Ncil20251210 — Santee City Council, December 10, 2025 (part 1 of 13)

The Exchange at
Santee Town Center
CEQA Consistency Analysis
Lead Agency:

City of Santee
10601 Magnolia Avenue
Santee, CA 92071
Project Applicant:

Borstein Enterprises
11766 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 820
Los Angeles, CA 90025
CEQA Consultant:
3333 Michelson Drive, Suite 500
Irvine, CA 92612
September 2025
The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
This page intentionally left blank.

The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
i
Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................1

1.1. PURPOSE........................................................................................................................................................1

1.2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT .....................................................................................1

1.3. PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION................................................................................2

1.4. EXISTING PLANS, PROGRAMS, OR POLICIES (PPP).............................................................................2

2. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING...........................................................................................................4

2.1. PROJECT LOCATION...................................................................................................................................4

2.2. EXISTING LAND USE....................................................................................................................................4

2.3. EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS............................................4

2.4. SURROUNDING LAND USES .....................................................................................................................4

3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...............................................................................................................25

3.1. PROJECT OVERVIEW............................................................................................................................... 25

3.2. PROJECT FEATURES.................................................................................................................................. 25

3.3. CONSTRUCTION....................................................................................................................................... 27

3.4. OPERATION................................................................................................................................................ 27

3.5. DISCRETIONARY ACTION CHECKLIST .................................................................................................. 28

4. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FACTOR.......................................................................................43

4.1. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED..................................................................... 43

4.2. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS THAT DO NOT REQUIRE FURTHER ANALYSIS................................ 43

4.3. DETERMINATION....................................................................................................................................... 44

5. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................45

5.1. AESTHETICS................................................................................................................................................ 45

5.2. AIR QUALITY .............................................................................................................................................. 51

5.3. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES....................................................................................................................... 58

5.4. CULTURAL RESOURCES............................................................................................................................ 67

5.5. GEOLOGY AND SOILS............................................................................................................................ 73

5.6. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS............................................................................................................ 81

5.7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS........................................................................................... 86

5.8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY .................................................................................................. 94

5.9. LAND USE AND PLANNING..................................................................................................................101

5.10. NOISE ........................................................................................................................................................106

5.11. POPULATION AND HOUSING.............................................................................................................116

5.12. PUBLIC SERVICES ....................................................................................................................................119

5.13. RECREATION............................................................................................................................................125

5.14. TRANSPORTATION.................................................................................................................................128

5.15. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................134

5.16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS........................................................................................................137

5.17. WILDFIRE...................................................................................................................................................144

6. REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................................148 The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
ii
Tables
TABLE 2-1: LAND USE AND ZONING OF SURROUNDED USES................................................................................................5 TABLE 3-1: RESIDENTIAL UNIT SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................ 25 TABLE AES-1: CONSISTENCY WITH STANDARDS FOR TC-R-22......................................................................................... 48 TABLE AQ-1: SDAPCD REGIONAL THRESHOLDS............................................................................................................... 53 TABLE AQ-2: REGIONAL CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES........................................................................................ 54 TABLE AQ-3: REGIONAL OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES........................................................................................... 55 TABLE GHG-1: PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH THE SUSTAINABLE SANTEE PLAN................................................................ 83 TABLE GHG-2: PROJECT CONSTRUCTION GHG EMISSIONS............................................................................................ 84 TABLE GHG-3: PROJECT TOTAL GHG EMISSIONS............................................................................................................ 84 TABLE LU-1: PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH LAND USE PLANS AND POLICIES ..................................................................102 TABLE N-1: EXISTING NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS.........................................................................................................108 TABLE N-2: ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS AT NEAREST RECEPTORS .............................................................111 TABLE N-3: CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION REFERENCE LEVELS.............................................................................................113 TABLE N-4: CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION ANNOYANCE IMPACTS AT NEAREST RECEPTOR ................................................113 TABLE N-5: CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION DAMAGE IMPACTS AT NEAREST RECEPTOR.......................................................113 TABLE T-1: TRIP GENERATION ...........................................................................................................................................130 Figures
FIGURE 2-1: REGIONAL LOCATION........................................................................................................................................7 FIGURE 2-2: LOCAL VICINITY.................................................................................................................................................9 FIGURE 2-3: AERIAL VIEW................................................................................................................................................... 11 FIGURE 2-4A: SITE PHOTOS................................................................................................................................................ 13 FIGURE 2-4B: SITE PHOTOS ................................................................................................................................................ 15 FIGURE 2-4C: SITE PHOTOS................................................................................................................................................ 17 FIGURE 2-5: EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE .............................................................................................................. 19 FIGURE 2-6: EXISTING ZONING.......................................................................................................................................... 21 FIGURE 2-7: EXISTING SPECIFIC PLAN DESIGNATION......................................................................................................... 23 FIGURE 3-1: CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN................................................................................................................................. 29 FIGURE 3-2A: ELEVATIONS.................................................................................................................................................. 31 FIGURE 3-2B: ELEVATIONS .................................................................................................................................................. 33 FIGURE 3-2C: ELEVATIONS.................................................................................................................................................. 35 FIGURE 3-2D: ELEVATIONS.................................................................................................................................................. 37 FIGURE 3-3: CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN..................................................................................................................... 39 FIGURE 3-4: WALL AND FENCE PLAN................................................................................................................................. 41 FIGURE 5-1: NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS ..............................................................................................................109 Appendices

APPENDIX A AIR QUALITY, ENERGY, AND GREENHOUSE GAS IMPACT ANALYSIS

APPENDIX B BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT

APPENDIX C CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL DUE DILIGENCE STUDY

APPENDIX D GEOTECHNICAL DUE DILIGENCE MEMO

APPENDIX E PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT

APPENDIX F DRAINAGE STUDY

APPENDIX G STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN
The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
iii

APPENDIX H NOISE AND VIBRATION IMPACT ANALYSIS

APPENDIX I TRIP GENERATION AND VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
iv
Acronym List
AB Assembly Bill
ACM asbestos containing material
ADT average daily traffic
AIA Airport Influence Area
ALUC Airport Land Use Commission
ALUCP Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
amsl above mean sea level
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
BMPs best management practices
BRA Biological Resources Assessment
CARB California Air Resources Board
CBC California Building Code
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CNEL community noise level equivalent
CNPS California Native Plant Society
CO carbon monoxide
CREC controlled recognized environmental conditions
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
dB(A) A-weighted decibel
DIF development impact fees
DPM diesel particulate matter
DR Development Review
du/ac dwelling units per acre
EI expansion index
ESA Environmental Site Assessment
EV electric vehicle
FAA Federal Aviation Authority
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FIRM flood insurance rate maps
GHG greenhouse gas
GMP Groundwater Management Plans
GUHSD Grossmont Union High School District
HCP Habitat Conservation Plan
HMBP Hazardous Materials Business Plan
HOA Home Owners Association
HREC historical recognized environmental conditions
HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
JRMP Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plan
LBP lead based paint
Leq equivalent continuous sound level
LID low impact development
LOS level of service
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MGD million gallons per day
MHMP Hazard Mitigation Plan
MLD Most Likely Descendant
The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
v
MSCP Multiple Species Conservation Plan
NACH Native American Heritage Commission
NCCP Natural Communities Conservation Plan
NOx nitrogen oxides
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
OHP Office of Historic Preservation
OPR Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
PDMWD Padre Dam Municipal Water District
PEIR Program Environmental Impact Report
PM10 particulate matter 10 microns in diameter
PM2.5 particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter
PPP Plans, Programs, or Policies
PPV peak particle velocity
RAQS Regional Air Quality Strategy
REC recognized environmental conditions
RHNA Regional Housing Needs Assessment
RMS root mean square
ROG reactive organic gases
RTP/SCS Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Community Strategy SANDAG San Diego Association of Governments
SB Senate Bill
SDAB San Diego Air Basin
SDAPCD San Diego Air Pollution Control District
SDCL San Diego County Library
SDCSD San Diego County Sanitation District
SDG&E San Diego Gas and Electric
SF square feet
SFHA Special Flood Hazard Areas
SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
SIP State Implementation Plan
SMC Santee Municipal Code
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SR State Route
SSD Santee School District
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
TACs toxic air contaminants
TCSP Town Center Specific Plan
TTM Tentative Tract Map
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
VHFHSZ Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
VMT vehicle miles traveled
WM Waste Management
WQIP Water Quality Improvement Plan
WQMP Water Quality Management Plan
WRF Water Recycling Facility
WUIA Wildland Urban Interface Areas
WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant
The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
1 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. PURPOSE
This CEQA Consistency analysis evaluates whether the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Exchange at Santee Town Center Residential Project (“Project” or “proposed Project”) are addressed in the Program Environmental Impact Report prepared for the City of Santee Housing Element Rezone Program Implementation (the certified Rezone PEIR; State Clearinghouse [SCH] #2021100263) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15162. The Lead Agency (City of Santee) will utilize this document as evidence that the proposed Project is within the scope of the project covered by the Rezone PEIR and subject to streamlined CEQA review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15168 and 15162, as detailed below.

1.2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 provides that programmatic EIRs may be used to review later activities that are within the scope of the project covered by the program EIR. Whether a later activity is within the scope of a program EIR is a factual question that the Lead Agency determines based on substantial evidence in the record, including consistency with allowable land uses, overall planned density/intensity, geographic area, and covered infrastructure.

The Project is within the scope of the Rezone PEIR because the site is identified in the Housing Element Rezone Program Implementation, which assumed a total new development capacity of 1,945 units. The Rezone PEIR conservatively analyzed a total development capacity of 1,945 units on 25 sites from the City of Santee Housing Element and two sites located on Graves Avenue at a programmatic level. However, only a portion of the housing units identified on housing sites are necessary to accommodate the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) planning obligation of 1,219 housing units. Of the units analyzed in the Rezone PEIR, 115 units were assumed for Rezone Site 15 in which the Project is located. CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 directs cities to use a written checklist or similar device to document the evaluation of a project to determine whether the environmental effects of the project were within the scope of the PEIR.

As set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162:
a) When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the Lead Agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following:

1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;

2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or

3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
2 b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
c. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or d. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. b) If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes available after adoption of a negative declaration, the lead agency shall prepare a subsequent EIR if required under subdivision (a). Otherwise the lead agency shall determine whether to prepare a subsequent negative declaration, an addendum, or no further documentation.
c) Once a project has been approved, the lead agency's role in project approval is completed, unless further discretionary approval on that project is required. Information appearing after an approval does not require reopening of that approval. If after the project is approved, any of the conditions described in subdivision (a) occurs, a subsequent EIR or negative declaration shall only be prepared by the public agency which grants the next discretionary approval for the project, if any. In this situation no other responsible agency shall grant an approval for the project until the subsequent EIR has been certified or subsequent negative declaration adopted.
d) A subsequent EIR or subsequent negative declaration shall be given the same notice and public review as required under Section 15087 or Section 15072. A subsequent EIR or negative declaration shall state where the previous document is available and can be reviewed. (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15162)

1.3. PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION
On October 12, 2022, the City of Santee (City) certified the City of Santee Housing Element Rezone Program Implementation and related Program Environmental Impact Report (Rezone PEIR). The Rezone PEIR evaluated the potential environmental effects of the implementing actions associated with the City’s adopted and certified 2021-2029 Housing Element for the 6th cycle planning period. The Rezone PEIR analyzed a total development capacity of 1,945 units on 25 housing sites and two sites located on Graves Avenue. The Rezone PEIR analyzed the Project as Rezone Site 15 with a potential development capacity of up to 115 units.

The Rezone PEIR identified no impact or less-than-significant impacts related to agriculture and forestry resources; aesthetics; energy; geology and soils; hydrology and water quality; mineral resources; population and housing; public services and recreation; and wildfire. The Rezone PEIR identified mitigation measures that would reduce impacts to less than significant for the following topic areas: biological resources; cultural and tribal cultural resources; hazards and hazardous materials; paleontological resources; noise and vibration (construction and operation); and utilities. The Rezone PEIR identified significant and unavoidable impacts related to air quality, greenhouse gases, land use and planning; vehicle traffic noise; and transportation.

1.4. EXISTING PLANS, PROGRAMS, OR POLICIES (PPP)
Throughout the analysis of this document, reference is made to requirements that are applied to all development on the basis of federal, State, or local law. Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies are collectively identified in this document as PPPs. Where applicable, existing PPPs are listed to show their effect in reducing potential environmental impacts. Additionally, applicable mitigation measures and standard conditions from The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
3 the Rezone PEIR are included herein and will be incorporated into the Project. As shown throughout the analysis, the Project does not result in any new impacts, and no additional mitigation measures are required.

The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
4 2. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

2.1. PROJECT LOCATION
The Project site is located at 9506 Mission Gorge Road in the southern portion of the City of Santee in San Diego County in the unsectioned portion (Section 00) of Township 15 South, Range 1 West in the El Cajon (7.5-minute) Quadrangle. Specifically, the site is located south of the San Diego River, west of Town Center Parkway, north of Mission Gorge Road, and east of Carlton Hills Boulevard. The 5.26-gross-acre (4.18 net acres) Project site consists of one parcel identified as Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 381-040-36. Regional access to the site is provided via State Route 52, State Route 125, and State Route 67. Local access to the site is provided via Mission Gorge Road. The Project site and the surrounding area are shown in Figure 2-1, Regional Location, and Figure 2-2, Local Vicinity.

2.2. EXISTING LAND USE
The Project site is currently vacant and contains disturbed, ruderal habitat, that has previously been subject to several decades of weed abatement. There is one existing tree in the northwest corner of the site and a row of shrubs along the eastern property line. Topography at the site is relatively flat with on-site elevations ranging from 331 feet above mean sea level (amsl) to 336 feet amsl. Additionally, above ground utilities exist in the northern portion of the site. Existing conditions of the Project site and adjacent uses are shown in Figure 2-3, Aerial View, and Figures 2-4a-c, Site Photos.

2.3. EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS The Project site has a General Plan land use designation of Town Center (TC) and is within the Town Center Specific Plan area. Within the Town Center Specific Plan, the site is dually zoned as Residential TC-R-22 or Office/Commercial. The TC-R-22 zone intended for residential development that typically could include midrise apartment and condominium buildings at a density between 22 to 30 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). The Office/Commercial zone provides for employment and professional/administrative offices and personal services rather than commodities, with limited retail uses. Refer to Figure 2-5, Existing General Plan Land Use, Figure 2-6, Existing Zoning, and Figure 2-7, Existing Specific Plan Designation.

2.4. SURROUNDING LAND USES
The surrounding land uses, zoning, and specific plan designations are shown on Figure 2-3, Aerial View, Figure 2-5, Existing Land Use, Figure 2-6, Existing Zoning, and Figure 2-7, Existing Specific Plan Designation, and are described below.
• North: Walmart department store.
• West: Lowes Home improvement store and single-family residences. • South: United States Postal Service office.
• East: Medical offices and commercial uses (casual sit-down food chains).

The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
5 Table 2-1: Land Use and Zoning of Surrounded Uses
Direction General Plan Land Use Zoning Designation Specific Plan Designation
North Town Center (TC) Town Center (TC) Office Commercial West General Commercial (GC) and Low
Medium Density Residential (R2)
General Commercial (GC) and Low
Medium Density Residential (R2)
Not Applicable
South Town Center (TC) Town Center (TC) Office Commercial East Town Center (TC) Town Center (TC) Office Commercial Source: City of Santee, 2017a; City of Santee, 2020; City of Santee, 2025 The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
6 This page intentionally left blank.

Regional Location
Mission Gorge Residential Project Figure 2-1
City of Santee
Sycamore Landfill Rd
Mission Trails
egional Park
Lake Murray
Medi
na Dr
Carlton Oaks Dr
Lake Canyon Rd
Halbern
s Blvd
Fanita
Pkwy
Trancas Av e
Rumson Dr
Mast Blvd
Cuyamac
a St
Mast Park
West Hills High
Mesa Rd
Lake Mu
rray Blvd
Prospect Ave
Gillespie Way
Cowles Mountain
Blvd
Town Center Pkwy
Ranch o Fanita Dr
Swallo w Dr
Highwood Dr
Kat herine St
W
hitset t
Dr
Willowgr ove Ave
Rippey
S t
W Hills
Pkwy
Cuyamaca S t
Fletcher Pkwy
Fanita Dr
Weld Blvd
State Route 52
Carlton Oaks
Country Club
Grossmont
Middle College
High
Cowles M
ounta
in
Blvd
Navajo Rd
Hillside Park
Beck Dr
Cuyamaca S t
Len St Carreta Dr
Woodpark Dr
2nd S t
Ironwood Ave
N Magnolia Ave
Mast Blvd
El Nopal
Town Center
Community Park
- East
Santana High
Santee
Pioneer Way
Buena Vista Ave
Kenney S t
Wing Ave
Vulcan St Ballantyne St
Mission Gorge Rd
N M
arshall
Ave
Fletcher Pkwy
San Vicente Fwy
Sa
n
Vicente
Fwy
S tate Route 52
Gillespie Field
Sky Ranch
Sanda lwood Dr
N Marshall Ave
Parkway
Pumpkin Patch
El Cajon
San Diego
Santee
Unincorporated
Sources: Esri, TomTom, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
0 0.5 1
Miles
±
Legend
Project Boundary
El Cajon
San Diego
Santee
Unincorporated
The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee
The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
8 This page intentionally left blank.

Local Vicinity
Mission Gorge Residential Project Figure 2-2
City of Santee
Mandeville Road
Dunbarton Road
East Heaney
Circle
Maranda Drive
Ellenbee Road
Stoyer Drive Pike Road
Les Road
Domer Road
Doheny Road
Ramo Road
Abbeywood Road
Mission Creek Drive
Carlton Oaks Drive
Town Center Parkway
Cuyamaca Street
Carlton Hills Boulevard
Mast Park
Carlton Hills
Elementary
School
San Diego River
San Diego River
17 15A 15B Ellsworth Lane
Rhone Road
Atlas View Drive
Gorge Avenue
Pryor Drive
Olive Lane
ospect Avenue
Prospect Avenue
Cuyamaca Street
Fanita Drive
Mission Gorge Road Mission Gorge Road Fanita Drive
CA 52
CA 52
Forester Creek
San Diego River
Town Center
Community
Park East
Sportsplex USA
San Diego
River
Mission Greens Road
Buena Vista Avenu
Riverview Parkway
CA 52
Hawaiian
Village Mobile
Home Park
Map data © OpenStreetMap contributors, Microsoft, Facebook, Google, Esri Community Maps contributors, Map layer by Esri 0 0.15 0.3
Miles
±
Legend
Project Boundary
Mission Gorge Road
Prospect Avenue
Mission Creek Drive
52 Cuyamaca Street
Fanita Drive
Carlton Hills Boulevard
The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
10 This page intentionally left blank.

Aerial View
Mission Gorge Residential Project Figure 2-3
City of Santee
Maxar
0 150 300
US Feet
±
Legend
Project Boundary
Mission Gorge Road
Town Center Parkway
The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
12 This page intentionally left blank.

Existing Site Photos
Mission Gorge Project Figure 4a
City of Santee
Key
Viewpoint location
Direction of sight
View of the Project site from Mission Gorge Road.

Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, FEMA,
Sources: Esri, TomTom, Garmin,
The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee
The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
14 This page intentionally left blank.

Existing Site Photos
Mission Gorge Project Figure 4b
City of Santee
Key
Viewpoint location
Direction of sight View of the Project site from its northwest corner, looking southeast.

Sources: Esri, TomTom, Garmin,
FAO, NOAA, USGS, (c)
OpenStreetMap contributors,
and the GIS User Community,
The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee
The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
16 This page intentionally left blank.

Existing Site Photos
Mission Gorge Project Figure 4c
City of Santee
Key
Viewpoint location
Direction of sight View of the southeast corner of the Project site, looking northwest.

