL-4, CUL-7, and CUL-10 for the proposed project.
At the completion of monitoring, the qualified archaeologist shall prepare a Cultural Resources Monitoring Report to document the findings during the monitoring effort for the proposed project. The report shall include the monitoring logs completed for the proposed project and shall document any discoveries made during monitoring. The report shall also include the monitoring logs prepared by the Native American monitor for the proposed project. The Native American
monitors shall be of Kumeyaay descent with ancestral ties to the San Diego region and at minimum 1 year of monitoring experience within Kumeyaay ancestral territory. The Cultural Resources Monitoring Report shall be submitted to the City of Santee and the South Coastal Information Center.
CUL-6: Native American Construction Monitoring. A minimum of one Native American monitor shall be present during grounddisturbing activity for project construction, including but not limited to site clearing, grubbing, trenching, and excavation, for the duration of the proposed project or until the qualified archaeologist determines monitoring is no longer necessary.
The Native American monitors shall be of Kumeyaay descent with ancestral ties to the San Diego region and at minimum 1 year of monitoring experience within Kumeyaay ancestral territory. The Native American monitors shall prepare daily logs and submit weekly updates to the qualified archaeologist and the Project Planner at the City of Santee. In addition, the Native American monitors shall prepare and submit a summary
statement upon completion of monitoring to include in the Cultural Resources Monitoring Report prepared for the
proposed project (see Mitigation Measure CUL-5). The Project Planner at the City of Santee shall review and include the summary statement as part of the cultural resources monitoring report prepared for the proposed project.
CUL-7: Previously Unidentified Archaeological Resources. If cultural resources are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, work in the immediate area shall be halted, and the qualified archaeologist shall evaluate the resource in consultation with the Native American monitor. If necessary, the evaluation may require preparation of a Treatment Plan and archaeological testing for California Register of Historical Resources or National Register of Historic Places eligibility. If the City of Santee, in consultation with the qualified archaeologist, determines that the discovery is significant and cannot be RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
186
avoided by the proposed project, additional work, such as the data recovery excavation described in Mitigation Measure CUL2, shall be completed prior to the resumption of grounddisturbing activities in the immediate area to mitigate any significant impacts to cultural resources.
CUL-8: Curation of Archaeological Resources. Upon completion of project construction, archaeological collections that have not been repatriated or buried on site (per Mitigation Measure CUL11), along with final reports, field notes, and other standard documentation collected, shall be permanently curated at a facility in San Diego County that meets the State Historical Resources Commission’s Guidelines for the Curation of
Archaeological Collections. A qualified archaeologist who meets or exceeds the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for archaeology shall be required to secure a written agreement with a recognized museum
repository regarding the final disposition and permanent storage and maintenance of all archaeological resources recovered as a result of the Phase III archaeological
investigations and monitoring activities that have not been repatriated or buried on site. The written agreement shall specify the level of treatment (preparation, identification, curation, cataloging) required before the collection would be accepted for storage. The cost of curation is assessed by the repository and is the responsibility of the applicant.
CUL-9: Cultural and Tribal Cultural Impacts Associated with Biological Restoration. Prior to the execution of Mitigation Measures BIO1, BIO-2, BIO-12, and BIO-15, the supervising biologists and applicant shall consult with the City of Santee, a qualified archaeologist who meets the Secretary of Interior’s
Professional Qualifications Standards for archaeology, and the Native American groups who have participated in consultation for the proposed project to complete the following tasks to address potential impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources:
1. After the identification of possible biological restoration areas, the archaeologists and a Native American monitor of Kumeyaay descent with ancestral ties to the San Diego
region and at minimum 1 year of monitoring experience
within Kumeyaay ancestral territory shall complete a
cultural resource records search of the California Historical Resources Information System and in-fill pedestrian
surveys of any areas not previously investigated by Atkins (December 2017) or Rincon (May 2020) as part of the
RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
187
proposed project.
• The survey shall include the biological mitigation area and a 100-foot buffer.
• The survey shall be carried out using transects spaced no greater than 10 meters apart to be consistent with the standard field methods used by the previous studies
(Atkins [December 2017] or Rincon [May 2020]).
• A Native American monitor shall be present and shall
participate in the survey effort.
• Any cultural and or tribal cultural resources identified during the restoration effort shall be documented using California Department of Parks and Recreation Series 523 forms and be filed at the South Coastal Information Center. • A Phase I report that documents the survey locations and the results of the survey and includes California Department of Parks and Recreation Series 523 forms for any resources identified during the survey effort shall be completed by the qualified archaeologist. The report shall be prepared in accordance with the California Office of Historic
Preservation’s 1990 Archaeological Resource Management
Report’s: Recommended Contents and Format and
California Environmental Quality Act; California Public Resources Code, Section 21084.1; and California
Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, Section 15126.4(b).
The final report shall be electronically submitted to the City of Santee and the South Coastal Information Center.
2. If human remains are identified on the surface during the pedestrian survey, the location of the human remains and a 50-foot buffer shall be avoided. Steps outlined in Mitigation Measure CUL-10 shall be followed in the event human
remains are identified.