Mission Gorge Residential Project
City of Santee Existing Land Use Figure 2-5
R-B
R14
IL
R2
IL
GC
GC
R14 R7
GC
GC
GC GC
NC
R2
TC
TC
P/ OS
PU B
GC
GC
IL
E DR

VI A Z APA DOR

PR IVAT E RD

MISSI ON
GREENS

PR IVAT E RD
OLIVE
LN

ELL SWO RTH C

WILLO WG ROVE
PL

MISSI ON GREENS RD

RIVERVIEW PY
E AV

VI A Z APA DOR

JUST A LN
R WY
RA

OLIVE LN
R
ROCK

HAZ ELD ON D R
ALL EY
PR

MAC CO OL LN

PR IVAT E RD

TO WN CEN TER PY
SR -5 2 EB

E HOU SE L N
V
Project Boundary
Low Medium Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Medium High Density Residential
Residential Business
Office Professional
Neighborhood Commercial
General Commercial
Town Center
Light Industrial
Public
Park/Open Space
LEGEND
The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee
The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
20 This page intentionally left blank.

Mission Gorge Residential Project
City of Santee Existing Zoning Figure 2-6
Project Boundary
Low Medium Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Medium High Density Residential
Residential Business
LEGEND
Neighborhood Commercial
General Commercial
Town Center
Light Industrial
Park/Open Space
R2 R7 R14 RBNCGCTCIL
P/OS The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee
The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
22 This page intentionally left blank.

Existing Specific Plan Designation
Mission Gorge Residential Project Figure 2-7
City of Santee
Ma
Les Road
Domer Road
Ramo Road
Street
ospect Ave
Mis
Sa
n Center
munity
rk East
go
Vista Avenu
Project Boundary
The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
24 This page intentionally left blank.

The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
25 3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

3.1. PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Project applicant proposes to subdivide the approximately 4.18-acre parcel and develop the site with 100 attached town-home residential units. Additionally, the proposed Project includes landscaping, parking, private roadways, open space, and utility and stormwater improvements. Figure 3-1, Conceptual Site Plan, illustrates the Project as proposed. The Project requires approval of a Tentative Tract Map (TTM) and Development Review Permit (DR) from the City of Santee.

3.2. PROJECT FEATURES
Development Summary
The proposed Project would construct 100 attached town-home residential units on the 4.18-acre site, which would result in a density of 24 du/ac. The units would include four floor plans. The residential units would have 3 or 4 bedrooms and 3 or 3.5 bathrooms and would range in size from 1,459 to 1,817 square feet (SF). Table 3-1 provides a summary of the proposed residences.

Table 3-1: Residential Unit Summary
Unit Plan Unit Square Footage Bedrooms Bathrooms No. of Units 1 1,459 3 3 20
2 1,587 3 3.5 20
3 1,767 4 3.5 28
4 1,817 4 3.5 32
The proposed residences would be three stories with a maximum height of 38 feet and 6 inches, measured from finish grade to top of highest roof ridges. The residences would have a variety of architectural elements, including articulated massing and finish material palates, and have design characteristics consistent with modern styles. Conceptual renderings of the proposed residential structures are provided in Figures 3-2ad, Elevations.

Circulation and Parking
Access to the Project site would be along the west side of the Project by widening, completing and dedicating an unnamed public road from Mission Gorge Road coming from the south, that then transitions into a private driveway that extends to the north out to the adjacent property’s (Walmart) driveway. This section of road and driveway would be 30 feet wide, including an 8-foot-wide parallel parking area and 5.5 feet for curb and sidewalk, and there will be a transition area where the driveway connects to the Walmart parking lot.

The residential units would be accessed off this westerly roadway via two 26-foot-wide main private driveways that loop around the Project. The Project site can also be accessed from three existing driveways from the existing commercial uses on the east side of the site which would remain unchanged with implementation of the Project. Internal drive aisles ranging from 20 to 26 feet wide would provide circulation throughout the site. The Project would install 3- to 5-foot-wide sidewalks along internal driveways and paseos for access to the units.

The Project would include a total of 229 parking spaces. All units would include a two-car garage for a total of 200 garage spaces. Pursuant to Santee Municipal Code (SMC) Section 13.24.040(E), each garage would provide electric vehicle (EV) charging capability. Additionally, the Project would provide 18 The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
26 uncovered head-in spaces and 11 uncovered parallel spaces along the internal streets throughout the site, of which four would be EV ready, and three would be accessible, including one van accessible space.

Open Space, Landscaping, and Fencing
The Project would provide 7,320 SF of private open space, which would average out to 73 SF of private open space per unit. The Project would also provide 50,223 SF of common open space. Open space amenities include an open turf lawn for active and passive play, tot lot on rubberized play surface, overhead shade structure with barbeque island, picnic tables, bench seating, and trash receptacles for small social events and gatherings, and a fenced in dog run with artificial turf.

The Project would install new drought tolerant landscaping including 24-inch box, 36-inch box, 48-inch box, 60-inch box, and 15-gallon trees, and a variety of shrubs, vines, and groundcovers. Landscaping would be installed throughout the Project site, including along the perimeter of the site, around the proposed residential units, and around the proposed tot lot and recreational areas. Additional landscaping would be installed at the northwest corner of the site, extending beyond the northern property line, as well as along the eastern side of unnamed road adjacent to the existing United States Postal Service parking lot south of the site.

Additionally, there is an existing San Diego County Sanitation District (SDCSD) sewer main line located within the western portion of the site. The Project is requesting to plant trees (species with non-invasive root systems such as Tristania Conferta and Brisbane Box would be selected) within 10 feet of the existing SDCSD sewer main pipeline; however, the Project would install a four-foot-deep root barrier adjacent to the proposed planting in order to protect the existing sewer line.

The irrigation system would be designed for water conservation and in compliance with applicable municipal code landscape and irrigation regulations (SMC Section 13.36) and State mandate regulations (AB 1881).

Figure 3-3, Conceptual Landscape Plan, illustrates the site’s landscape plan as proposed.

The Project would include a 6-foot-tall split-face block wall along the southern and eastern property lines and a 6-foot-tall composite modular fence along the northern property line. Additionally, a 5-foot, 6-inch tube steel fence would be installed around the perimeter of the dog run in the northern portion of the site.

The Project would include five metal pedestrian gates, each measuring 5 feet and 6 inches in height. Three gates would be installed along the split-face block wall on the eastern property line to provide access to the community. One gate would be located at the southeast corner of the tube steel fence surrounding the dog run to allow entry into this area. The fifth gate would be installed along the composite modular fence at the northern property line, providing a connection from the ADA path of travel near the western end of the open turf area to the proposed public sidewalk located along the northern property line beyond the wall. Proposed fencing and walls are shown in Figure 3-4, Wall and Fence Plan.

Infrastructure Improvements
Gas and Electric
No natural gas is proposed as part of the Project. Electricity would be provided by San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E). The Project would install underground electric lines that would connect to existing SDG&E infrastructure in adjacent roadways.

Water and Sewer
The proposed Project would be serviced by Padre Dam Municipal Water District (PDMWD) for water and sewer services. The Project would install new 4-inch water and 8-inch fire service lines on-site, which would both connect to the existing 8-inch water line in the unnamed road along the western edge of the site.

The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
27 The Project would also install 8-inch private sewer lines on-site which would connect to the existing 8-inch sewer line north of the site adjacent to and west of the dog park area.

Drainage
The Project would install a storm drainage system that would collect surface flows via a series of curb opening modular wetland systems located throughout the site. Captured stormwater would be treated through the nine proposed modular wetland systems before being conveyed north where it would eventually drain to the San Diego River.

Street Improvements
The Project would install a 5.5-foot-wide sidewalk along the north side of the Project outside the property line wall adjacent to the Walmart parking lots. The proposed sidewalk would extend pedestrian access from the Walmart parking lot to the private unnamed road located on the westside of the Project and out to Mission Gorge Road. Furthermore, the Project would install a sidewalk along the east side of the property line, just outside and adjacent to the masonry wall along the east side of the Project.

The proposed Project would improve and extend the existing unnamed access road along the western edge of the site from Mission Gorge Road to the existing Walmart parking lot north of the Project site, providing vehicular access through the northwest corner of the site to the existing drive aisle along the northern boundary. Completion of street improvements would also include the installation of a 5-foot-wide sidewalk and the replacement of the existing 6-inch curb and gutter along the Project frontage adjacent to the unnamed access road, as well as along the northern and eastern edges of the site.

In addition, the proposed Project would include off-site improvements to the northbound and southbound left-turn pockets on the median in Mission Gorge Road, southwest of the Project site. The existing northbound left-turn pocket would be shortened from 290 feet to 192 feet, while the existing southbound left-turn pocket would be extended from 95 feet to 195 feet, in order to provide equal length and queuing capacity for both turn-pockets. New curb and gutters would also be installed along the median.

3.3. CONSTRUCTION
Construction activities for the Project would occur over one phase lasting approximately 16 months, beginning February 2026 and ending June 2027. Construction would occur in the following stages: (1) site preparation and grading; (2) building construction; (3) paving; and (4) architectural coatings. Construction activities would be limited to the hours of 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM, Monday through Saturday, with no work on Sundays and City recognized holidays, consistent with SMC Section 5.04.080.

Project grading is anticipated to result in a cut of approximately 11,900 cubic yards (CY) and a fill of approximately 1,900 CY of soil, totaling a net export of 10,000 CY of soil.

3.4. OPERATION
The proposed Project would operate as a residential community consisting of 100 three-story townhomes within the City of Santee. The townhome units would be for sale at market rates to the general public. The Project would operate as a typical high-density residential development and daily operations would consist primarily of residential activities, including commuting, household routines, recreation use of on-site open space, and regular property maintenance. The project would be governed by a Homeowners Association (HOA) and subject to Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions.

The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
28 3.5. DISCRETIONARY ACTION CHECKLIST
As part of the proposed Project, the following discretionary actions are being requested from the City of Santee by the Project Applicant:
• Approval of Tentative Tract Map (TTM)
• Approval of Development Review Permit (DR)
• Ministerial approvals of permits necessary to execute the proposed Project, including but not limited to, grading permit, building permits, landscape permits, fire permits, etc.

Other approvals needed include the following:
• San Diego County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for a letter of consistency with the San Diego County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP).

Conceptual Site Plan
Mission Gorge Residential Project Figure 3-1
City of Santee
Ma
Les Road
Domer Road
Ramo Road
Street
ospect Ave
Mis
Sa
n Center
munity
rk East
go
Vista Avenu
The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
30 This page intentionally left blank.

Mission Gorge Residential Project
City of Santee Elevations Figure 3-2a 38'-6"
4 5 2 9 1 8 7 3 4 8 2 6 5 3 1 7 9

MATERIAL SCHEDULE
1 ROOF - BUILT UP PARAPET
2 WALL - STUCCO
3 WALL - BRICK VENEER
4 TRIM - 2X STUCCO OVER
5 METAL RAILING
6 METAL AWNING
7 STUCCO AWNING
8 STUCCO REGLET
9 VINYL WINDOW
3 7 8 1 9 2 5 4 8 9 2 1 4 5
The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee
The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
32 This page intentionally left blank.

Mission Gorge Residential Project
City of Santee Elevations Figure 3-2b 38'-6"
4 5 2 9 8 1 7 3 9 2 4 6 5 3 7 1 8

MATERIAL SCHEDULE
1 ROOF - BUILT UP PARAPET
2 WALL - STUCCO
3 WALL - BRICK VENEER
4 TRIM - 2X STUCCO OVER
5 METAL RAILING
6 METAL AWNING
7 STUCCO AWNING
8 STUCCO REGLET
9 VINYL WINDOW
3 7 1 8 9 2 5 4 4 8 5 2 1 9
The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee
The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
34 This page intentionally left blank.

Mission Gorge Residential Project
City of Santee ElevationsFigure 3-2c 38'-6"
4 5 2 9 8 1 7 3 9 3 2 4 6 1 5 7 8

Mission Gorge Residential Project
City of Santee ElevationsFigure 3-2d 38'-6"
4 5 2 9 8 1 7 3 9 3 2 6 4 1 5 7 8

MATERIAL SCHEDULE
1 ROOF - BUILT UP PARAPET
2 WALL - STUCCO
3 WALL - BRICK VENEER
4 TRIM - 2X STUCCO OVER
5 METAL RAILING
6 METAL AWNING
7 STUCCO AWNING
8 STUCCO REGLET
9 VINYL WINDOW
3 7 1 8 9 2 5 4 4 2 8 1 9 5
The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee
The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
38 This page intentionally left blank.

Conceptual Landscape Plan
Mission Gorge Residential Project Figure 3-3
City of Santee
2 1
3 3
3 3
4 4
4 4
4 23
4 6
5 23
7 8
8 8
22 8
9 9
9 10 9
10 9
18 18
10 12 11
13 13
13 13
13 14
14 14
14 14
15 15
15 16
16 19
22 20
21 7
Modular precast concrete
wall with removable panels
for utility access.
21 20
20 20
20 24

MATCHLINE

MATCHLINE
The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
40 This page intentionally left blank.

Conceptual Wall & Fence Plan
Mission Gorge Residential Project Figure 3-4
City of Santee
EVA
EVA EXISTING LOWES N.A.P. Limit of Work
Limit of Work EXISTING MEDICAL N.A.P. Limit of Work
EXISTING POST OFFICE N.A.P. Limit of Work
P
P

WALL, FENCE & GATE LEGEND
6'-0" High split-face CMU wall, with 2" high precision CMU cap (tan color). 6'-0" Precast concrete modular wall (tan color).
5'-6" Tube steel fence (black color).
6'-6" High (16" sq.) split-face block pilaster, with 18" sq. (4" H). CMU cap (tan color). 6'-6" High (12"W x16"L) rectangular split-face block pilaster, with 4" H split-face CMU cap (tan). 5'-6" High metal pedestrian gate (black powdercoat color). 5'-0" High metal arm gates (temporary access with pad lock).

ADA Path of travel.

The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee
The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
42 This page intentionally left blank.

The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
43 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FACTOR

4.1. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The subject areas checked below were determined to be new significant environmental effects or previously identified effects that have a substantial increase in severity either due to a change in project, change in circumstances or new information of substantial importance, as indicated by the checklist and discussion on the following pages.

Aesthetics Agriculture/Forestry Resources Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards/Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities and Service Systems Wildfire None

4.2. Environmental Factors That Do Not Require Further Analysis The City of Santee determined that the Housing Element Rezone Program would not have the potential to cause significant impacts associated with the environmental categories listed below. Mitigation measures were not listed for these impact categories in the certified Rezone PEIR. No substantial changes are proposed by the Project and there are no substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project will be undertaken that will require major revisions to the previously certified Rezone PEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Also, there is no "new information of substantial importance" as that term is used in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3). Therefore, the previously certified Rezone PEIR adequately discusses the potential impacts of the Project without modification. Therefore, the following subject areas require no further CEQA analysis:
• Agriculture & Forestry Resources
• Energy
• Mineral Resources
The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
44 4.3. DETERMINATION
☒ No substantial changes are proposed in the project and there are no substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions to the previous approved ND or MND or certified EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Also, there is no "new information of substantial importance" as that term is used in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3). Therefore, the previously adopted ND or MND or previously certified EIR adequately discusses the potential impacts of the project without modification.
☐ No substantial changes are proposed in the project and there are no substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions to the previous approved ND or MND or certified EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Also, there is no "new information of substantial importance" as that term is used in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3). Therefore, the previously adopted ND, MND or previously certified EIR adequately discusses the potential impacts of the project; however, minor changes require the preparation of an ADDENDUM.
☐ Substantial changes are proposed in the project or there are substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions to the previous ND, MND or EIR due to the involvement of significant new environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Or, there is "new information of substantial importance," as that term is used in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3). However, all new potentially significant environmental effects or substantial increases in the severity of previously identified significant effects are clearly reduced to below a level of significance through the incorporation of mitigation measures agreed to by the project applicant.

Therefore, a SUBSEQUENT MND is required.
☐ Substantial changes are proposed in the project or there are substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions to the previous environmental document due to the involvement of significant new environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Or, there is "new information of substantial importance," as that term is used in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3). However, only minor changes or additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequate for the project in the changed situation. Therefore, a SUPPLEMENTAL EIR is required.
☐ Substantial changes are proposed in the project or there are substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions to the previous environmental document due to the involvement of significant new environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Or, there is "new information of substantial importance," as that term is used in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3) such as one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR. Therefore, a SUBSEQUENT EIR is required.

Signature Date
Name and Title Lead Agency
The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
45 5. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
This section provides evidence to substantiate the conclusions in the environmental checklist.

5.1. AESTHETICS
Would the project: Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or
Additions
No
New
Impact
/No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
State scenic highway
c) In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade
the existing visual character or quality of public
views of the site and its surroundings? (Public
views are those that are experienced from
publicly accessible vantage point). If the project
is in an urbanized area, would the project
conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Rezone PEIR
The Rezone PEIR analyzed impacts related to aesthetics under Section 4.1. The Rezone PEIR describes that there are no officially designated scenic vistas in the City of Santee; however, the San Diego River, Mission Trails Regional Park, Mast Park, Rattlesnake Mountain, and the hills in the northern part of the City are considered locally significant scenic vistas. The Rezone PEIR determined future development and redevelopment could detract from existing scenic vistas and views. The Rezone PEIR describes that the Rezone Sites are located throughout the City and most would constitute infill development resulting in development consistent with surrounding urbanization that would not affect existing views; however, some larger vacant sites located near the San Diego River or within undeveloped lands that are not surrounded by urbanized lands could affect views. Future housing developments would be required to adhere to the Development The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
46 Review process outlined in SMC Chapter 13.08, which establishes the City’s development review procedures, to ensure consistency with General Plan objectives, goals, and policies. Future housing development would also need to comply with applicable design and development review requirements including supplemental development regulations from the Town Center Specific Plan and the Draft Santee Multiple Species Conservation Plan (MSCP) Subarea Plan (Draft Subarea Plan).The Development Review process would ensure that future development would not degrade scenic vistas and views. Therefore, the Rezone PEIR determined future development on Rezone Sites would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic view or vista within the City. Additionally, the Rezone PEIR determined that compliance with applicable SMC development review and design requirements, in addition to proposed objective design and performance standards would minimize impacts to scenic quality to a less-than-significant level.

The Rezone PEIR notes that State Route 52 (SR-52) runs in an east-west direction through the southern portion of the City and is an eligible State Scenic Highway, while a portion of SR-52, west of the City is an officially designated State Scenic Highway. In addition, Mission Gorge Road is designated within the City’s General Plan as a local scenic road. The City has adopted the Mission Gorge Road Design Standards to establish specific design guidelines for development along Mission Gorge Road including creating architectural segments, required streetscape landscaping, signage, and pedestrian and bicycle improvements. The City determined that development of the Rezone Sites could change the visual environment as viewed from surrounding locally scenic and eligible roadways. However, the sites are largely surrounded by urbanization, representing infill development, and would not substantially change the view of the foreground urbanization.

Therefore, in addition to compliance with the development review requirements of SMC Chapter 13.08, future development would be subject to applicable regulatory requirements, resulting in less-than-significant impacts to scenic resources within a State scenic highway.

The Rezone PEIR determined that the introduction of new sources of light and glare associated with increased development intensity would be considered less than significant. The majority of the Rezone Sites are located in urbanized areas with existing sources of light similar to light introduced with new development. All future housing development projects would be required to comply with SMC standards related to light and glare (Chapter 13.08.070(G)), which requires that outdoor lighting be directed away from adjacent properties and set in a way to avoid any detriment to the surrounding area. In addition, the General Plan Community Enhancement Element includes the standard for lighting and signage to minimize spillover of lighting through use of directional, cut-off and nonglare fixtures. General Plan policies would be implemented through the required development review process. These regulatory requirements would ensure that future development would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect daytime or nighttime view in the project areas. Therefore, impacts related to light and glare at the Rezone Sites would be less than significant.

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No New Impact.

Scenic vistas consist of expansive, panoramic views of important, unique, or highly valued visual features that are seen from public viewing areas. This definition combines visual quality with information about view exposure to describe the level of interest or concern that viewers may have for the quality of a particular view or visual setting. A scenic vista can be impacted in two ways: a development project can have visual impacts by either directly diminishing the scenic quality of the vista or by blocking the view corridors or “vista” of the scenic resource. Important factors in determining whether a proposed project would block scenic vistas include the project’s proposed height, mass, and location relative to surrounding land uses and travel corridors.

The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
47 The Project site is not within the scenic vista of the San Diego River, Mission Trails Regional Park, Mast Park, Rattlesnake Mountain, or the hills in the northern part of the City. The site is located 0.25 miles from the San Diego River, approximately 4.5 miles from Mission Trails Regional Park, approximately 0.4 miles from Mast Park, approximately 2 miles from Rattlesnake Mountain, and approximately 1.5 miles from the hills in the northern part of the City. In addition, the site is within a developed area and would constitute infill development resulting in development consistent with surrounding urbanization that would not affect existing views. The proposed residences would be three stories with a maximum height of 38 feet and 6 inches, consistent with the maximum height allowance of 55 feet in the TCSP. The height of the proposed residential buildings is slightly above the height of existing surrounding uses; however, the residential buildings would be set back 45 feet from the western property line, 42 feet from the eastern property line, and 10 feet from the north and south property lines. Thus, the Project would not encroach upon existing public views available from public vantage points along the roadways surrounding the site. Therefore, consistent with the analysis in the Rezone PEIR, the site is not located within a scenic vista, and the proposed Project would not encroach into a scenic vista. No new or increased impact would occur. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway?
No New Impact.

As described in Rezone PEIR, the City does not have any officially designated State scenic highways within its boundaries; however, Mission Gorge Road is identified as a Local Scenic Road in the General Plan.

Additionally, segments of SR-52 west of the City are designated as State Scenic Highways, and the portions of SR-52 that run through the City are considered eligible for such designation. The Project site is located approximately 2.2 miles west of the officially designation portion of SR-52 and approximately 0.2 miles north of the eligible portion of SR-52. The Project site would not been seen from the designated portion of SR-52, nor from the segment with the City that is eligible for State scenic designation due to existing development in between the site and SR-52.

The Project site would be visible from Mission Gorge Road which is considered a locally scenic roadway by the City. However, the Project site would represent infill development within a predominately urbanized area and any visual changes would not substantially change the view of the foreground along Mission Gorge Road. The Project would adhere to the requirement for development review consistent with SMC Chapter

13.08 as well as applicable regulatory requirements to ensure scenic resources would not be degraded by the development of the Project. Therefore, consistent with the Rezone PEIR, the Project would result in lessthan-significant impacts related to scenic resources including but not limited to trees, rocks outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway. No new or increased impact would occur. c) In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? No New Impact.

The Project site is located within an urbanized area that is adjacent to roadways and office and commercial development. The Project site is currently vacant and contains disturbed, ruderal habitat, that has previously been subject to several decades of weed abatement. There is one existing tree in the northwest corner of the site and a row of shrubs along the eastern property line. The Project would remove the existing landscaping, subdivide the 4.18-acre parcel, and develop the site with 100 attached town-home units. As described previously, the Project site has an existing General Plan Land Use designation of Town Center (TC) as it is within the Town Center Specific Plan (TCSP). Within the TCSP, the site is dually zoned as The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
48 Residential TC-R-22 or Office/Commercial. The TC-R-22 zone corresponds with the Citywide zoning R-22 and is intended for residential development that typically could include mid-rise apartment and condominium buildings at a density between 22 to 30 du/ac. The Project is consistent with the land use and zoning designations for the site. Table AES-1 below compares the Project’s consistency with TC-R-22 standards.

Table AES-1: Consistency with Standards for TC-R-22
Development Standard
TC-R-22 Standard (Corresponds
with Citywide R-22 Zoning
Standards per TCSP)
Proposed Project Consistency
Building Height & Stories 55 ft (5 stories) Consistent. The Project proposes that each residential building would
have a maximum height of 38 feet
and 6 inches, measured from finish
grade to top of highest roof ridges.

Max Building Coverage 70 percent Consistent. The Project proposes a maximum building coverage of
approximately 41 percent.

Minimum Setback: Front
Minimum Setback: Side, Interior
Minimum Setback: Side, Street
Minimum Setback: Rear
10 ft
10 ft
10 ft
10 ft
Consistent. The Project proposes
setbacks of approximately 45 feet
from the west property line, 42 feet
from the east property line, 10 feet
from the south property line, and 50
feet from the north property line.

Parking Two off-street spaces per unit plus
one visitor space per four units (225
spaces required)
Consistent. The Project proposes to
provide a total of 229 spaces
Common Open Space 100 SF/unit
10,000 SF
Consistent. The Project proposes a
total of 50,223 SF of common open
space, equating to 502 SF per unit.

Private Open Space 60 SF/unit
6,000 SF
Consistent. The Project proposes a
total of 7,320 SF of private open
space, equating to 73 SF per unit.

Density 22-30 du/ac Consistent. The Project proposes
100 units on the 4.18 acre site,
equating to a density of 24 du/ac.

Note: ft = feet, SF = square feet, du/ac = dwelling unit per acre Source: SMC, Section 13.10.030 and Section 13.24.040
As shown in Table AES-1, the Project would be consistent with the TC-R-22 development standards and would not conflict with an applicable zoning regulation related to scenic quality. Additionally, the proposed Project would be subject to Development Review consistent with SMC Chapter 13.08, which would ensure consistency with General Plan Policies and applicable design and development review requirements including supplemental development regulation from the Town Center Specific Plan. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no new or increased impact would occur. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
No New Impact.

As described above, the Project site is surrounded by existing sources of nighttime lighting that includes illumination from vehicle headlights along Mission Gorge Road and the unnamed road along the western The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
49 edge of the site, security lighting from adjacent uses and parking lots, street lighting, and from interior illumination passing through windows from nearby buildings. Sensitive receptors relative to lighting and glare include motorists, pedestrians, and residential land uses.

The proposed Project would include installation of nighttime lighting for security purposes around the residential buildings, recreation area, and at the Project driveway entrances along the unnamed road along the western edge of the site, which would contribute additional sources to the overall ambient nighttime lighting conditions. However, consistent with General Plan Community Enhancement Element standards and pursuant to SMC Chapter13.08.070(G), all outdoor lighting would be designed to be directed away from adjacent properties and shielded through use of directional, cut-off and nonglare fixtures so that no light or glare is transmitted or reflected in a detrimental manner to the surrounding area. Therefore, the increase in light that would be generated by the Project would not adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.

Overall, no new lighting impacts would occur.

Reflective light (glare) can be caused by sunlight or artificial light reflecting from finished surfaces such as window glass or other reflective materials. Generally, darker or mirrored glass would have a higher visible light reflectance than clear glass. Buildings constructed of highly reflective materials from which the sun reflects at a low angle can cause adverse glare. The proposed Project would not use highly reflective surfaces, or glass sided buildings. Although the residences would contain windows, the windows would be separated by stucco and architectural elements, which would limit the potential of glare.

In addition, as described previously, on-site lighting would be angled down and shielded, which would avoid the potential of on-site lighting to generate glare. Therefore, the Project would not generate substantial sources of glare, and no new or increased impact would occur.

Conclusion
Based on the foregoing information, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding aesthetics. There have not been (1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the Rezone PEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the Rezone PEIR was adopted as completed.

Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental document to evaluate project impacts, the Project is consistent with the Rezone PEIR.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPP)
PPP AES-1: Lighting. The proposed Project would be required to be reviewed for compliance with the purposes of the development review procedures as stated in SMC Section 13.08.010 and the approval criteria including Section 12.08.070(G), which requires lighting shall be stationary, directed away from adjacent properties and shielded so that no light or glare is transmitted or reflected in such concentrated quantities or intensities as to be detrimental to the surrounding area.

The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
50 Rezone PEIR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures related to aesthetic resources are included in the Rezone PEIR. Project impacts would be less than significant; therefore, no mitigation measures related to aesthetic resources are required.

The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
51 5.2. AIR QUALITY
Where available, the significance criteria
established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district
may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:

Construction and operational emissions associated with the individual Rezone Sites would be less than the applicable project-level screening thresholds for all criteria pollutants. Therefore, project-level impacts for each individual Rezone Site would be less than significant. However, the scale and extent of construction activities associated with buildout of the Rezone Sites may result in some instances where future development would occur simultaneously and would cumulatively exceed the relevant thresholds. Therefore, cumulative construction-related regional air quality impacts would be potentially significant. Implementation of MMAQ-1 would reduce criteria air pollutant emissions from construction-related activities to the extent feasible.

However, the Rezone PEIR determined construction time frames and equipment for site-specific development projects are currently unknown, and there is a potential for multiple development projects to be constructed The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
52 at one time, resulting in significant construction-related emissions. Therefore, despite adherence to MM-AQ1, impacts associated with criteria pollutants would remain significant and unavoidable.

The Rezone PEIR determined buildout of the project would not result in a carbon monoxide (CO) hotspot because no intersection is anticipated to have peak hour turning movements exceeding 31,600 vehicles per hour. Therefore, buildout of the Rezone Sites would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations associated with CO hot spots. Additionally, construction and operation of future development would not result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants (TACs) from construction activities, stationary sources, or mobile sources. Overall, impacts related to sensitive receptors would be less than significant.

The Rezone PEIR determined buildout of the project would not result in emissions such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people, and impacts would be less than significant.

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
This section was prepared using the following report:
• Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis for the Exchange at Santee Town Center Residential Project prepared by EPD Solutions, Inc. on October 24, 2025 (Appendix A).1 a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No New Impact.

The Project site is in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB), within the jurisdiction of the SDAPCD. The SDAPCD is responsible for implementing measures of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) and RAQS in order to meet federal and State ambient air quality standards for ozone. The SIP and RAQS use information on mobile and area source emissions and projected population growth, from the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). Population growth projects are informed by cities’ General Plan land use plans. These inputs are used to project future emissions.

The City of Santee and SDAPCD do not offer thresholds to determine impacts related to air quality plan consistency. However, the County of San Diego’s Guidelines for Determining Significance and Report Format and Content Requirements – Air Quality states that if a project’s contributing growth is within SANDAG’s city growth projections, it would not conflict with the RAQS. Projects that exceed SANDAG’s growth projections may potentially result in significant cumulative air quality impacts (County of San Diego, 2007).

11.8 percent population increase between 2025 and 2050, which equates to an increase of 4,712 residents over the next 25 years. Thus, the proposed Project would represent approximately five percent of the City’s 1 Note: The Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis (Appendix A) was prepared using a prior version of the site plan in which the Project, which had a greater gross site area and overall building square footage. Therefore, the analysis contained in Appendix A conservatively analyzes the proposed Project.

The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
53 anticipated population growth. Additionally, the Rezone PEIR anticipated the Project site would be developed with up to 115 residential units. However, the Rezone PEIR determined that because buildout of the Rezone sites would result in an increase in development and an increase in traffic generation over what would occur under buildout of the adopted zoning and land use designations, the Rezone project, including the proposed Project, would result in an increase in emissions that are not already accounted for in the RAQS.

Therefore, consistent with the Rezone PEIR, buildout of the project would exceed the assumptions used to develop the RAQs, resulting in a significant impact. Impacts related to air quality management plan consistency would be significant and unavoidable until the RAQs can be updated to reflect the Rezone project. No new or increased impact would occur.
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? No New Impact.

The SDAB is in non-attainment status for federal ozone (O3) standards and State non-attainment for O3, particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PM10), and particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5). Any development in the SDAB, including the proposed Project could cumulatively contribute to these pollutant violations. Construction and operation of the Project would result in emissions of criteria air pollutants, which may result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in emissions of criteria air pollutants for which the SDAB is designated as non-attainment under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) or the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). Pursuant to SDAPCD Rule 20.2, projects that do not exceed the emission rate thresholds listed in Table AQ-1 below would not require the preparation of a full air quality impact analysis.

Table AQ-1: SDAPCD Regional Thresholds
Air Pollutant
Maximum Daily Emissions
(pounds/day)
Construction Operation
ROG 751 551
NOx 250 250
CO 550 550
SO2 250 250
PM10 100 100
PM2.5 552 552
Notes: ROG = reactive organic gases; NOx = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; SO2 = sulfur dioxide; PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns in diameter; PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter 1 SCAPCD and the City of Santee do not provide thresholds for ROG. This threshold is obtained from San Diego County’s Guidelines for Determining Significance – Air Quality. The thresholds are derived from the South Coast Air Quality Management District for the Coachella Valley.
2SDAPCD Rule 20.2 lists a maximum daily emission rate threshold of 67 pounds/day. However, previously approved environmental documents in the City of Santee use a 55 pounds/day threshold adopted by SCAQMD. Therefore, this analysis conservatively uses the 55 pounds/day threshold.

Source: Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis (Appendix A) Construction
Construction activities associated with the proposed Project would generate pollutant emissions from the following: (1) site preparation; (2) grading; (3) building construction; (4) paving; and (5) architectural coating. The amount of emissions generated on a daily basis would vary, depending on the intensity and types of construction activities occurring.

The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
54 It is mandatory for all construction projects to comply with several SDAPCD Rules, including Rule 50.1 which prohibits a person from discharging from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public or which cause or have a natural tendency to cause injury or damage to business or property. Additionally, the Project would comply with Rule 55 which sets restrictions on visible fugitive dust from construction and demolition projects, and Rule 66.1 which limits the use of high-volatile organic compounds (VOC) paints.

Compliance with Rule 50.1, 55, and 66.1 was accounted for in the construction emissions modeling. As shown in Table AQ-2, the CalEEMod results indicate that construction emissions generated by the proposed Project would not exceed SDAPCD regional thresholds. Therefore, construction activities would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant and impacts would be less than significant.

Therefore, no new or increased impact related to construction emissions would occur.

Table AQ-2: Regional Construction Emission Estimates
Construction Activity
Maximum Daily Regional Emissions
(pounds/day)
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Year 1
Site Preparation 3.9 34.7 31.7 0.1 7.6 4.3
Grading 2.3 25.0 21.9 0.1 4.7 2.3
Building Construction 1.4 11.2 17.3 <0.1 1.1 0.5
Maximum Daily Emissions – Year 1 3.9 34.7 31.7 0.1 7.6 4.3 Year 2
Building Construction 1.4 10.7 16.8 <0.1 1.0 0.5
Utilities & Storm 58.5 5.6 22.2 <0.1 0.5 0.3
Paving 1.2 7.0 10.6 <0.1 0.4 0.3
Architectural Coating 54.9 1.1 2.1 <0.1 0.1 0.1
Maximum Daily Emissions – Year 2 54.9 10.7 16.8 <0.1 1.0 0.5 Maximum Daily Emissions 58.5 34.7 31.7 0.1 7.6 4.3
SDAPCD Significance Thresholds 751 250 550 250 100 552
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
ROG = reactive organic gases; NOx = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; SO2 = sulfur dioxide; PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns in diameter; PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter 1 SDAPCD and the City of Santee do not provide thresholds for ROG. This threshold is obtained from San Diego County’s Guidelines for Determining Significance – Air Quality. The thresholds are derived from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) for the Coachella Valley.
2 SDAPCD Rule 20.2 lists a maximum daily emission rate threshold of 67 pounds/day. However, previously approved environmental documents in the City of Santee use a 55 pounds/day threshold adopted by SCAQMD. Therefore, this analysis conservatively uses the 55 pounds/day threshold.

Source: Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis (Appendix A).

Operation
Occupancy of the 100 residential units would result in long-term regional emissions of criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors associated with area sources, such as natural gas consumption, landscaping, applications of architectural coatings, and consumer products. However, operational vehicular emissions would generate a majority of the emissions generated from the Project.

The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
55 Operational emissions associated with the proposed Project and the existing use were modeled using the CalEEMod Version 2022.1 land use emission model and compared to the SDAPCD operational emissions thresholds. Emissions associated with the operation of the proposed Project compared to the existing use are presented in Table AQ-3. As shown, operational emissions would be below SDAPCD’s thresholds. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts related to operational air quality emissions. As such, the proposed Project would result in no new or increased impact or in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant.

Table AQ-3: Regional Operational Emission Estimates
Operational Activity
Maximum Daily Regional Emissions
(pounds/day)
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Mobile 3.2 2.3 21.8 0.1 4.5 1.2
Area 4.4 0.1 5.7 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Energy <0.1 0.5 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Total Project Operational Emissions 7.6 2.9 27.7 0.1 4.5 1.2 SDAPCD Significance Thresholds 551 250 550 250 100 552
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
ROG = reactive organic gases; NOx = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; SO2 = sulfur dioxide; PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns in diameter; PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter 1 SDAPCD and the City of Santee do not provide thresholds for ROG. This threshold is obtained from San Diego County’s Guidelines for Determining Significance – Air Quality. The thresholds are derived from the South Coast Air Quality Management District for the Coachella Valley.
2 SDAPCD Rule 20.2 lists a maximum daily emission rate threshold of 67 pounds/day. However, previously approved environmental documents in the City of Santee use a 55 pounds/day threshold adopted by SCAQMD. Therefore, this analysis conservatively uses the 55 pounds/day threshold.

Source: Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis (Appendix A). c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? No New Impact.

As described in the Rezone PEIR, a localized concentration of CO would occur if any project involved an intersection experiencing 31,600 vehicles per hour or more. The proposed Project would generate a total of 600 daily trips (Appendix I). Therefore, consistent with the Rezone PEIR, the proposed Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations resulting from localized concentrations of CO.

The Rezone PEIR describes that none of the Rezone Sites, including the Project site, are located near stationary sources that CARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (CARB, 2005), estimates could result in excessive TAC emissions. Therefore, the proposed Project would not expose sensitive receptors to TACs associated with stationary sources, and impacts would be less than significant.

Additionally, due to the lack of long term diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions anticipated during the operation of the Project and limited scope and timeframe of construction the Project is presumed to have a less than significant Health Risk impact. Overall, impacts to sensitive receptors would be less than significant.

No new or increased impact would occur.

The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
56 d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
No New Impact.

The type of facilities that are considered to result in other emissions, such as objectionable odors, include wastewater treatments plants, compost facilities, landfills, solid waste transfer stations, fiberglass manufacturing facilities, paint/coating operations (e.g., auto body shops), dairy farms, petroleum refineries, asphalt batch plants, chemical manufacturing, and food manufacturing facilities. The proposed Project would develop and operate residential uses which would not involve the types of uses that lead to odors.

Potential odor sources associated with the proposed Project may result from construction equipment exhaust and the application of asphalt and architectural coatings during construction activities and the temporary storage of typical solid waste (refuse) associated with the proposed Project’s operational uses. The construction odor emissions would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in nature and would cease upon completion of construction.

The proposed Project would also be required to comply with SDAPCD Rule 51 to prevent occurrences of public nuisance odors. Therefore, other emissions (such as those leading to odors) that could adversely affect a substantial number of people would not occur from the proposed Project. No new or increased impact would occur.

Conclusion
Based on the foregoing information, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding air quality. There have not been (1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the Rezone PEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the Rezone PEIR was adopted as completed.

Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate project impacts, the Project is consistent with the Rezone PEIR.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPP)
PPP AQ-1: SDAPCD Rules. Construction activities will be conducted in compliance with any applicable SDAPCD rules and regulations, including but not limited to:
• Rule 51, Nuisance: prohibits emissions that cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public; or which endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the public; or which cause injury or damage to business or property. • Rule 52, Particulate Matter: establishes limits to the discharge of any PM from nonstationary sources. • Rule 54, Dust and Fumes: establishes limits to the amount of dust or fume discharged into the atmosphere in any 1 hour.
• Rule 55, Fugitive Dust Control: sets restrictions on visible fugitive dust from construction and demolition projects.

The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
57 PPP AQ-2: Idling Restrictions. Construction activities will be conducted in compliance with California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Section 2449, which requires that nonessential idling of construction equipment be restricted to five minutes or less.