3. If a resource not containing human remains cannot be feasibly avoided, then a Phase II evaluation of the resource shall occur to determine the eligibility of the resource for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources.
The Phase II evaluation shall be implemented by a qualified archaeologist who meets the Secretary of Interior’s
Professional Qualifications Standards for archaeology and observed by a Native American monitor.
• If the resource is recommended eligible by the qualified archaeologist and the City of Santee concurs with the
recommendation, Mitigation Measure CUL-2 shall be
carried out.
− Following completion of Mitigation Measure CUL-2,
Mitigation Measures CUL-3 through CUL-8, CUL-10, and
CUL-11 shall be implemented.
RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
188
• If the resource is recommended ineligible by the qualified archaeologist, and the City of Santee concurs with the
recommendation, no further testing shall be required. A determination of eligibility shall be made by the qualified archaeologist in consultation with the City of Santee and Native American groups who have consulted on the
proposed project. Upon completion of the determination of eligibility, Mitigation Measures CUL-5 through CUL-11 shall be implemented.
The City Council finds that Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL9 are feasible, are adopted, and will further reduce impacts related to archeological resources. Accordingly, the City Council finds that, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081(a)(1) and State CEQA Guidelines section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project that mitigate or avoid the potentially significant impacts of the proposed Project to archeological resources, as identified in the EIR.
Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant. Mitigation measures will further reduce impacts related to archeological resources. (EIR, § 4.4.5.2.)
2. Human Remains
Threshold: Would the Project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
Finding: Less than significant with mitigation. (EIR, § 4.4.5.3.) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, section 15091(a)(1).)
Explanation: Human remains are known to occur on the project site. Both the Phase I survey and Phase II testing revealed human remains within the proposed APE at sites CA-SDI-8243 and CA-SDI-8345. The coroner during the Atkins survey identified 4 bone fragments as likely human and 76 as possibly human bone. Rincon’s Phase I survey and Phase II testing revealed human remains at site CA-SDI-8243 consisting of 11 bone fragments identified as human or possibly human. These human remains would be repatriated to the most likely descendant upon completion of the proposed project.
Projects that result in substantial grading or excavations in native soils have the potential to impact archaeological resources that may contain human remains. The proposed project would occur in currently undeveloped land resulting in grading and excavation into RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
189
native terrain where human remains are known to occur. Therefore, the potential exists for previously undiscovered human remains to be discovered during project grading and excavation. If human remains are inadvertently discovered, the impact would be considered significant unless the appropriate procedures were implemented.
California law recognizes the need to protect Native American human burials, skeletal remains, and items associated with Native American burials from vandalism and inadvertent destruction. The procedures for the treatment of Native American human remains are contained in California Health and Safety Code, Sections 7050.5 and 7052, and California Public Resources Code, Section 5097.
The City received a comment expressing concerns for the identification, treatment, and protection of human remains and requesting the use of “cadaver dogs during a more extensive survey of the area”. The City, based on recommendations from its qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the consulting tribe and representative of the MLD, disagrees that the use of cadaver dogs is required to adequately determine the presence of human remains associated with CA-SDI-8243 and CA-SDI 8345. Use of cadaver dogs is not standard practice for Phase I surveys or Phase II testing and evaluation, and neither the MLD nor the consulting tribe recommends it. The use of cadaver dogs to accurately identify prehistoric cremations over 400 years in age has not been thoroughly vetted in our region (climate, vegetation, soil conditions as well as disturbance can affect a dogs ability to alert to human remains).
Additionally, there is not always a one-to-one correspondence between the dog alert location and the victim’s remains, which can be offset by hundreds of feet. Given the known localities where human remains exist, it is possible that cadaver dogs would alert up to several hundred feet away from known localities creating false positives around those areas. See, Advanced Scientific Methods and Procedures in the Forensic Investigation of Clandestine Graves, Daniel O. Larson, Arpad A. Vass, and Marc Wise, 2011. Moreover, it has already been established that human remains are present in these areas and, therefore, would not change the California Register of Historical Resources eligibility of these resources.
Due to the identification of human remains on the project site and extensive disturbance set to take place in the on-site native terrain, Mitigation Measure CUL-10 would be implemented to reduce impacts to the disturbance of human remains in recorded and unrecorded sites to a less than significant level.
CUL-10: Discovery of Human Remains. If human remains are found, State of California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5, RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
190
states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to California Public Resources Code, Section 5097.98.
In the event of an unanticipated discovery of human remains, the County Coroner must be notified immediately. If the human remains are determined to be prehistoric, the coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, which will
determine and notify a most likely descendant. The most likely descendant shall complete the inspection of the site within 48 hours of being granted access and shall provide
recommendations for the treatment of the remains.
The City Council finds that Mitigation Measure CUL-10 is feasible, is adopted, and will further reduce impacts related to human remains.
Accordingly, the City Council finds that, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081(a)(1) and State CEQA Guidelines section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project that mitigate or avoid the potentially significant impacts of the proposed Project to human remains, as identified in the EIR. Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant. Mitigation measures will further reduce impacts related to human remains. (EIR, § 4.4.5.3.)
D. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
1. Soil Erosion
Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Finding: Less than significant with mitigation. (EIR, § 4.6.5.2.) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, section 15091(a)(1).)
Explanation: Erosion Impacts. Construction of the proposed project would involve extensive excavation and grading into the native terrain. Earthwork would involve approximately 27 million cubic yards of cut and fill materials, which would be balanced on site. The on-site aggregate plant would help balance the cut and fill by producing approximately 300,000 cubic yards of building materials required for the proposed project. Construction would include cuts up to 165 feet and fills up to 142 feet. Although over 63 percent of the project site would be retained as Habitat Preserve, those areas to be developed (graded) would be subject to wind and water erosion hazards due to the proposed project’s removal of stabilizing vegetation and the RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
191
construction of manufactured slopes. Construction activity would potentially accelerate erosion rates in currently undeveloped areas, and the erosion potential would be the highest in drainages or manufactured slopes. Soil removal associated with grading and excavation activities would reduce soil cohesion due to the generally loose and unconsolidated nature of graded areas and fill materials.
Furthermore, excavated soils would be stockpiled for subsequent construction phases, which would be potentially exposed to erosive forces such as wind and water. The erosion effects of the proposed project would depend largely on the nature of the areas disturbed, the quantity of disturbance, and the length of time soils are subject to conditions that would be affected by erosion processes.
Construction of the three proposed villages would have the potential to cause erosion or loss of topsoil due to the extensive amount of cut and fill required in the native terrain (27,000,000 cubic yards). In the proposed Fanita Commons site, grading would primarily consist of filling operations to create large sheet-graded pads that would support commercial/retail uses and the residential Active Adult area.
It is anticipated that a significant portion of the embankment material that would be needed to create the proposed Fanita Commons would originate from a large excavation in Stadium Conglomerate in the Orchard Village site, which would provide adequate materials for capping and slope construction. Relatively significant excavations are also planned along the northeastern and eastern boundaries of the proposed Fanita Commons site. The primary geotechnical consideration for grading in the Fanita Commons site is the extent of remedial grading that would be required to remove and compact potentially compressible surficial deposits beneath the proposed embankments and the rippability of the rock excavation planned in the northeastern corner of the village site.
Proposed grading in the Orchard Village site would generally consist of significant excavations in the central portions of the site and fill placement along the flanks of the ridges. The majority of the excavations would occur in Stadium Conglomerate which would provide adequate materials for capping the site and grading shear keys and buttresses in the event that stabilization procedures are necessary. Orchard Village contains areas underlain by the Friars Formation and ancient landslides that would have the potential to result in a significant impact related to soil erosion or topsoil loss and, thus, require mitigation.
In the proposed Vineyard Village site, significant excavations are proposed in Stadium Conglomerate and gabbroic rock along the ridge tops which would be used to fill canyon areas. The primary geotechnical considerations for grading in the proposed Vineyard RESOLUTION NO. 072-2025
192
Village site are the excavation characteristics of the Stadium Conglomerate and underlying granitic and gabbroic rocks, and the thickness and extent of surficial deposits (alluvium, colluvium). Thus, a potentially significant soil erosion or topsoil loss impact may occur, which would require mitigation.
Improvements associated with Fanita Parkway would consist of grading along the eastern side of the proposed parkway from Mast Boulevard to Ganley Road, and placing additional embankments at several locations along the western edge of the existing roadway.
Proposed grading would generally consist of cut and fill slopes of less than 10 feet. Several retaining walls measuring equal to or less than 12 feet in height are also proposed. Improvements to Cuyamaca Street would cross at least three easterly draining ravines. Cut and fill on the order of 85 feet and 70 feet, respectively, are proposed. It is anticipated that the proposed embankments would be constructed from materials excavated from the roadway cut areas. For the proposed extension of Magnolia Avenue, cut and fill on the order of 60 feet and 45 feet, respectively, are proposed. Due to extensive alteration of the natural ground surface during grading operations associated with the construction of the proposed villages and roadway improvements, there is a high possibility for erosion and topsoil loss.
Hydrologic Erosion Impacts. Erosion can also occur in connection with the hydrology of a project. Increases in flow, typically associated with increased impermeable surfaces, can result in increased erosion to on- and off-site drainage courses. Implementation of the proposed project would result in an increase of impervious surfaces throughout the site from construction of new development and roadways. As stated in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, the proposed project would comply with the City’s Stormwater Permit and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System general permit for construction activities. The proposed project would also implement several erosion control BMPs including preserving existing vegetation, mulching, and hydroseeding, which would be included as part of a stormwater pollution prevention plan prepared for the proposed project. Examples of wind erosion control BMPs include applying water or other dust suppressants to exposed soils on the site or applying coverings to stockpiles located throughout the site. Additionally, all construction activities under the proposed project would comply with the City’s Excavation and Grading Ordinance as well as the CBC, specifically Chapter 18, Soils and Foundations, which regulates excavation activities, grading activities, and the construction of foundations and retaining walls.