Rezone PEIR Mitigation Measures
The following Mitigation Measure from the Rezone PEIR would be applicable to the proposed project:

MM-AQ-1 The City shall require project applicants to identify the measures that would be taken at the construction site to reduce construction-related criteria air pollutants such that they do not exceed the SDAPCD screening thresholds. Based on typical construction emissions, implementation of the following measures would be sufficient to reduce air pollutant emissions during construction:
• Requiring fugitive dust control measures that exceed SDAPCD’s Rules 52, 54, and 55, such as:
o Requiring use of non-toxic soil stabilizers to reduce wind erosion. o Applying water every four hours to active soil-disturbing activities. o Tarping and/or maintaining a minimum of 24 inches of freeboard on trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials.
• Using construction equipment rated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as having Tier 3 (model year 2006 or newer) emission limits, applicable for engines between 50 and 750 horsepower.
• Ensuring construction equipment is properly serviced and maintained to the manufacturer’s standards.
• Limiting nonessential idling of construction equipment to no more than five consecutive minutes.
• Using Super-Compliant VOC paints for coating of architectural surfaces whenever possible. A list of Super-Compliant architectural coating materials can be found on the SCAQMD’s website at: http://www.aqmd.gov/prdas/brochures/SuperCompliant_AIM.pdf The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
58 5.3. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project: Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or
Additions
No New
Impact/
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and
Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or State habitat conservation plan?
The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
59 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Rezone PEIR
The Rezone PEIR discussed impacts related to biological resources under Section 4.3. The Rezone PEIR describes that 15 of the 27 Rezone Sites would result in potentially significant impacts to sensitive plants and wildlife; four of the Rezone Sites would result in potentially significant impacts to least Bell’s vireo; 14 of the Rezone Sites would result in potentially significant impacts to coastal California gnatcatcher; and all 27 Rezone Sites would result in potentially significant impacts to migratory or nesting birds. The 15 Rezone Sites that would result in potentially significant impacts to sensitive plants and sensitive wildlife would be subject to MM-BIO-1, including the proposed project site (Rezone Site 15), which require a site-specific general biological resources survey to be conducted prior to issuance of any construction permit or any earth-moving activities and a biological resources report shall be submitted to the City to document results of the survey, identify any environmentally sensitive areas to be avoided, and consider additional applicable measures.

The four Rezone Sites that would result in potentially significant impacts to least Bell’s vireo would be subject to MM-BIO-2, which requires United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) protocol surveys for least Bell’s vireo prior to issuance of a permit for grading or vegetation removal, should project construction occur within 300 feet of riparian habitat during the breeding season (April 10 to July 31). The 14 Rezone Sites that would result in potentially significant impacts to coastal California gnatcatcher would be subject to MMBIO-3, which requires USFWS protocol surveys for coastal California gnatcatcher where project construction is proposed within 300 feet of coastal sage scrub or chaparral habitat during the breeding season (March 1 through August 15), prior to issuance of a permit for grading or vegetation removal. For all 27 Rezone Sites, including the proposed project site (Rezone Site 15), future development application would be reviewed by the City for determination of the proposed developments impacts to mature trees and/or native vegetation suitable for nesting birds would subject to MM-BIO-4, which requires a preconstruction survey for nesting birds within three days prior to construction activities, if any construction commences during the bird breeding season. Additionally, all Rezone Sites would be required to comply with applicable federal, State, and local programs and requirements with respect to potential impacts to biological resources, including concerning sensitive and protected plant and wildlife species. Therefore, the Rezone PEIR determined that with regulatory compliance and implementation of mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts to sensitive plant and wildlife species to a less-than-significant level.

The Rezone PEIR describes that future development of 16 of the Rezone Sites that are considered undeveloped or have a substantial portion of the site unimproved, including the proposed project site (Rezone Site 15), would have potentially significant impacts to sensitive vegetation communities. The 16 Rezone Sites that would result in potentially significant impacts to sensitive vegetation communities would be subject to MM-BIO-5 which would require applicants to provide evidence to the City that replacement habitats have been preserved in accordance with the mitigation ratios in the Draft Subarea Plan prior to issuance of any grading or removal of sensitive vegetation communities. In addition, MM-BIO-1, discussed above, would require site-specific biology surveys at the time future development projects are proposed for all applicable Rezone Sites. The Rezone PEIR determined that with implementation of MM-BIO-1 and MM-BIO-5 potential impacts to sensitive vegetation communities would be reduced to less than significant.

The Rezone PEIR describes that nine Rezone Sites have been mapped as potentially containing a wetland or water resource and five additional Rezone Sites have potential for unmapped jurisdictional waters or wetlands. Future development of these sites would result in potentially significant impacts to jurisdictional waters and wetlands. As such, the future development of Rezone Sites where the potential for jurisdictional waters or wetlands may be present at the time of development proposal, would be required to provide a formal wetland delineation in conjunction with project applications to identify the precise boundaries of jurisdictional waters. In addition, applications that have been determined to have potential for impacts to jurisdictional waters and wetlands would be subject to MM-BIO-6, which would require adherence to MMBIO-1 described above, incorporation of avoidance measures into the project design to minimize direct impacts to jurisdictional waters, as well as additional requirements to implement Draft Subarea Plan for The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
60 development along the San Diego River. With implementation of MM-BIO-6 impacts to on-site jurisdictional waters and wetlands would be reduced to less than significant.

The Rezone PEIR determined that all but two Rezone Sites (17 and 18) are primarily restricted by developed land and or do not meet the criteria for a wildlife movement corridor. Portions of the two Rezone Sites are associated with the San Diego River, which is identified as a regionally significant wildlife movement corridor in the Draft Subarea Plan. However, the Draft Subarea Plan anticipated development of the two sites and identified that the sites are located outside of the preserve. Future development of the two Rezone Sites would be required to comply with State and Federal requirements for wetland avoidance and would be subject to implementation of MM-BIO-6 described above, to ensure wetland resources are avoided or mitigated and adequate buffers along the San Diego River are retained. Overall, the Rezone PEIR determined that with application of the biological mitigation measures impacts associated with wildlife movement corridors would be reduced or avoided to less than significant.

The Rezone PEIR describes that all of the Rezone Sites are located within the planning area for the Draft Subarea Plan. Future development of the Rezone Sites would be subject to MM-BIO-1 through MM-BIO-6 to ensure consistency with the Draft Subarea Plan by requiring site-specific surveys to verify the presence of sensitive biological resources on-site, determine the extent of any potential impacts, and provide mitigation to reduce impacts to be less than significant. Overall, future development of the Rezone Sites would be required to address the sensitive species and vegetation communities identified in the Draft Subarea Plan.

As a result, impacts related to conflicts with an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP), or any other approved local, regional, or State HCP would be less than significant.

The Rezone PEIR also determined that future development of all of the Rezone Sites would be required to implement MM-BIO-1 through MM-BIO-6 as applicable to verify impacts related to biological resources would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. In addition, future development of the Rezone Sites would be required to adhere to the policies and regulations outlined in SMC Chapter 8.06 which regulates the planting, maintenance, and removal of public trees, Chapter 11.38 which regulates the obstruction or interference of any natural watercourse or channel, and Chapter 13.08 and 13.16 which require development review procedures and standards pertaining to biological resources. Therefore, future development of the Rezone Site would not conflict with the City’s adopted tree policies or ordinances protecting biological resources such as watercourses and impacts would be less than significant.

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
This section is based on the following report:
• Biological Resources Assessment for the Proposed Exchange at Santee Town Center Project Located in the City of Santee, San Diego County, California. Prepared by ELMT Consulting on May 20, 2024 (Appendix B).
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No New Impact.

The Project site is primarily vacant and undeveloped land containing disturbed, ruderal habitat that has been subject to several decades of weed abatement activities following several decades of agricultural land uses. There is one existing tree in the northwest corner of the site and a row of shrubs along the eastern property line. The Project site is located within an urbanized area and bound in all directions by existing commercial and institutional development and paved roadways. The Rezone PEIR discussed that future The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
61 development of the Project site (Rezone Site 15), could result in direct and/or indirect impacts to sensitive plants and wildlife as the site is undeveloped and may have potential to support sensitive plant and wildlife species. In addition, the Rezone PEIR discussed that future development of the Project site has the potential to directly impact nesting or migratory bird species should Project related vegetation clearing or construction occur during the general bird breeding season (generally January 15-September15).

A Biological Resources Assessment (BRA) was completed for the Project site on May 20, 2024 (Appendix B) which included a literature review and field investigation that was conducted on April 30, 2024. No candidate, sensitive, or special status wildlife or plant designated in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the USFWS, California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), or California Native Plant Society (CNPS) were observed on the Project site during the field survey. Additionally, due to the disturbed nature of the site, the BRA determined no suitable habitat for special status wildlife and plant species is present on the site. As such, implementation of the Project would have no significant impacts on federally or State listed species known to occur in the general vicinity of the Project site. Therefore, no new or increased impact would occur.
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No New Impact.

Riparian habitats are those occurring along the banks of rivers and streams. Sensitive natural communities are natural communities that are considered rare in the region by regulatory agencies, known to provide habitat for sensitive animal or plant species, or known to be important wildlife corridors. As described above, the Project site is vacant and undeveloped, contains disturbed ruderal habitat and is surrounded by existing commercial and institutional development and paved roadways. Consistent with the Rezone PEIR, the BRA also concluded that the Project site does not contain riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities as identified in local or regional plans, policies or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS on the Project site. Although Section 4.3.6.2 of the Rezone PEIR lists the proposed Project site (Rezone Site 15) as having the potential to have direct impacts to a sensitive vegetation community, the site-specific BRA completed in May 2024 concluded that there is no sensitive natural community (vegetation) on the site. As such, MM-BIO5 from the Rezone PEIR is not applicable to the proposed Project. Therefore, no new or increased impact would occur.
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
No New Impact.

Wetlands are defined under the federal Clean Water Act as land that is flooded or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that normally does support, a prevalence of vegetation adapted to life in saturated soils. Wetlands include areas such as swamps, marshes, and bogs. The Project site is vacant containing disturbed ruderal habitat and is surrounded by existing commercial and institutional development and paved roadways. No wetlands exist on-site. Consistent with the Rezone PEIR, the BRA completed for the Project site concluded that no jurisdictional drainage and/or wetland features were observed on-site (Appendix B). Further, the Project site does not contain any jurisdictional areas that would be subject to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and the proposed Project does not involve any hydrological interruption on any existing water resources. Therefore, the development of the Project site would not result in impacts to wetlands. No new or increased impact would occur.

The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
62 d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
No New Impact.

Wildlife corridors are linear features that connect areas of open space and provide avenues for the migration of animals and access to additional areas for foraging. The Rezone PEIR notes that the Rezone Site is of limited value for wildlife movement and corridors due to existing residential and commercial development. In addition, the BRA conducted for the Project concluded that the site was not identified as supporting a wildlife migratory corridor or linkage. The Project site does not contain, and is not adjacent to, any wildlife corridors. The Project is entirely surrounded by development and managed ornamental landscaping, it is not expected to provide suitable movement opportunities for local wildlife species nor does the site support any natural plant communities capable of providing such opportunities. Development of the site would not result in impacts related to established native resident or migratory wildlife corridor and no new or increased impact would occur.

The Project site contains one existing tree in the northwest corner of the site and a row of shrubs along the eastern property line that would be removed during the development of the site. Although the tree and shrubs on-site are mainly ornamental and nonnative, they may provide suitable habitat, including nesting habitat, for migratory birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (PPP BIO-1). The Project would be subject to the Rezone PEIR MM-BIO-4, which requires a pre-construction nesting bird survey to be conducted during bird breeding season to identify any active nests in and adjacent to a Project site no more than three days prior to any construction activity. With adherence to MM-BIO-4, the potential impacts related to nesting birds would be reduced to less than significant. No new or increased impact would occur. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources? No New Impact.

The SMC Chapter 8.06 (Urban Forestry Ordinance) establishes regulations and sets forth standards for planting, trimming, and removing trees on public property and public rights-of-way. 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 within the City limits. As part of Project implementation, the existing tree in the northwest corner of the site and the row of shrubs along the eastern property line on the Project site would be removed and new landscaping would be planted. Additionally, consistent with the Rezone PEIR, the Project would also be required to adhere to SMC Chapter 11.38 which regulates the obstruction or interference of any natural watercourse or channel, and Chapters 13.08 and

13.16, which outline development review procedures and standards pertaining to biological resources. The Rezone PEIR states that the future development of the Rezone Sites, including the Project site, would not conflict with the City’s adopted regulations pertaining to trees or natural watercourses as all Rezone Sites would be required to adhere to these polices and regulations. The Project would not involve the removal of trees in City right-of-way nor the obstruction or interference with any natural watercourses or channels.

Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources and impacts would be less than significant. No new or increased impact would occur. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan? No New Impact.

The Project site is located within the planning area for the Draft Santee Subarea Plan of the San Diego County MSCP. The Draft Santee Subarea Plan was prepared to address the implementation of the MSCP The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
63 subregional plan within the City of Santee but has not been formally adopted at this time. Consistent with the findings of the Rezone PEIR, Project implementation of MM-BIO-1 through MM-BIO-6, as applicable, would ensure future development, including the proposed Project, is consistent with the Draft Santee Subarea Plan. Additionally, the Project site is not located within any focused planning areas identified by the MSCP nor does the site have any natural plant communities present due to significant disturbances from historic agricultural land uses and ongoing weed abatement regimes (Appendix B). As such, the proposed Project would not conflict with the MSCP, NCCP, or any other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan and therefore associated impacts would be less than significant. No new or increased impact would occur.

Conclusion
Based on the foregoing information, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding biological resources. There have not been (1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the Rezone PEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the Rezone PEIR was adopted as completed.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPP)
PPP BIO-1: MBTA. Migratory non-game native bird species are protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Additionally, Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibit the take of all birds and their active nests.

Rezone PEIR Mitigation Measures
The following Rezone PEIR mitigation measures would be applicable to the proposed project:

MM-BIO-1 Applications for future development, where the City has determined a potential for impacts to sensitive biological resources, shall be required to comply with the following mitigation measure.
a) Prior to issuance of any construction permit or any earth-moving activities, a site-specific general biological resources survey shall be conducted to identify the presence of any sensitive biological resources, including any sensitive plant or wildlife species. A biological resources report shall be submitted to the City to document the results of the biological resources survey. The report shall include: (1) the methods used to determine the presence of sensitive biological resources; (2) vegetation mapping of all vegetation communities and/or land cover types; (3) the locations of any sensitive plant or wildlife species; (4) an evaluation of the potential for occurrence of any listed, rare, and narrow endemic species; and (5) an evaluation of the significance of any potential direct or indirect impacts from the proposed project. If suitable habitat for sensitive species is identified based on the general biological survey, then focused presence/absence surveys shall be conducted in accordance with applicable resource agency survey The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
64 protocols and incorporated into the biological resources report. If potentially significant impacts to sensitive biological resources are identified, project-level grading and site plans shall incorporate project design features to avoid or minimize direct impacts on sensitive biological resources to the extent feasible, and the report shall also recommend appropriate mitigation to reduce the impacts to below a level of significance, where feasible. Mitigation measures shall be consistent with the standards contained in Section

5.3 of the 2018 Draft Santee Subarea Plan, and projects shall be required to obtain all necessary permits to ensure compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations, such as the federal and state Endangered Species Acts. b) Environmentally Sensitive Areas shall be identified in the biological resources report and avoided to the maximum extent practicable. In areas near or adjacent to Environmentally Sensitive Areas (i.e., natural habitats and vegetation, wetlands, wildlife areas, wildlife corridors), the biological resources report will consider the following measures:

Avoidance of Environmentally Sensitive Areas. In areas near or adjacent to Environmentally Sensitive Areas, construction limits shall be clearly demarcated using highly visible barriers (such as silt fencing), which shall be installed under the supervision of a qualified biologist prior to the commencement of work. Construction personnel shall strictly limit their activities, vehicles, equipment, and construction materials to the project footprint, including designated staging areas, and routes of travel. The construction areas shall be limited to the minimal area necessary to complete the proposed project.

The fencing shall remain in place until the completion of all construction activities and shall be promptly removed when construction is complete.

Biological Monitoring. A qualified biological monitor shall conduct construction monitoring of all work conducted within/adjacent to environmentally sensitive areas during all vegetation removal and ground-disturbing activities such as staging and grading, for the duration of the proposed project to ensure that practicable measures are being employed to avoid incidental disturbance of habitat outside the project footprints and to survey for sensitive wildlife species. When vegetation removal and ground-disturbing activities are not occurring, as-needed monitoring at the project sites shall occur.

Worker Environmental Awareness Program. In areas near or adjacent to Environmentally Sensitive Areas, a qualified biologist shall conduct a Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training session for project and construction personnel prior to the commencement of work. The training shall include a description of the species of concern and their habitats, the general provisions of the Endangered Species Acts (FESA and CESA), the penalties associated with violating the provisions of the acts, the general measures that are being implemented to conserve the species of concern as they relate to the project, and the access routes to and project site boundaries.

Best Management Practices. During future project construction activities, the following best management practices (BMPs) shall be implemented:
• All equipment maintenance, staging, and dispensing of fuel, oil, or any other such activities shall occur in developed or designated non-sensitive upland habitat areas.

The designated upland areas shall be located to prevent runoff from any spills from entering Waters of the US.

The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
65 • A construction Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and a soil erosion and sedimentation plan shall be developed (where requirements are met) to minimize erosion and identify specific pollution prevention measures that shall eliminate or control potential point and nonpoint pollution sources onsite during and following the project construction phase. The SWPPP shall identify specific BMPs during project construction to prevent any water quality standard exceedances. In addition, the SWPPP shall contain provisions for changes to the plan such as alternative mechanisms, if necessary, during project design and/or construction to achieve the stated goals and performance standards.
• Trash shall be stored in closed containers so that it is not readily accessible to scavengers and shall be removed from the construction site on a daily basis. • Water quality shall be visually monitored by the biological monitor to ensure that no substantial increases in turbidity occur during construction. • All relevant natural resource permits and authorizations shall be obtained from appropriate agencies (i.e., USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW) prior to the initiation of construction activities. Permit conditions contained within the permits and authorizations shall be employed throughout the duration of the project. • Hydrologic connectivity shall be maintained within drainages during the duration of construction. Brush, debris material, mud, silt, or other pollutants from construction activities shall not be placed within drainages and shall not be allowed to enter a flowing stream.
• Dust control measures shall be implemented by the contractor to reduce excessive dust emissions. Dust control measures shall be carried out at least two times per day on all construction days, or more during windy or dry periods, and may include wetting work areas, the use of soil binders on dirt roads, and wetting or covering stockpiles.
• No pets shall be allowed in, or adjacent to, the project sites. • Rodenticides, herbicides, insecticides, or other chemicals that could potentially harm wildlife or native plants shall not be used near or within Environmentally Sensitive Areas within or near the roadway segments.
• Construction equipment shall be cleaned of mud or other debris that may contain invasive plants and/or seeds and inspected to reduce the potential of spreading noxious weeds before mobilizing to the site and before leaving the site during the course of construction.
• The cleaning of equipment will occur at least 300 feet from Environmentally Sensitive Area fencing.

Use of Native Plants. All project-related planting and landscaping shall not use plants listed on California Invasive Plant Council. Locally native plants shall be used near open space and native areas to the greatest extent feasible.

MM-BIO-4 Applications for future development, where the City has determined a potential for impacts to mature trees and/or native vegetation suitable for nesting birds, shall be required to comply with the following mitigation framework.

If any construction commences during the bird breeding season, a preconstruction survey for nesting birds shall occur within three days prior to construction activities by an experienced avian biologist. The survey shall occur within all suitable nesting habitat within the project impact area and a minimum 250-foot buffer (or as otherwise mandated by wildlife agencies [CDFW and USFWS]). If nesting birds are found, an avoidance area shall be The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
66 established, in consultation with the wildlife agencies as appropriate, by a qualified biologist around the nest until a qualified avian biologist has determined that young have fledged or nesting activities have ceased. The project site shall be re-surveyed if there is a lapse in construction activities for more than 3 days.

The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
67 5.4. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project: Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or
Additions
No New
Impact/
No
Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined
in §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Rezone PEIR
The Rezone PEIR discussed impacts related to cultural resources under Section 4.4.

Historical Resources: The Rezone PEIR describes that two historical resources were identified via record search: one adjacent to Rezone Site 20 (Edgemoor Farm Dairy Barn) and one within Site 24 (a single-family house built circa 1915). The Rezone PEIR determined that development at Site 20, which is within a visual radius of the Edgemoor Farm Dairy Barn, could result in indirect impacts to the historical resource related to the visibility of the resource and/or alter its surrounding visual character according to Section 15064.5. The Rezone PEIR also determined that future development of Site 24 would not result in a significant impact as the property has been recommended not eligible under any California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) criteria. Additionally, the Rezone PEIR describes that the Rezone Sites could have the potential to contain buildings or structures that may be 50 years of age or older at the time of future development and may need to be evaluated for historical significance. MM-CUL-1 is included in the Rezone PEIR to require project applicants to provide a staff level evaluation in conjunction with the development permit application to verify the age and original structural integrity of all on-site structures prior to issuance of any permit and retain a qualified professional historian to determine whether the historic-age buildings or structures are historically significant. The Rezone PEIR also discusses that all future development projects under the Housing Element Rezone Program Implementation must adhere to the City’s General Plan (2003) Policies 8-1 and

12.1 which aim to protect historic buildings and applicable regulations through application of the City’s requirements for development review. Overall, the Rezone PEIR determined potential impacts related to historical resources would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level through compliance with MM-CUL-1.

Archaeological Resources: The Rezone PEIR describes that at least three archaeological resources are known to exist and have been recorded in the City. The Rezone PEIR identified eight Rezone Sites within the Moderate Potential for Register Eligible Buried Archaeological sites and 10 Rezone Sites within the The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
68 Moderate Potential for Register Eligible Archaeological sites. These sites are located within areas of higher potential to encounter Register Eligible resources either on the surface or during ground disturbing activities.

The project does not propose any development or alteration of known archaeological resources; however, future implementing projects could involve ground-disturbing activities that could directly or indirectly impact undiscovered subsurface archaeological resources. Of the known archaeological resources, one historicperiod archaeological site was identified within four Rezone Sites. However, this site was determined not eligible for listing and therefore future development would not significantly impact this resource. In addition, one known prehistoric resource and one isolated artifact were also identified within a Rezone Site. The artifact was determined not to be significant under CEQA, while the prehistoric resource could potentially be significant and would require additional testing and excavation to determine its significance. Therefore, future development of the Rezone Sites would have potential to directly or indirectly impact potentially significant archaeological resources. Further, there is a possibility of unknown subsurface deposits to be within the Rezone Sites due to long-term use of the northern El Cajon Valley that spanned thousands of years, leading to the potential for future development of the Rezone Site to have direct or indirect impacts to undiscovered subsurface archaeological resources that have not been evaluated. The Rezone PEIR states that future projects would be required to adhere to General Plan Policies 8-1 and 8.2, for the protection of prehistoric sites. Additionally, MM-CUL-2 is included in the Rezone PEIR to require an archaeological survey be conducted to evaluate the presence of archaeological resources and the need for project impact mitigation if the project has not been surveyed within the last five years. In addition, MM-CUL-3 is included in the Rezone PEIR to require archaeological and Native American monitoring during construction.

Implementation of the mitigation measures would reduce impacts to surface and subsurface archaeological resources within the Rezone Sites to less than significant.

Human Remains: The Rezone PEIR describes that there are no known burial sites or ceremony within the vicinity of the Rezone Sites and potential impacts to human remains would be less than significant with adherence with the established State and federal regulatory framework regarding the treatment of human remains.

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
• Results of the Cultural and Paleontological Due Diligence Study for the Exchange at Santee Town Center Project (APN 381-040-36), City of Santee, San Diego County, California. Prepared by BFSA Environmental Services on May 31, 2024 (Appendix B).
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
No New Impact.

State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 defines historical resources as resources listed or determined to be eligible for listing by the State Historical Resources Commission, a local register of historical resources, or the Lead Agency. Generally, a resource is considered “historically significant” if it meets one of the following criteria:
• Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage;
• Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; • Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or • Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
69 A Cultural and Paleontological Due Diligence Study was completed for the Project site in May 2024 (Appendix C). The Cultural Study included a records search of the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the Office of Historic Preservation (OHP), and the CRHR. The records search did not identify any previously recorded resources within the Project site (Appendix C). The Project site, Rezone Site 15, consists of vacant and undeveloped land that has been disturbed due to several decades of weed abatement activities following several decades of agricultural land uses and the remaining portions of the site are developed.

There are no buildings or structures on the site. In addition, the Rezone PEIR identified two historical resources, one adjacent to Rezone Site 20 and one within Rezone Site 24; however, Rezone Site 15 is not among the sites with identified historical resources. Therefore, development of the proposed Project would not result in an impact on historical resources. MM-CUL-1 from the Rezone PEIR is not applicable to the proposed Project because the Project site, Rezone Site 15, is vacant, undeveloped, and there are no buildings or structures onsite. No new or increased impact would occur from Project implementation. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
No New Impact.

Construction of the proposed Project would involve ground disturbance activities such as site preparation and grading that may unearth an unknown archaeological resource. The Rezone PEIR completed site-specific cultural resource surveys on March 31, August 31, and November 31, 2021, to identify potential for archaeological resources within the Rezone Sites that are eligible for by-right development which include the Project site, Rezone Site 15. The findings of the Rezone PEIR included that the Project site has been previously disturbed, periodically mowed for vegetation clearing, impacted by numerous sewer manholes and lines, and contained construction debris. No cultural resources were identified within Rezone Site 15 (City of Santee, 2022).

Further, the Cultural and Paleontological Due Diligence Study (Appendix C) included a records search from the South Coastal Information Center at San Diego State University and a field survey. The results of the record search did not identify any archaeological resources within the Project site. However, the field survey identified an isolated granitic prehistoric mano (a hand-held grinding stone) fragment within the Project site.

The Cultural and Paleontological Due Diligence Study determined that due to past ground disturbances such as grading, it is likely the artifact fragment had been deposited on the site by the modern ground disturbing activities (Appendix C). Additionally, the Cultural and Paleontological Due Diligence Study determined the mano fragment is not considered a significant resource under CEQA and poses no constraint to the development of the proposed Project. Considering the past disturbance of the Project site soils, it is unlikely that significant archaeological resources would be uncovered during grading activities. However, due to the site’s proximity to the San Diego River and previously recorded resources in the site vicinity, monitoring during ground disturbance is required, similar to the conclusion of the Rezone PEIR. Therefore, impacts related to unanticipated archaeological and tribal cultural resources could be significant and monitoring during ground disturbing activities will be required, similar to the Rezone PEIR. No new or increased impact would occur.
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No New Impact.

The Project site does not contain a cemetery, and no known burial sites or formal cemeteries are located within the immediate vicinity of the Project site. Nonetheless, should human remains be discovered during the grading and excavation activities associated with the Project development, the construction contract would be required by California law to comply with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 (PPP CUL-1). According to Section 7050.5(b) and (c), if human remains are The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
70 discovered, the County Coroner must be contacted and if the coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American or has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, the Coroner is required to contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) by telephone within 24 hours.

Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, whenever the NAHC receives notification of a discovery of Native American human remains from a county coroner, the NAHC is required to immediately notify those persons it believes to be most likely descended from the deceased Native American. The descendants may, with the permission of the owner of the land, or his or her authorized representative, inspect the site of discovery of the Native American human remains and may recommend to the owner or the person responsible for the excavation work means for treatment or disposition, with appropriate dignity, of the human remains and any associated grave goods. The descendants shall complete their inspection and make recommendations or preferences for treatment within 48 hours of being granted access to the site.

According to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(k), the NAHC is authorized to mediate disputes arising between landowners and known descendants relating to the treatment and disposition of Native American human burials, skeletal remains, and items associated with Native American burials.

Through mandatory compliance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, the proposed Project would not result in significant impacts to human remains, and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in no new or increased impact related to disturbance of human remains.

Conclusion
Based on the foregoing information, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding cultural resources. There have not been (1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions to the Rezone PEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the Rezone PEIR was adopted as completed.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPP)
PPP CUL-1: Human Remains. Should human remains be discovered during Project construction, the Project would be required to comply with State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, which states that no further disturbance may occur in the vicinity of the body until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, which will determine the identity of and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD must complete the inspection within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC.

Rezone PEIR Mitigation Measures
The following Rezone PEIR mitigation measures would be applicable to the proposed project:

The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
71 MM-CUL-2 Applications for future development, wherein the City Development Services Director has determined a potential for impacts to subsurface archaeological resources, shall be required to comply with the following mitigation framework:

Prior to the issuance of any permit for future development consistent with the project and if the project has not been surveyed within the last five years, an archaeological survey shall be conducted by a qualified archaeologist to evaluate the presence of archaeological resources and the need for project impact mitigation by preservation, relocation, or other methods. The archaeological survey shall include a records search at the South Coastal Information Center branch of the California Historical Research Information System, to determine if previously recorded prehistoric or historic archaeological resources exist on the housing site. In addition, the Native American Heritage Commission should be contacted to perform a Sacred Lands File Search. An archaeological resource report detailing the results of the record search, Sacred Lands Search, and the field survey of the project area shall be submitted by the project applicant to the City. The report shall include the methods used to determine the presence or absence of archaeological resources, identify potential impacts from the proposed project, and evaluate the significance of any archaeological resources identified. If potentially significant impacts to an identified archaeological resource are identified, the report shall also recommend appropriate mitigation to reduce the impacts to below a level of significance, which could include avoidance as the preferred method, a data recovery program and/or construction monitoring. All information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and associated funerary objects should be in a separate confidential addendum and not be made available for public disclosure.

Reports shall be submitted to the South Coastal Information Center upon finalization.

MM-CUL-3 Applications for future development wherein the City Development Services Director or a site specific report has determined a potential for discovery of buried archaeological resources shall be required to comply with the following mitigation framework for archaeological and Native American construction monitoring:

Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the City’s Project Planner at the City must verify that the requirements for archaeological and Native American construction monitoring have been noted on the construction documents.

The applicant must provide written verification to the City Project Planner stating that a Secretary of Interior’s Standards qualified archaeologist and Native American monitor have been retained by the owner/applicant to implement construction monitoring.

The qualified archaeologist and Native American monitor shall be invited to attend the preconstruction meeting with the contractor and any subcontractors to describe the goal of construction monitoring.

Archaeological and Native American monitors shall be present during ground-disturbing activities (grubbing, demolition of foundations, grading, trenching) that have the potential to unearth unknown subsurface archaeological deposits or Tribal cultural resources. If archaeological or Tribal cultural resources are discovered, both monitors may halt or divert ground-disturbing activities within 50 feet to allow for a determination of the resource’s potential significance. The qualified archaeologist shall notify the City Project Planner of the discovery. Isolates and non-significant deposits shall be minimally documented in the field.

The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
72 Significant archaeological discoveries include intact features, stratified deposits, previously unknown archaeological sites, and human remains.

If a significant discovery is made, the qualified archaeologist shall prepare a data recovery plan in consultation with the Native American monitor to submit for approval by the City Project Planner. The plan shall be implemented using professional archaeological methods.

Construction ground-disturbing activities, including grubbing, grading, and trenching, would be allowed to resume after the completion of the recovery of an adequate sample and recordation of the discovery.

All cultural material collected during the monitoring and data recovery program shall be processed and curated at a San Diego facility that meets federal standards per 36 CFR Part 79 unless the tribal monitors request the collection.

If human remains are discovered, work shall halt in that area and the procedures set forth in the California Public Resources Code (Sec. 5097.98) and State Health and Safety Code (Sec. 7050.5) will be followed. The qualified archaeologist shall contact the County Coroner.

After the completion of the monitoring, an appropriate report shall be prepared by project archaeologist. If no significant cultural resources are discovered, a brief letter to City Project Planner and South Coastal Information Center shall be prepared by the project archaeologist. If significant cultural resources are discovered, a report with the results of the monitoring and data recovery (including the interpretation of the data within the research context) shall be prepared by project archaeologist, reviewed by a Native American representative, and submitted to the City Project Planner and South Coastal information Center.

The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
73 5.5. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project: Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or
Additions
No New
Impact/
No
Impact
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault?
Refer to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42?
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in onor off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative
waste water disposal systems where sewers are
not available for the disposal of waste water?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
74 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Rezone PEIR
The Rezone PEIR discussed impacts related to geology and soils under Section 4.5. The Rezone PEIR describes that the City of Santee is located in the western portion of the Peninsular Range Province, which is an area that is exposed to risk from multiple earthquake fault zones. The nearest faults to the City included the Rose Canyon fault zone, the Newport-Inglewood fault zone, the Elsinore fault zone, and the Colorado Bank fault zone. None of these faults, nor any other active or potentially active faults are within or adjacent to the City.

Although the City is subject to periodic shaking due to the earthquakes along remote or regional active faults, the Rezone PEIR determined that while development within the Rezone Site may be susceptible to seismic activity, regulatory compliance would reduce any impacts. All future development would be required to comply with the City’s General Plan Safety Element Policies 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3, implemented through SMC Section 11.40.130, which requires a preliminary soils engineering report be submitted with grading permit applications. Additionally, conformance with California Building Code (CBC) construction standards for seismic safety would ensure new structures would be able to withstand seismic events. Therefore, with adherence to the Safety Element Policies, SMC, and CBC, future development within the Rezone Sites would not cause substantial adverse effects associated with fault rupture, and impacts would be less than significant.

While no active or potentially active faults are known to occur within or adjacent to the City, it is located in a seismically active region of Southern California. As such, all development within the Rezone Sites would be susceptible to seismic-related damage. The Rezone PEIR described that while the project would increase the allowable number of people and structures that could be exposed to ground shaking during a seismic event future development would be required to comply with General Plan Safety Element policies and SMC requirements. Additionally, conformance with CBC construction standards for seismic safety would ensure new structures would be able to withstand seismic events. Therefore, with adherence to the Safety Element Policies, SMC, and CBC, future development within the Rezone Sites would not cause substantial adverse effects associated with ground shaking, and impacts would be less than significant.

The Rezone PEIR describes that all Rezone Sites, except for Rezone Site 10, are located within areas identified as liquefaction potential and none of the Rezone Sites are located within landslide susceptibility zones. The Rezone PEIR determined that with all future development required to comply with the General Plan Safety Element policies and SMC requirements. Additionally, conformance with CBC construction standards for seismic safety would ensure new structures would be able to withstand seismic events.

Therefore, with adherence to the Safety Element Policies, SMC, and CBC, future development within the Rezone Sites would not cause substantial adverse effects associated with liquefaction or landslide, and impacts would be less than significant.

The Rezone PEIR describes that future development facilitated by the project could increase the potential for topsoil erosion due to grading, excavation, demolition, and construction activities. Since future developed areas would be stabilized through installation of hardscape, landscaping, or native revegetation, erosion concerns would primarily occur during the construction phase. Applicable regulations, including the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Permit requirements and the SMC (Title 9, Chapter

9.06 Stormwater Management and Discharge Control), require erosion and sedimentation control during construction, along with the implementation of best management practices to prevent erosion and off-site drainage. Therefore, with adherence to applicable SMC requirements, future development within the Rezone Sites would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil, and impacts would be less than significant.

The Rezone PEIR describes that soils with high fines content, such as clay, are considered potentially expansive and could result in a significant impact due to the soil’s inability to support proposed structures associated with development. Although the majority of the Rezone Site are not located within areas dominated by clay soils, all future development would be required to prepare project-specific geotechnical reports pursuant to The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
75 SMC requirements. These reports would identify site-specific conditions and recommend appropriate design measures to ensure safe building construction in areas with expansive soils. With compliance to applicable SMC requirements, future development would not result in substantial direct or indirect risks associated with expansive soils, and impacts would be less than significant.

The Rezone PEIR describes that there is no expectation that septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would be part of any future development proposal due to the urban and built out nature of the Rezone Sites. The Rezone PEIR states that all Rezone Sites would be served by Padre Dam Municipal Water District for wastewater services and therefore, no new impacts related to the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would occur.

The Rezone PEIR describes that while the majority of the Rezone Sites are either developed or vacant with a history of disturbance, future construction activities associated with development could affect unidentified paleontological resources during grading and other earthwork. To address potential impacts to paleontological resources, MM-GEO-1 requires the City to review project applications and geotechnical reports to determine whether grading would have the potential to disturb geological formations with the potential to contain paleontological resources. If so, MM-GEO-1 also requires implementation of a monitoring program in the event grading may disturb geologic formations with a moderate or high potential to contain paleontological resources. With implementation of MM-GEO-1, impacts associated with paleontological resources would be reduced to less than significant.

The Rezone PEIR states that, in addition to the developed or vacant and disturbed condition of the Rezone Sites, no unique geological features have been identified at any of the sites. Therefore, impacts to unique geological resources would be less than significant.

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
This section was prepared using the following report:
• Geotechnical Design Report, Proposed Multi-Family Residential Development, APN 381-040-30-00, Santee, California. Prepared by Albus & Associates, Inc., on August 26, 2025 (Appendix D). a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?
No New Impact.

As described in the Rezone PEIR, there are no fault zones in the City that are delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map. The nearest known active fault is the Rose Canyon Fault located about 10 miles southwest of the site (California Department of Conservation, 2024). No known active faults are mapped on or adjacent to the Project site. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in impacts related to rupture of a known Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault.

In addition, the Project would comply with SMC Section 11.40.130, which requires a preliminary soils engineering report be submitted with grading permit applications in support of the City’s General Plan Safety Element Policies 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3. Further, the Project would conform with CBC construction standards for seismic safety to ensure the residential buildings would be able to withstand seismic events.

Therefore, with adherence to the Safety Element Policies, SMC, CBC, and site specific structural and grading recommendations from the Geotechnical Due Diligence Investigation, the Project would not cause The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
76 substantial adverse effects associated with fault rupture, and impacts would be less than significant. No new or increased impact would occur.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
No New Impact.

The Project site is located in a seismically active region, as is all of southern California. Due to the location of nearby and regional faults, the Project site could be subject to seismically related strong ground shaking. The amount of motion expected at a building site can vary from none to forceful depending upon the distance to the fault, the magnitude of the earthquake, and the local geology. Greater movement can be expected at sites located closer to an earthquake epicenter, that consist of poorly consolidated materials such as alluvium located near the source, and in response to an earthquake of great magnitude.

However, the proposed Project would be designed in accordance with the CBC, which includes provisions for earthquake resistant design that include considerations for geologic hazard and on-site soil conditions. The City of Santee has adopted the CBC in Section 11.04.010 of the SMC and the Project would be required to adhere to the provisions of the CBC. Additionally, the Project would be required to comply with General Plan Safety Element policies and the SMC requirements, as part of the grading permit application process. Compliance with all relevant regulations and requirements for avoiding seismic impacts from development would reduce potential impacts related to strong seismic ground shaking to a less-than significant level. Therefore, the proposed Project is consistent with the findings contained in the Rezone PEIR impacts, and the Project would result in no new or increased impact. iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? No New Impact.

Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon in which saturated, cohesionless soils layers, located within approximately 50 feet of the ground surface, lose strength due to cyclic pore water pressure generation from seismic shaking or other large cyclic loading. During the loss of stress, the soil acquires “mobility” sufficient to permit both horizontal and vertical movements. Soil properties and soil conditions such as type, age, texture, color, and consistency, along with historical depths to ground water are used to identify, characterize, and correlate liquefaction susceptible soils.

Soils that are most susceptible to liquefaction are clean, loose, saturated, and uniformly graded finegrained sands that lie below the groundwater table within approximately 50 feet below ground surface.

Lateral spreading is a form of seismic ground failure due to liquefaction in a subsurface layer.

According to Rezone PEIR Figure 4.5-3, Landslide and Liquefaction Potential, the Project site is located in an area identified for liquefaction potential. However, the Geotechnical Due Diligence Report details that the while groundwater is present at a relatively shallow depth of 13 feet, the on-site soils, comprised of silty sand, clayey sand, and sand trace silt, are relatively dense and are not anticipated to be susceptible to liquefaction or seismic related settlement (Appendix D). Additionally, as described previously, the proposed Project would be required to be constructed in compliance with CBC standards for seismic safety and the Project would comply with the General Plan Safety Element policies and the SMC. Thus, potential impacts related to liquefaction and settlement would be further reduced. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts on people or structures due to ground failure or liquefaction.

As such, the proposed Project is consistent with the findings contained in the Rezone PEIR impacts, and the Project would result in no new or increased impact.

The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
77 iv. Landslides?
No New Impact.

Landslides and other slope failures are secondary seismic effects that are common during or soon after earthquakes. Areas that are most susceptible to earthquake induced landslides are steep slopes underlain by loose, weak soils, and areas on or adjacent to existing landslide deposits.

The Project site is flat and not located near substantial slopes or hillsides. There are no known landslides near the site, nor is the site in the path of any known or potential landslides. Additionally, according to the Rezone PEIR Figure 4.5-3, Landslide and Liquefaction Potential, the Project site is not within an area mapped for susceptibility to landslides. Therefore, the Project would not expose people or structures to slope instability or seismically induce landslides, and the Project would result in no new impacts related to landslides. As such, the proposed Project is consistent with the findings contained in the Rezone PEIR, and the Project would result in no new or increased impact. b) Result in soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
No New Impact.

To reduce the potential for soil erosion and the loss of topsoil, the Project would incorporate long-term water quality controls in accordance with the most current stormwater standard including the NPDES Municipal Permit requirements. Additional measures to avoid or reduce erosion and sedimentation are described in Section 5.8, Hydrology and Water Quality. The Project would also be required to comply with the City’s Stormwater Management and Discharge Control regulations specified under SMC Chapter 9.06, which mandate erosion and sedimentation control during construction and the implementation of best management practices (BMPs) to prevent erosion and off-site drainage. Therefore, with adherence to NPDES Municipal Permit requirements and the SMC regulations, the Project would result in no new impacts related to soil erosion of the loss of topsoil. As such, the proposed Project is consistent with the findings contained in the Rezone PEIR impacts, and the Project would result in no new or increased impacts. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
No New Impact.

Landslides and other forms of mass wasting, including mud flows, debris flows, and soil slips, occur as soil moves downslope under the influence of gravity. Landslides are frequently triggered by intense rainfall or seismic shaking. As described above, the Project site is flat and does not contain nor is it adjacent to any significant slope or hillside area. The Project would not create slopes. Thus, on- or off-site landslides would not occur from implementation of the Project.

Lateral spreading is a type of liquefaction‐induced ground failure associated with the lateral displacement of surficial blocks of sediment resulting from liquefaction in a subsurface layer. Once liquefaction transforms the subsurface layer into a fluid mass, gravity plus the earthquake inertial forces may cause the mass to move downslope towards a free face (such as a river channel or an embankment). Lateral spreading may cause large horizontal displacements, and such movement typically damages pipelines, utilities, bridges, and structures. As described above, the soils underlying the Project site are relatively dense and not susceptible to liquefaction (Appendix D). Thus, impacts related to liquefaction and lateral spreading would not occur from implementation of the Project.

Subsidence is a general lowering of the ground surface over a large area that is generally attributed to lowering of the ground water levels within a groundwater basin. Localized or focal subsidence or settlement The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
78 of the ground can occur as a result of an earthquake motion in an area where groundwater in basin is lowered. According to the Geotechnical Due Diligence Report, the Project site may experience minor subsidence associated with the removal and recompaction of the site materials (Appendix D). However, consistent with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Due Diligence Report and the CBC, design of site grading would consider this when evaluating earthwork balance issues. Thus, impacts related to subsidence would not occur from implementation of the Project.

Collapsible soils are common in the arid climates of the Western United States, specifically in areas of young alluvial fans, debris flow sediments, dune sands, and loess (wind-blown sediment) deposits. These soils are characterized by low in situ density, low moisture contents, and relatively high unwetted strength. As described above, Project site soils are comprised of silty sand, clayey sand, and sand trace silt, are relatively dense and are not anticipated to be susceptible to collapse. Additionally, the Project would be designed and constructed in compliance with the CBC. Thus, impacts related to collapsible soils would not occur from implementation of the Project.

As described above, the Project would be designed and constructed in compliance with the requirements of the CBC. With adherence to the CBC, SMC requirements, and General Plan Policies would further reduce potential impacts related to lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, and collapse. As such, the proposed Project is consistent with the findings contained in the Rezone PEIR impacts, and the Project would result in no new or increased impact.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? No New Impact.

Expansive soils contain certain types of clay minerals that shrink or swell as the moisture content changes; the shrinking or swelling can shift, crack, or break structures built on such soils. Arid or semiarid areas with seasonal changes of soil moisture experience, such as southern California, have a higher potential of expansive soils than areas with higher rainfall and more constant soil moisture.

The Geotechnical Investigation conducted expansion testing, which determined that site soils generally have an expansion index (EI) of 55 to 104, indicating a low to high expansion potential. However, adherence to the design recommendations provided in the Geotechnical Due Diligence Report, such as the use of conventional shallow footings and slabs on grade that are designed for this expansive soil conditions, as required by the CBC would ensure potential impacts related to expansive soils would be reduced to less than significant. Thus, the proposed Project is consistent with the findings contained in the Rezone PEIR, and the Project would result in no new or increased impact. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No New Impact.

No septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems are proposed as part of the Project. Therefore, impacts related to these facilities would not occur. The Project would install an on-site sewer system that would connect to the existing wastewater infrastructure that is adjacent to the site. As such, the proposed Project is consistent with the findings contained in the Rezone PEIR, and the Project would result in no new or increased impact.

The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
79 f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? No New Impact.

The Project site has been previously disturbed, and no unique geological features have been identified at the site, therefore consistent with the findings contained in the Rezone PIER, impacts to unique geology would be less than significant and the Project would result in no new impact.

Earthmoving activities, including grading and trenching activities, would have the potential to disturb previously unknown paleontological resources if earthmoving activities occur at depths below previously disturbed soils. The Cultural and Paleontological Due Diligence prepared for the Project determined the site is mapped as Holocene-aged young alluvial deposits which are generally considered too young to include paleontological resources (Appendix C). Additionally, due to the disturbed condition of the Project site, the possibility that ground disturbing activities associated with Project construction would unearth paleontological resources is reduced. Nonetheless, the Project would comply with MM-GEO-1 which requires the City to review the Project’s geotechnical report to determine whether proposed grading has the potential to disturb geologic formation with potential paleontological resources. If grading depths remain within the organic and soil layers, no monitoring is required. However, if grading would extend into geological formations with moderate to high potential for containing paleontological resources, the monitoring program outlined in MMGEO-1 must be implemented prior to and during grading. Compliance with MM-GEO-1 would reduce potential impacts to paleontological resources to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, the proposed Project is consistent with the findings contained in the Rezone PEIR impacts, and the Project would result in no new or increased impacts.

Conclusion
Based on the foregoing information, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding geology and soils. There have not been (1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the Rezone PEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the Rezone PEIR was adopted as completed.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPP)
PPP GEO-1: California Building Code. The Project shall be designed and constructed in compliance with the 2022 California Building Code (CBC) Design Parameters, or the most current CBC adopted in the City’s Municipal Code.

Rezone PEIR Mitigation Measures
The following Rezone PEIR mitigation measures would be applicable to the proposed project:

MM-GEO-1 Paleontological Resources
The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
80 To address potential impacts to paleontological resources, the City shall review the project application materials including the geotechnical report to determine if project grading has the potential to disturb geologic formations with the potential to contain paleontological resources. If grading depths remain within the organic and soil layers, no monitoring would be required. The City may request information from the applicant such as the depth of grading, geologic formations and paleontological sensitivity in order to determine the potential for impacts. In the event grading may disturb geologic formations with a moderate or high potential to contain paleontological resources, the following monitoring program shall be implemented prior to and during grading operations:

1. Preconstruction Personnel and Repository: Prior to the commencement of construction, a qualified project paleontologist shall be retained to oversee the mitigation program. A qualified project paleontologist is a person with a doctorate or master’s degree in paleontology or related field and who has knowledge of the County of San Diego paleontology and documented experience in professional paleontological procedures and techniques. In addition, a regional fossil repository, such as the San Diego Natural History Museum, shall be designated by the City of Santee to receive any discovered fossils.

2. Preconstruction Meeting: The project paleontologist shall attend the preconstruction meeting to consult with the grading and excavation contractors concerning excavation schedules, paleontological field techniques, and safety issues.

3. Preconstruction Training: The project paleontologist shall conduct a paleontological resource training workshop to be attended by earth excavation personnel.

4. During-Construction Monitoring: A project paleontologist or paleontological monitor shall be present during all earthwork in formations with moderate to high paleontological sensitivity. A paleontological monitor (working under the direction of the project paleontologist) shall be on site on a full-time basis during all original cutting of previously undisturbed deposits.

5. During-Construction Fossil Recovery: If fossils are discovered, the project paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) shall recover them. In most cases, fossil salvage can be completed in a short period of time. However, some fossil specimens (e.g., a bone bed or a complete large mammal skeleton) may require an extended salvage period. In these instances, the project paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) has the authority to temporarily direct, divert, or halt grading to allow recovery of fossil remains in a timely manner.

6. Post-Construction Treatment: Fossil remains collected during monitoring and salvage shall be cleaned, repaired, sorted, and cataloged.

7. Post-Construction Curation: Prepared fossils, along with copies of all pertinent field notes, photos, and maps, shall be deposited in the designated fossil repository.

8. Post-Construction Final Report: A final summary paleontological mitigation report that outlines the results of the mitigation program shall be completed and submitted to the City of Santee within two weeks of the completion of each construction phase of the proposed project. This report shall include discussions of the methods used, stratigraphic section(s) exposed, fossils collected, inventory lists of cataloged fossils, and significance of recovered fossils.

The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
81 5.6. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project: Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or
Additions
No New
Impact/
No
Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Rezone PEIR
The Rezone PEIR discussed impacts related to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under Section 4.6. The Rezone PEIR determined buildout of the project would result in an increase in GHG emissions that would exceed the assumption used in the development of the Sustainable Santee Plan. Additionally, buildout of the project would result in an increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) that exceeds the 85 percent threshold, resulting in a significant impact. All future projects would be required to demonstrate consistency with the Sustainable Santee Plan through completion of the Consistency Checklist. Additionally, implementation of MM-GHG-1 and MM-GHG-2 which requires preparation of project-specific GHG emissions analysis or compliance with the Consistency Checklist, after the Sustainable Santee Plan has been updated to reflect the increased density within the Rezone Sites would reduce GHG emissions to the extent feasible. Further, implementation of MM-TRA-1 would potentially reduce VMT associated with development at the Rezone Sites. However, the Rezone PEIR describes that the effectiveness of GHG and VMT reducing measures depend largely on project-specific context and cannot be guaranteed to fully mitigate potential impacts. Therefore, impacts associated with GHG emissions would remain significant and unavoidable.

The Rezone PEIR determined the project would exceed the emissions assumptions used to develop the Sustainable Santee Plan, resulting in a conflict with the plan. This conflict would remain until such time that the City updates emission inventories to account for the proposed rezones and amends the Sustainable Santee Plan accordingly. The Rezone PEIR also determined that the project would be consistent with goals and policies from CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan, the SCAG’s 2021 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Community Strategy (RTP/SCS), and the City’s Sustainable Santee Plan; however, because the project would result in an increase in development not accounted for in the Sustainable Santee Plan emission inventories and the project would result in significant VMT impacts, the project would conflict with GHG emissions reduction plans and impacts would be significant.

Potentially significant impacts associated with GHG emissions would be mitigated to the extent feasible through the application of MM-GHG-1 and MM-GHG-2. MM-GHG-1 requires implementation of a site The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
82 specific GHG emissions analysis demonstrating how the project would achieve GHG reductions and/or compliance with the Consistency Checklist. MM-GHG-2 would require the City to incorporate updates to the Sustainable Santee Plan to reflect the increased density within the Rezone Sites. Implementation of MMGHG-1 and MM-GHG-2 would achieve consistency with applicable plans and policies addressing GHG emissions; however, until the updated plans are adopted, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
This section is based on the following report:
• Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis for the Mission Gorge Residential Project prepared by EPD Solutions, Inc. on May 28, 2025 (Appendix A).2 a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
And
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
No New Impact.

Global climate change is not confined to a particular project area. A typical project does not generate enough GHG emissions on its own to influence global climate change significantly; hence, the issue of global climate change is, by definition, a cumulative environmental impact. GHGs are produced by both direct and indirect emissions sources. Direct emissions include consumption of natural gas, heating and cooling of buildings, landscaping activities and other equipment used directly by land uses. Indirect emissions include the consumption of fossil fuels for vehicle trips, electricity generation, water usage, and solid waste disposal.

The City of Santee’s Sustainable Santee Plan, adopted in 2019, is a qualified GHG emissions reduction plan in compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5. GHG reduction targets for the City are set at 40 percent below 2005 levels by 2030 and 49 percent below 2005 levels by 2035, in order to follow the statewide goals set by Senate Bill 32 (2016). Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5, project-level documents may tier from Climate Action Plans or sustainability plans, which have analyzed GHG emissions at a programmatic level. The Sustainable Santee Plan includes a Consistency Checklist (Checklist) that contains GHG reduction measures that are required to be implemented to meet the reduction targets.

Projects that are consistent with the Checklist would be considered to have a less-than-significant cumulative impact to GHG. Table GHG-1 demonstrates the Project’s consistency with applicable measures from the Sustainable Santee Action Plan.
2 Note: The Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis (Appendix A) was prepared using a prior version of the site plan in which the Project, which had a greater gross site area and overall building square footage. Therefore, the analysis contained in Appendix A conservatively analyzes the proposed Project.

The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
83 Table GHG-1: Project Consistency with the Sustainable Santee Plan Checklist Item Project Consistency
Measure 2.1. New residential construction meet or
exceed California Green Building Standards Tier 2
Voluntary Measures, such as obtaining green building
ratings including LEED, Build it Green, or Energy Star
Certified building certifications in scoring development and explain the measures implemented.

Consistent. The proposed Project would meet California
Green Building Standards Tier 2 Voluntary Measures by
being Energy Star Certified.

Measure 5.1 Project utilizes tree planting for shade
and energy efficiency such as tree planting in parking
lots and streetscapes.

Consistent. The Project includes tree planting in parking areas and streetscapes, as seen in the landscape plan
(Figure 3-3).

Measure 6.1. Proposed project streets include
sidewalks, crosswalks, and other infrastructure that
promotes non-motorized transportation options.

Consistent. The Project proposes public street sidewalks, as shown in the site plan (Figure 3-1).

Measure 6.2. Proposed project installs bike paths to
improve bike transit.

Consistent. The Project would develop a section of the
town center path. While it is not a designated bike path, it may be used by pedestrians and bicyclists.

Measure 7.1.b. For new Multifamily Residential, install e-chargers for 13 percent of total parking.

Consistent. The Project would provide 229 parking spaces.

All units would include a two-car garage for a total of 200 garage spaces. Pursuant to SMC Section 13.24.040(E),
each garage would provide electric vehicle (EV) charging capability.

Measure 9.1. Reduce waste at landfills. Consistent. The project would provide exterior recycling storage space in accordance with CALGreen (PPP GHG-1)
the Santee Municipal Code. The Project would also comply with Section 5.408.1 of the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code which requires construction activities to recycle or reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the
nonhazardous construction waste.

Measure 10.1.b. Multifamily residential to install at
least 1kW per unit of PV solar systems, unless the
installation is infeasible due to poor solar resources
established in a solar feasibility study prepared by a
qualified solar consultant submitted with an applicant’s formal project submittal to City.

Consistent. The proposed Project would install a minimum of 1kW per unit of PV solar systems. However, the Project may provide 2.8kW or higher per unit of PV solar systems, if the roof configuration can support such systems.

As discussed above, the City uses the Checklist to determine whether a project would result in significant impacts to GHG. Thus, the quantified GHG emissions below are provided for informational purposes.

Construction activities produce combustion emissions from various sources, such as site excavation, grading, utility engines, heavy-duty construction vehicles on-site, equipment hauling materials to and from the site, asphalt paving, and motor vehicles transporting the construction crew. Exhaust emissions from on-site construction activities would vary daily as construction activity levels change. Total estimated GHG emissions from construction of the proposed Project were amortized over 30 years per SDAPCD methodology. As shown in Table GHG-2, it is estimated that the proposed Project would generate a total of approximately 526 MTCO2e during construction. When amortized over the 30-year life of the proposed Project, annual emissions would be 18 MTCO2e.

The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
84 Table GHG-2: Project Construction GHG Emissions
Activity Annual GHG Emissions
(MTCO2e)
Year 1 436
Year 2 90
Total Emissions 526
Total Emissions Amortized Over 30 Years 18
Source: Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis (Appendix A).

In addition, operation of the proposed residential units would result in area and indirect sources of operational GHG emissions that would primarily result from vehicle trips, electricity and natural gas consumption, water transport (the energy used to pump water), and solid waste generation. GHG emissions from electricity consumed by the building would be generated off-site by fuel combustion at the electricity provider. GHG emissions from water transport are also indirect emissions resulting from the energy required to transport water from its source.

The estimated operational GHG emissions that would be generated from implementation of the proposed Project are shown in Table GHG-3. As shown in Table GHG-3, the Project would result in approximately 924 MTCO2e per year. Additionally, as described further under threshold 5.6(b), the Project would implement GHG reduction measured required by the Sustainable Santee Plan. Therefore, impacts related to GHG emissions would be less than significant. No new or increased impact related to GHG emissions would occur.

Table GHG-3: Project Total GHG Emissions
Activity Annual GHG Emissions
(MTCO2e)
Mobile 758
Area 1
Energy 118
Water 5
Waste 23
Refrigeration <0.1
Total Project Operation Emissions 906
Project Construction Emissions 18
Total Project Emissions 924
Source: Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis (Appendix A).

There have not been (1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the Rezone PEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
85 information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the Rezone PEIR was adopted as completed.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPP)
PPP GHG-1: Title 24, Energy Efficiency and Green Building Standards. The Project is required to be designed in accordance with the applicable Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen standards (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 24, Part 6 and Part 11). These standards are updated, nominally every three years, to incorporate improved energy efficiency technologies and methods The following Rezone PEIR Mitigation Measures would be applicable to the proposed project:

MM-GHG-1 is applicable to the proposed project, however it has been satisfied through the preparation of the Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis (Appendix A) prepared for the proposed Project.

MM-GHG-1 For development at Rezone Sites that proceed before an update to the Sustainable Santee Plan is adopted, as detailed in MM-GHG-2, a site-specific GHG analysis is required. The site-specific GHG analysis shall (1) determine whether the project would result in GHG emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment and specifically must demonstrate how the project would be consistent with the Sustainable Santee Plan Consistency Checklist in addition to other applicable GHG reduction plans. The site-specific GHG analysis shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City during the permitting process.

The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
86 5.7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project: Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or
Additions
No New
Impact/
No
Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list
of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?
f) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires?
The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
87 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Rezone PEIR
The Rezone PEIR discussed impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials under Section 4.7. The Rezone PEIR identifies cleanup sites throughout the City; however, none of the existing cleanup sites are located within or adjacent to the Rezone Sites. The Rezone PEIR describes that future development within the Rezone Sites may result in the transport of hazardous materials during construction (e.g., asbestos containing material [ACMs], lead based paint [LBPs], and/or contaminated soils). However, the transport of these materials would be required to be conducted in compliance with all applicable State and local regulatory measures associated with handing and transport of contaminated or potentially contaminated materials. The Rezone PEIR notes that future residential development would not involve the use of substantial quantities of hazardous materials. Any mixed-use or commercial projects that would require the routine use of hazardous substances in amounts greater than or equal to specified thresholds would be required to prepare Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP). A HMBP provides detailed information regarding the storage of any hazardous materials in order to prevent or minimize the potential or threatened release of hazardous materials into the environment that may impact public health and safety. Overall, compliance with all applicable regulations would ensure impacts associated with use, transport and disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant.

The Rezone PEIR describes that future redevelopment or construction activities within the Rezone Sites could pose hazards to the public or the environment through the disturbance of existing contaminated soils, groundwater, or hazardous building materials. For instance, demolition of buildings constructed prior to 1978 may expose construction workers to ACMs or LBPs. If it is determined that building materials contain LBP, the project's construction contractors would be required to comply with CCR Title 8, Section 1532.1 (pertaining to LBP) and Section 1529 (pertaining to ACM) and CFR Title 40, Part 61, Subpart M (pertaining to ACM).

The Rezone PEIR states that the risks associated with the accidental release of hazardous materials would be managed through the implementation of AB 3205, California Hazardous Waste Control Law, California H&SC, California Fire Code, and RCRA regulations. The Rezone PEIR determined impacts associated with the accidental release of hazardous materials during future buildout of the Rezone Sites would be potentially significant. As a result, Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 is incorporated into the Rezone PEIR to require future applicants to prepare a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), and if necessary, a Phase II ESA. With implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, impacts related to the accidental release of hazardous materials would be reduced to less than significant.

The Rezone PEIR describes that none of the Rezone Sites are within 0.25 mile of an existing school. Therefore, notification to and consultation with the Santee School and Grossmont High School Districts would not be required. Therefore, impacts related to the emission or handling of hazardous emissions, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school would be less than significant.

The Rezone PEIR notes that none of the Rezone Sites are listed as hazardous materials sites pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (Cortese List). Therefore, implementation of the Housing Rezone would not result in conditions leading to any reasonably foreseeable upset or accident involving the release of hazardous materials and impacts would be less than significant.

The Rezone PEIR describes that Rezone Sites 15, 16A, 16B, 17, 20A, 20B, 24, 25, and the Graves Avenue Rezone Sites are located within Gillespie Field Review Area 1 and Rezone Sites 11, 12, 17, 18, 19, and 35 are located within Gillespie Field Review Area 2. In addition, Rezone Sites 11, 12, 17, 18, 19, 16A, and 35 are located within Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Miramar Review Area 2. Consistent with General Plan Policy 7.1, all future development under the Rezone project located within the Gillespie Field Airport Influence Area (AIA) would be reviewed to ensure that design features are incorporated into the site plan to address identified aircraft safety and noise hazards. Additionally, applicable projects would be routed to the ALUC for a compatibility determination as part of the site-specific development review. Overall, the The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
88 Rezone PEIR determines that conformance with applicable City policies, ALUCP design considerations applicable to development with airport safety zones, and compliance with any applicable Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) conditions would ensure that future development within the Rezone Sites located within the Gillespie Field and MCAS Miramar AIA would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. Impacts associated with airport hazards would be less than significant.

The Rezone PEIR determined implementation of the Housing Rezone project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan because the project does not propose any changes in the City’s existing circulation network, and no land uses are proposed that would impair implementation of or physically interfere with the City’s emergency response plan, evacuation routes; or conflict with any of the Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan’s specific hazard mitigation goals, objectives, and related potential actions. Furthermore, applications for all future projects within the Rezone Sites would be reviewed and approved by the Santee Fire Department prior to issuance of building permit. Therefore, buildout of the Rezone Sites would not conflict with emergency response, and impacts would be less than significant.

The Rezone PEIR notes that Rezone Sites 1 through 10 and 35 are located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) designated by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE).

Future development located within the VHFHSZ would be required to adhere to California Fire Code Title 19, Division 1, Section 3.07(b), requiring a minimum 30-foot brush clearance around structures for fire safety.

Additionally, Municipal Code Chapter 11.18 requires all new developments, subdivisions, or tracts that are planned in Fire Hazard Severity Zones and/or Wildland Urban Interface Areas (WUIA) to have a minimum of 100 horizontal feet of “fuel modified” defensible space between structures and wildland areas. Further, the City’s General Plan policies 4.2 through 4.13 provide guidance for the minimization of fire hazards including ensuring adequate response times, setting standards for emergency access, structural standards, and other planning design measures required to be considered in all new development. Additionally, future discretionary projects would require review by the Building Official/Fire Marshal. Overall, adherence to fire code regulations and General Plan policies would ensure impacts associated with risk of wildland fires would be less than significant.

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
This section was prepared using the following report:
• Assessor’s Parcel Number 381-040-36-00 Mission Gorge Road and Town Center Parkway Santee, California 92071 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. Prepared by Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., on December 9, 2024 (Appendix E).
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
No New Impact.

A hazardous material is defined as any material that, due to its quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety or to the environment if released into the workplace or environment. Hazardous materials include, but are not limited to, hazardous substances, hazardous wastes, and any material that a business or the local implementing agency has a reasonable basis for believing would be injurious to the health and safety of persons or harmful to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment.

The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
89 Construction
Construction activities for the proposed Project would involve routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials such as paints, solvents, oils, grease, and calking. In addition, routine hazardous materials would be used for fueling and serving construction equipment on-site. These types of hazardous materials routinely used during construction are not acutely hazardous, and all storage, handling, use, and disposal of these materials are regulated by existing State and federal laws that the Project is required to strictly adhere to. As a result, the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials during construction activities for the proposed Project would be less than significant.

Operation
The Project involves the operation of new residential uses, which involve routinely using hazardous materials including solvents, cleaning agents, paints, pesticides, batteries, fertilizers, and aerosol cans. These types of materials are not acutely hazardous and would only be used and stored in limited quantities. The normal routine use of these hazardous products pursuant to existing regulations would not result in a significant hazard to people or the environment in the vicinity of the Project. Therefore, operation of the Project would not result in a significant hazard to the public or to the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous waste, and impacts would be less than significant. As such, the proposed Project is consistent with the findings contained in the Rezone PEIR, and buildout of the proposed Project would result in no new or increased impact.
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? No New Impact.

A Phase I ESA was prepared for the proposed Project site and is included as Appendix E. The purpose of the Phase I ESA is to determine the presence or absence of hazardous materials pertaining to the release of hazardous materials into the soil, surface water, and/or groundwater by identifying recognized environmental conditions (RECs), including historical recognized environmental conditions (HRECs), and controlled recognized environmental conditions (CRECs) that may exist at a property. The Phase I ESA did not identify evidence of any RECs, CRECs, or HRECs associated with the Project site.

Construction
Construction of the proposed Project would involve the limited use and disposal of hazardous materials.

Equipment that would be used in construction of the Project has the potential to release gas, oils, greases, solvents; and spills of paint and other finishing substances. However, the amount of hazardous materials onsite would be limited, and construction activities would be required to adhere to all applicable regulations regarding hazardous materials storage and handling to prevent a hazardous materials release and to promptly contain and clean up any spills, which would minimize the potential for harmful exposures. With compliance to existing laws and regulations, which is mandated by the City through construction permitting, the Project’s construction-related impacts would be less than significant.

Operation
As described previously, operation of the proposed Project includes use of limited hazardous materials, such as solvents, cleaning agents, paints, pesticides, batteries, fertilizers, and aerosol cans. Normal routine use of typical residential products pursuant to existing regulations would not result in a significant hazard to the environment, residents, or workers in the vicinity of the Project. As a result, operation of the proposed Project would not create a reasonably foreseeable upset and accident condition involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment, and impacts would be less than significant. As such, the proposed Project is The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
90 consistent with the findings contained in the Rezone PEIR, and the Project would result in no new or increased impact.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
No New Impact.

Consistent with the analysis in the Rezone PEIR, there are no schools located within 0.25 miles of the Project site. The closest school to the Project site is PRIDE Academy Middle School, located approximately 0.5 miles to the southwest. As described previously, construction and operation of the Project would involve the use, storage, and disposal of small amounts of hazardous materials on the Project site. These hazardous materials would be limited and used and disposed of in compliance with federal, State, and local regulations, which would reduce the potential for accidental release into the environment near a school. Further, emissions that would be generated from construction and operation of the proposed Project were evaluated in the air quality analysis in Section 5.2, Air Quality, herein, which determined that emissions generated from the proposed Project would not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the federal or State air quality standards. Thus, the Project would not emit hazardous or handle acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 miles of a school, and impacts would be less than significant. As such, the proposed Project is consistent with the findings contained in the Rezone PEIR, and the Project would result in no new or increased impact.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
No New Impact.

As described in the Rezone PEIR, none of the Rezone Sites including the Project site are listed as hazardous materials sites pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (Cortese List) (City of Santee, 2022). As a result, impacts related to hazards from being located on or adjacent to a hazardous materials site compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, would not occur from implementation of the proposed Project. As such, the proposed Project is consistent with the findings contained in the Rezone PEIR, and the Project would result in no new or increased impact.
e) For a project 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 or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? No New Impact.

According to the Gillespie Field ALUCP, the Project site is located within Safety Zone 4 (Outer Approach/Departure Zone) and Safety Zone 6 (Traffic Pattern Zone) (San Diego County Airport Land Use Commission, 2010). A portion of the Project site is within the 60 dBA CNEL contour; however, the proposed residential development would be outside of this contour. The Project site is located in Review Area 1 which requires review from the San Diego County ALUC and a determination of no hazard from the FAA. On August 15, 2025, the FAA issued a determination of no hazard for the Project and on September 2, 2025, the San Diego County ALUC found the proposed Project consistent with the Gillespie Field ALUCP, subject to conditions which the applicant has agreed to implement. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in an airport-related safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area. No new or increased impact would occur.

The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
91 f) Impair implementation of an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No New Impact.

Construction
The proposed construction activities, including equipment and supply staging and storage, would occur within the Project site and would not restrict access of emergency vehicles to the Project site or adjacent areas. The installation of improvements on Mission Gorge Road and connections to existing infrastructure systems that would be implemented during construction of the proposed Project could require the temporary closure of one side or portions of Mission Gorge Road (i.e., hours or a few days). Additionally, installation of the proposed storm trap storage in the northeast portion of the site would require the temporary closure of the shared driveway along the east side of the site. However, all construction activities would be required to ensure emergency access in accordance with Section 503 of the CFC (Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 9), which would be ensured through the City’s permitting process. Additionally, a Traffic Control Plan would be required prior to Project construction to detail the necessary traffic control needed to maintain the safe and efficient movement of vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians during construction. Thus, implementation of the Project through the City’s permitting process would ensure existing regulations are adhered to and would reduce potential construction related emergency access impacts to a less-thansignificant level. Thus, impacts related to inadequate emergency access during construction activities would not occur.

Operation
Operation of the proposed Project would not result in a physical interference with an emergency response evacuation. Direct access to the Project site would be provided from two driveways on the unnamed road along the western edge of the site. However, the site can be accessed from many directions, including from the south via Mission Gorge Road and the unnamed road along the western edge of the site; from the north via the Walmart parking lot and the unnamed road; and via the shared road on the east side of the site that can be used for fire suppression. The Project is also required to design and construct internal access and provide fire suppression facilities (e.g., hydrants and sprinklers) in conformance with the Santee Fire Department prior to approval to ensure adequate emergency access pursuant to the requirements in Section 503 of the CFC (Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 9) and the Fire Code included per Santee Municipal Code Chapter 11.18. As a result, the proposed Project, including the buildout of the driveways, would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, and impacts would be less than significant. As such, the proposed Project is consistent with the findings contained in the Rezone PEIR impacts, and the Project would result in no new or increased impact.
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
No New Impact.

According to the CAL FIRE Hazard Severity Zone map, and Rezone PEIR Figure 4.7-3, Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, the Project site not located within a fire hazard severity zone (CAL FIRE, 2025; City of Santee, 2022). On July 9, 2025, the City adopted updated CAL FIRE Fire Hazard Severity Zone maps by Ordinance No. 626. The proposed project site is not located within a fire hazard severity zone on the updated map either. According to Rezone PEIR Figure 4.7-4, Wildland Urban Interface Areas, the Project site is located in the WUIA. Santee Municipal Code Chapter 11.18, requires all new developments that are planned in WUIA to have a minimum of 100 horizontal feet of “fuel modified” defensible space between structures and wildland areas. However, the Project site is located approximately 550 feet south from the nearest wildland area (San Diego River). Additionally, there is existing development between the wildland area and the The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
92 Project site. Therefore, the Project is not required to provide 100 feet of fuel modified defensible space.

The Project would be consistent with the City’s General Plan policies which provide guidance for the minimization of fire hazards, such as Policy 4.4 which requires emergency access routes in all developments to be adequately wide to allow the entry and maneuvering of emergency vehicles and Policy 4.9 which requires all development to be built in accordance with the fire protection standards contained in the Uniform Fire and Building Codes. Additionally, the Project would undergo review by the City Building Official/Fire Marshal. Overall, adherence to fire code regulations and General Plan policies would ensure impacts associated with risk of wildland fires would be less than significant. Therefore, the Project would result in no impact related to wildfires, and no new or increased impacts would occur.

Conclusion
Based on the foregoing information, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding hazards and hazardous materials. There have not been (1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the Rezone PEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the Rezone PEIR was adopted as completed.

Rezone PEIR Mitigation Measures
The following Rezone PEIR Mitigation Measures would be applicable to the proposed project:

MM-HAZ-1 is applicable to the proposed project, however it has been satisfied through the preparation of the Phase I ESA prepared by Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., on December 9, 2024 (Appendix E). The Phase I ESA did not identify evidence of any RECs, CRECs, or HRECs associated with the Project site.

MM-HAZ-1: Applications for future development in the Rezone Sites, wherein the City has determined a potential for impacts to known and unknown hazardous materials sites, shall be required to comply with the following mitigation framework.

Future projects shall be required to identify potential conditions, which require further regulatory oversight and demonstrate compliance based on the following measures prior to issuance of any permits.

A. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) shall be completed in accordance with American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standards. If hazardous materials are identified requiring remediation, a Phase II ESA and remediation effort shall be conducted in conformance with federal, state, and local regulations.

B. If the Phase II ESA identifies the need for remediation, then the following shall occur prior to the issuance of grading permits:

1. The applicant shall retain a qualified environmental engineer to develop a soil and/or groundwater management plan to address the notification, monitoring, The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
93 sampling, testing, handling, storage, and disposal of contaminated media or substances (soil, groundwater). The qualified environmental consultant shall monitor excavations and grading activities in accordance with the plan. The plans shall be approved by the City prior to development of the site.

2. The applicant shall submit documentation showing that contaminated soil and/or groundwater on proposed development parcels have been avoided or remediated to meet cleanup requirements established by appropriate local regulatory agencies (Regional Water Quality Control Board [RWQCB]/DTSC/DEH) based on the future planned land use of the specific area within the boundaries of the site (i.e., commercial, residential), and that the risk to human health of future occupants of these areas therefore has been reduced to below a level of significance.

3. The applicant shall obtain written authorization from the appropriate regulatory agency (RWQCB/DTSC/DEH) confirming the completion of remediation. A copy of the authorization shall be submitted to the City to confirm that all appropriate remediation has been completed and that the proposed development parcel has been cleaned up to the satisfaction of the regulatory agency. In the situation where previous contamination has occurred on a site that has a previously closed case or on a site included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, the DEH shall be notified of the proposed land use.

4. All cleanup activities shall be performed in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations, and required permits shall be secured prior to commencement of construction to the satisfaction of the City and compliance with applicable regulatory agencies such as but not limited to the City of Santee Municipal Code.

The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
94 5.8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project: Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or
Additions
No New
Impact/
No
Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or groundwater
quality?
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies
or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project may impede
sustainable groundwater management of the
basin?
c) Substantially alter 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 which would:
i) result in substantial erosion or siltation onor off-site; ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on- or off-site;
iii) create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
95 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Rezone PEIR
The Rezone PEIR discussion impacts related to hydrology and water quality under Section 4.8. All future development would be required to adhere to all applicable water quality regulations and plans including all pertinent requirements of the City’s Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plan (JRMP) (including the Water Quality Improvement Plan [WQIP] and MS4 Permit), Best Management Practice (BMP) Design Manual, NPDES General Construction Permit, and the City's Stormwater Ordinance. Additionally, future projects would be required to adhere to the City’s General Plan policies requiring the incorporation of construction BMPs for the protection of water quality. Overall, through regulatory compliance, impacts related to water quality standards and waste discharge requirements would be less than significant. Likewise, through regulatory compliance, future development within the Rezone Sites would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan.

The Rezone PEIR determined buildout of the Rezone Sites would not adversely affect groundwater recharge.

All future projects would be required to comply with applicable stormwater management requirements which focus on retention and infiltration of waters on-site, which would provide for ongoing groundwater recharge.

Additionally, future projects would be required to comply with the City’s General Plan policies and regulations that prioritize on-site infiltration. Therefore, although future projects within the Rezone Sites would increase impervious surfaces, prioritization of on-site infiltration would ensure impacts to ground water quality would be less than significant. The City’s groundwater basins are not required to have Groundwater Management Plans (GMP) under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). Therefore, the Project would not obstruct implementation a GMP. Additionally, the Rezone PEIR describes that the City is not dependent on groundwater recharge. Thus, through regulatory compliance, all impacts related to groundwater would be less than significant.

The Rezone PEIR determined that while development of the Rezone Sites has the potential to alter drainage patterns or increase stormwater runoff resulting in increased erosion, and otherwise impact the existing drainage system, all future development would be subject to federal, State, and local regulations aimed at reducing polluted stormwater and avoiding overloading the City’s drainage system. All future development projects under the Rezone PEIR would be required to adhere to regulatory requirements including City Stormwater Ordinance which includes requirements for the elimination or reduction of stormwater runoff.

Therefore, impacts associated with drainage patterns and stormwater runoff would be less than significant.

The Rezone PEIR describes that some of the Rezone Sites are located within or partially within flood hazard areas of the San Diego River. Future development of the Rezone Sites would require compliance with regulations related to flood hazards such as General Plan Safety Element policies and Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) or areas mapped on federal Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). Thus, potential impacts related to flooding would be reduced to less than significant. The Rezone PEIR also determined that the Rezone Sites are not within a tsunami zone; therefore, the project would not result in tsunami related impacts.

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
This section was prepared using the following report:
• Drainage Study for The Exchange at Santee Town Center. Prepared by RICK, on September 18, 2025 (Appendix F).
• Strom Water Quality Management Plan (SWQMP) for The Exchange at Santee Town Center. Prepared by RICK, on September 18, 2025 (Appendix G).

The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
96 a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
No New Impact.

Construction
Construction of the proposed Project would require grading and excavation of soils, which would loosen sediment, and then have the potential to mix with surface water runoff and degrade water quality.

Additionally, construction would require the use of heavy equipment and construction-related chemicals, such as concrete, cement, asphalt, fuels, oils, antifreeze, transmission fluid, grease, solvents, and paints. These potentially harmful materials could be accidentally spilled or improperly disposed of during construction and, if mixed with surface water runoff could wash into and pollute waters.

These types of water quality impacts during construction of the Project would be prevented through implementation of a SWPPP. Construction of the Project would disturb more than 1 acre of soil; therefore, the proposed Project would be required to obtain coverage under the NPDES General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity. Construction activity subject to this permit includes clearing, grading, and ground disturbances such as trenching, stockpiling, or excavation. The Construction General Permit requires implementation of a SWPPP that is required to identify all potential sources of pollution that are reasonably expected to affect the quality of storm water discharges from the construction site. The SWPPP would generally contain a site map showing the construction perimeter, proposed buildings, stormwater collection and discharge points, general pre- and post-construction topography, drainage patterns across the site, and adjacent roadways. The SWPPP would also include construction BMPs.

Adherence to the existing requirements and implementation of the appropriate BMPs, as ensured through the City’s plan check and permitting process, are included as PPP WQ-1, which would ensure that the Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, potential water quality degradation associated with construction activities would be minimized, and impacts would be less than significant.

Operation
The proposed Project includes the operation of residential units. Project operation would include the same types of potential for pollutants such as chemicals from cleaners, pesticides and sediment from landscaping, trash and debris, and oil and grease from vehicles that are generated by the existing commercial office building uses. These pollutants could potentially discharge into surface waters and result in degradation of water quality.

The proposed Project would be required to adhere to existing drainage control requirements including the MS4 NPDES Permit and the City’s drainage control requirements (SMC Chapter 9.06). Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project applicant would be required to submit drainage control plans to the City for review and approval. As part of these requirements, the plans would identify post-construction BMPs that are consistent with Low Impact Development requirements and meet all applicable MS4 Permit and City requirements. The City’s drainage control requirements requires that new development and significant redevelopment projects develop and implement a water quality management plan (WQMP) that includes BMPs and low impact development (LID) design features that would provide on-site treatment of stormwater to prevent pollutants from on-site uses from leaving the site. A WQMP has been developed (included as Appendix G) per these requirements and recommends various BMPs to be incorporated into the Project. The WQMP is required to be reviewed and approved by the City to ensure it complies with the MS4 Permit regulations prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit. In addition, the City’s permitting process would ensure that all BMPs in the WQMP would be implemented with the Project. Overall, implementation of the WQMP pursuant to the existing regulations (included as PPP WQ-2) would ensure that operation of The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
97 the proposed Project would not violate any water quality standards, waste discharge requirements, or otherwise degrade water quality, and impacts would be less than significant.

As such, the proposed Project is consistent with the findings contained in the Rezone PEIR impacts, and no new or increased impact would occur.
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? No New Impact.

Groundwater recharge is facilitated by percolation of stormwater through pervious surface areas to groundwater resources. Increasing the imperviousness of an area could interfere with groundwater recharge capabilities of an area. The Project site is currently undeveloped and is largely pervious. As described in the WQMP (Appendix G), the Project site in the existing condition is 100 percent pervious while the proposed Project condition would be 85 percent impervious. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in a reduction of pervious surface compared to the existing conditions.

However, the proposed Project would install drainage infrastructure that would direct runoff to and underground infiltration system where it would eventually discharge into the San Diego River. In addition, the proposed Project includes landscaping that would also provide stormwater infiltration on-site. The proposed Project would not utilize or extract groundwater. As a result, the proposed Project would not decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in less-than-significant impacts to groundwater supplies or recharge. No new or increased impact would occur.
c) Substantially alter 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 which would:
i. Result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? No New Impact.

Construction
Construction of the proposed Project would require grading and excavation of soils, which would loosen sediment and could result in erosion or siltation. However, as described previously, construction of the proposed Project requires City approval of a SWPPP prepared by a Qualified SWPPP Developer. The SWPPP is required for plan check and approval by the City’s Public Works Department, prior to provision of permits for the proposed Project, and would include construction BMPs to reduce erosion and siltation. Typical BMPs for erosion or siltation include use of silt fencing, fiber rolls, gravel bags, stabilized construction driveway, and stockpile management. Adherence to the existing requirements and implementation of the required BMPs per the permitting process would ensure that erosion and siltation associated with construction activities would be minimized, and impacts would be less than significant.

Operation
During operation of the proposed Project the remaining pervious areas on-site would be landscaped.

Thus, implementation of the proposed Project would not generate soils that could erode. As described in the Drainage Study (Appendix F), the existing drainage pattern of the site consists of two points of compliance (POC). POC-1 is located in the northwest portion of the site while POC-2 is located east of The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
98 the site. The developed drainage condition would maintain the two existing POCs; however, the tributary area of POC-1 would increase by 0.1 acres due to the proposed grading of the Project while the tributary area of POC-2 would decrease by 0.1 acres as a result of the increase in POC 1. Although there is an increase in peak discharge to POC-1 in the post-Project conditions, the downstream system demonstrates sufficient capacity per the Santee Master Drainage Study (Appendix F). The Santee Master Drainage Study used assumed utility build out condition flow rates from the site (34.15 cfs). The calculated post-Project peak discharge is 34.06 cfs which is lower than the Master Drainage Study peak discharge. Therefore, no detention is needed.

Further, as described previously, the proposed Project is required to implement a WQMP, included as Appendix G, that provides operational BMPs to ensure that operation of the warehouse building would not result in erosion or siltation. As a result, stormwater runoff and the potential for erosion and siltation would not increase with implementation of the proposed Project, and impacts would be less than significant. No new or increased impact would occur.
ii. Result in flooding on- or off-site?
No New Impact.

As discussed in the previous responses, during Project construction, a SWPPP would be implemented to control drainage and maintain drainage patterns across the Project site. As discussed in the Drainage Study (Appendix F), existing drainage patterns would remain relatively unchanged when compared to the existing site conditions. The proposed Project would increase the amount of impervious surface on the site compared to existing conditions. However, as discussed above and in the Hydrology Report, drainage runoff from the Project site would be adequately handled by the proposed Project’s drainage system. On-site drainage would be conveyed to underground basins for treatment before being discharged into the San Diego River. Proposed storm drain facilities would be able to capture runoff and ensure the impacts of 10-year, 50-year, and 100-year storm events would be similar to pre-Project conditions. Therefore, the Project would result in less-than-significant on- and off-site flooding impacts.

No new or increased impact would occur.
iii. Exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
No New Impact.

As described in the previous responses, the proposed Project would be required to implement a SWPPP during construction that would implement BMPs, such as the use of silt fencing, fiber rolls, and gravel bags, that would ensure that runoff would not substantially increase during construction. Additionally, the proposed stormwater facilities would ensure the impacts of 10-year, 50-year, and 100-year storm events would be similar to pre-Project conditions. Therefore, development of the proposed Project would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems and impacts would be less than significant. No new or increased impact would occur. iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
No New Impact.

According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) FIRM for the Project area (Map No. 06073C1653G), the Project site is classified as “Zone X” flood plain area, which includes areas subject to a one percent annual change of flood hazard (100-year flood) (FEMA, 2012). As described previously, the drainage facilities proposed for the Project have been sized to adequately accommodate the stormwater flows from the proposed development and are consistent with the County and City drainage plans and MS4 permit requirements as part of the required WQMP (PPP HWQ-2). Thus, The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
99 although the proposed Project would result in a substantial increase in impervious surfaces on the site, the proposed drainage infrastructure would maintain the existing drainage pattern and accommodate flows, such that storm flows would not be impeded or redirected. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. No new or increased impact would occur.
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? No New Impact.

As discussed in Response 5.8(c)(iv), the Project site is within the 100-year flood hazard area. However, as described above, the Project would be required to implement BMPs to retain on-site stormwater and minimize the velocity of stormwater runoff as required by the Project specific WQMP (PPP WQ-2). Additionally, proper storage requirements for hazardous materials, such as fuels and oils, would be followed in order to limit the risk of release of pollutants due to site inundation. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not risk the release of pollutants due to inundation in a flood hazard zone. Also, the Project site is located over 15 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean and is not located within a tsunami zone. Thus, impacts related to tsunamis would not occur.

A seiche is the sloshing of a closed body of water from earthquake shaking. Seiches are of concern relative to water storage facilities because inundation from a seiche can occur if the wave overflows a containment wall, such as the wall of a reservoir, water storage tank, dam, or other artificial body of water. As described in the Rezone PEIR, there are three lakes located upstream from the City which are used for water storage (the Sam Vicente Dam, El Capitan Dam, and Chet Harrit Dam). According to Rezone PEIR Figure 4.8-3 and mapping by the California Department of Water Resources inundation mapping, the Project site is within the inundation zone for these dams (City of Santee, 2022; California Department of Water Resources, 2025).

The Rezone PEIR determined no current hazardous conditions exist at any of the upstream dams. Additionally, the California Department of Water Resources, Division of Dam Safety, reviews the safety of dams annually.

Therefore, consistent with the findings of the Rezone PEIR, the potential for inundation at the Project site is considered low. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and the Project would result in no new or increased impact related to release of pollutants due to flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones. e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
No New Impact.

As described previously, the proposed Project would be required to implement a SWPPP, which would include construction BMPs to minimize the potential for construction related sources of pollution. For operations, the proposed Project would be required to comply with the MS4 permit and the Project-specific WQMP, which would require implementation of source control BMPs to minimize the introduction of pollutants, and treatment control BMPs to treat runoff. Additionally, an on-site storm drain system, as explained above, would be implemented for treatment and retention of runoff. With implementation of the operational source and treatment control BMPs that would be reviewed by the City during the permitting and approval process, potential pollutants would be reduced to the maximum extent feasible, and implementation of the proposed Project would not obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin and impacts would be less than significant.

Pursuant to the SGMA, the City’s groundwater basins are not required to have groundwater management plans (City of Santee, 2022). There are no groundwater wells on the Project site, and no wells are proposed as part of the Project. Moreover, the Project would not involve direct withdrawals of groundwater, nor would it interfere with groundwater recharge. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with a sustainable The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
100
groundwater management plan and impacts would be less than significant. No new or increased impacts would occur.

There have not been (1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the Rezone PEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the Rezone PEIR was adopted as completed.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPP)
PPP HWQ‐1: NPDES/SWPPP. Prior to issuance of any grading or construction permits, the applicant shall provide the Engineering Department evidence of submitting a Notice of Intent (NOI), develop and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and a monitoring program and reporting plan for the construction site.

PPP HWQ‐2: SWQMP. Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits, the Project Applicant shall submit for review and approval by the City’s Engineering Department, a Storm Water Quality Management Plan (SWQMP) identifying Best Management Practices (TCBMPs) that address Pollutants of Concern in accordance with the City’s BMP Design Manual (latest edition).

Rezone PEIR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures related to hydrology and water quality are included in the Rezone PEIR. Project impacts would be less than significant; therefore, no mitigation measures related to hydrology and water quality are required.

The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
101

5.9. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project: Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or
Additions
No New
Impact/
No
Impact
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due
to conflict with any land use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding
or mitigating an environmental effect?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Rezone PEIR
The Rezone PEIR discussed impacts related to land use and planning under Section 4.9. The Rezone PEIR describes that all 27 Rezone Sites are located within urbanized areas that are served by existing infrastructure. Of the 27 Rezone Sites, implementation of rezones would increase the allowed residential density within 25 of the sites. The Rezone Sites are located within an urbanized area of the City and no major infrastructure or improvements would be required by the Rezone project for any of the 27 sites that could physically divide an established community. In addition, development of the Rezone Sites within the Town Center Specific Plan would be required to adhere to all supplemental development regulations to ensure compatibility with the existing community. Therefore, the Rezone PEIR determined that implementation of the project would not physically divide established communities, and no impact would occur.

The Rezone PEIR concluded that the project would not conflict with State Housing Element Law, the San Diego Forward regional plan, the MSCP and the City of Santee’s Draft MSCP Subarea Plan, the City’s General Plan Land Use Element, or the City’s Municipal Code. The project’s proposed policy amendments would ensure internal consistency between the various land documents governing development in the City. However, the Rezone PEIR identified the potential for future development plans to be inconsistent with the San Diego County ALUCPs due to the possibility of conflicts between State mandated residential density provisions and identified ALUCPs density limitations for Airport Safety Zones. While development of the Rezone sites would be required to complete consultation with the ALUC when applicable, future development could be found incompatible with the ALUCPs; therefore, a significant impact would occur with respect to consistency with ALUCPs. The Rezone PEIR determined that there is no feasible mitigation available to reduce the potential conflict between the allowable density within an airport safety zone and the proposed Rezone Sites, therefore if future development of the Rezone Sites is determined not to be compatible, impacts would be significant and unavoidable. As such, impacts related to policy consistency for future development of the Rezone Sites would be less than significant, with the exception of impacts related to compatible density.

The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
102
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
a) Physically divide an established community?
No New Impact.

The Project site is currently vacant and undeveloped and is surrounded by existing roadways and commercial, institutional, and residential uses. The proposed Project would be consistent with the land use and zoning designations for the site. The proposed Project involves improvement of the existing unnamed public road from Mission Gorge Road that transitions into a private driveway along the western length of the Project site and extends to the adjacent northern property’s driveway to provide improved access to the site and surrounding uses. Although the Project involves infrastructure improvements to the existing unnamed public road and private driveway, the proposed Project would constitute infill development and would not physically divide an established community. The proposed Project would be subject to review for consistency with the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code regulations that serve to reduce or avoid environmental impacts. Further, the proposed Project, which is located within the Town Center Specific Plan (TCSP), would be required to adhere to all supplemental development regulations from the TCSP to ensure that the Project would be compatible with the existing community. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not physically divide an established community. The Project would be consistent with the findings of the Rezone PEIR and no new or increased impact would occur. b) 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? No New Impact.

The Project is consistent with the State, regional, and local regulations, plans, and policies, as well as General Plan land use, zoning and Town Center Specific Plan zoning for the site. The Project has a General Plan land use designation of Town Center (TC) and is within the Town Center Specific Plan. Within the Town Center Specific Plan the site is dually zoned as Residential TC-R-22 or Office/Commercial. As described in Table AES-1the Project is consistent with the TC-R-22 zoning3 standards as well as the objective design and performance standards for the Rezone Sites that qualify for by-right development, including the Project site (Rezone Site 15). Table LU-1 describes the Project’s consistency with relevant State, Regional, and local land use plans and policies.

Table LU-1: Project Consistency with Land Use Plans and Policies Land Use Plans and Policies Project Consistency
State Regulations, Plans, and Policies
State Housing Element Law (California Government
Code Section 65583 et seq.): Requires cities to update
their Housing Elements every eight years and
demonstrate that their land inventory is adequately
zoned to accommodate the jurisdiction’s share of
regional growth.

Consistent. The Project proposes development of
Rezone Site 15, as identified in the City’s 6th Cycle
Housing Element adopted in July 2021, within the current 8-year planning period (2021–2029). The Rezone PEIR
implemented Housing Element Programs 9 and 10, which
committed the City to evaluating candidate sites and
rezoning, as appropriate, to ensure adequate housing
capacity. The proposed Project would contribute to
3 Note: The proposed Project is consistent with the site’s underlying General Plan land use designation of Town Center (TC) and zoning designation of TC-R-22. Therefore, Measure N (ordinance amending the Santee General Plan requiring voter approval for development actions that would increase residential density or intensify land use over that currently permitted by the General Plan) does not apply to the Project.

The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
103
Land Use Plans and Policies Project Consistency
meeting the City’s assigned growth target and Regional
Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) minimum. Therefore,
the Project is consistent with State Housing Element law and supports compliance with land inventory and
regional growth requirements and no impact would
occur.

Regional Regulations, Plans, and Policies
San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan: Identified
GHG reduction strategies through transportation and
land use planning as follows:
• Connect communities through multi-modal
transportation choices;
• Increase a variety of housing options in proximity
to existing and planned transit;
Consistent. The proposed Project would develop Rezone
Site 15, which is located within the Town Center Specific Plan area and identified as a Smart Growth Opportunity
Area on SANDAG’s Smart Growth Concept Map. The
Project site is served by existing local and regional
transit lines. Development of the Project would provide housing within a transit hub and support the establishment of walkable neighborhoods. Therefore, the Project is
consistent with the planning goals and policies of the
Regional Transportation Plan and no impact would occur.

Local Regulations, Plan and Policies
Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP): The
City’s Draft MSCP Subarea Plan is utilized as a
biological resource guidance document.

Consistent. The proposed Project, Rezone Site 15, is not located within or adjacent to preserve areas identified in the City’s Draft Subarea Plan. The Project site is not adjacent to a preserve area. Thus, the Project would not be required to adhere to land use agency guidelines.

Additionally, as detailed in Section 5.3, Biological
Resources, Project implementation of MM-BIO-1 and
MM-BIO-4 would ensure future development is consistent
with the Draft Santee Subarea Plan. Therefore, the
Project would be consistent with the goals of the City’s Draft MSCP Subarea Plan, and no impact would occur.

San Diego County Airport Land Use Compatibility
Plans: The ALUCPs for Gillespie Field and MCAS
Miramar have regulatory authority over portions of the
City.

Consistent. The proposed Project, Rezone Site 15, is
located within the Gillespie Field Airport Influence Area (AIA) and would be subject to the land use compatibility policies and development criteria outlined in the
Gillespie Field ALUCP. According to the Gillespie ALUCP Compatibility Policy Map: Safety, the majority of the
Project site is located within Safety Zone 6 (Traffic
Pattern Zone), where new residential development is
deemed compatible with no density restrictions. The
remaining portion of the site is located within Safety
Zone 4 (Outer Approach/Departure Zone) which restricts
the density of new residential development as follows:
densities greater than 20 dwelling units per gross acre are incompatible, densities of 4 du per gross acre or less are compatible, and densities between more than 4 du
per gross acre and less than 16 du per gross acre are
conditionally compatible. While the Project has a gross density of 21 du/ac, all residential development would
occur within the portion of the site located within Safety Zone 6. No residential units are proposed on the portion of the site within Safety Zone 4. Although the Rezone PEIR identifies that future development plans could have the potential to not be entirely compatible with the ALUCP, the Project’s proposed density is compatible with Safety Zone 6. Additionally, the Project is subject to review by the Airport Land Use Commission to ensure compatibility The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
104
Land Use Plans and Policies Project Consistency
between the density of the proposed project, land use
compatibility policies, and development criteria outlined in the ALUCP. On September 2, 2025, the San Diego
County ALUC found the proposed Project consistent with
the Gillespie Field ALUCP, subject to conditions which the applicant has agreed to implement. Therefore, the
Project would be compatible with the Gillespie ALUCP,
and no impact would occur.

General Plan, Land Use Element: Provides goals,
objectives, and policies to guide City decision making to direct future growth and development and regulate the
types of land uses and intensities within the City. Policy

2.2 encourages the development of higher density
residential developments in areas close to multi-modal
transit station and along major road corridors where
transit and other convenience services are available.

Consistent. As described previously, the Project is
consistent with the land use and zoning designations of the site. The Project is also compatible with surrounding development which consists of residential, commercial,
and office uses. The Project location (within the Town
Center Specific Plan area, off of the major road corridor Mission Gorge Road) would provide opportunity for
residential use of multi-modal and transit options,
consistent with GPLU - Policy 2.2. Therefore, through
adherence to goals and policies, the Project would be
consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element, and
no impact would occur.

Municipal Code: Zoning Ordinance: Implements the
City’s General Plan by establishing site specific
development use regulations and development
standards.

Consistent. As described in Table AES-1, the Project is consistent with the TC-R-22 zoning standards, which
corresponds with the R-22 Citywide zoning designation.

As such, the Project is consistent with zoning use
regulations and development standards, and no impact
would occur.

Town Center Specific Plan: The Town Center Specific
Plan provides design concepts which guide the overall
development of the Town Center and design standards
to be applied in individual project developments.

Consistent. The Project site is located within the Town Center Specific Plan and is dually zoned as Residential TC-R-22 or Office/Commercial. As previously described
in Table AES-1, the Project is consistent with the TC-R-22 zoning standards as well as the intended zoning for
residential development of mid-rise apartment and
condominium buildings at a density between 22 to 30
du/ac. In addition, the Project would be subject to the applicable TCSP design concepts and standards, as
verified by the City during plan check. Therefore, the
Project would be consistent with the TCSP, and no new
impact would occur.

As shown in Table LU-1, the Project would be consistent with State, regional, and local land use plans and policies aimed at creating new housing opportunities in the City. Further, the Project has undergone consultation with ALUC to ensure compatibility with the airport and the proposed Project. As such, the proposed Project would not 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.

Therefore, the Project would be consistent with finding of the Rezone PEIR, and no new or increased impact would occur.

Conclusion
Based on the foregoing information, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding land use and planning. There have not been (1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
105
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effect; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the Rezone PEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or s substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the Rezone PEIR was adopted as completed.

Rezone PEIR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures related to land use and planning are included in the Rezone PEIR. Project impacts would be less than significant; therefore, no mitigation measures related to land use and planning are required.

The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
106

5.10. NOISE
Would the project result in: Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or
Additions
No
New
Impact/
No
Impact
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
b) Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) 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?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Rezone PEIR
The Rezone PEIR discussed impacts related to noise under Section 4.10. The Rezone PEIR describes that while the project does not propose specific development, future buildout under the project would increase ambient noise levels with increased traffic volumes on local roadways, involve construction activities that would generate on-site noise, and require the use of heavy equipment which would result in varying degrees of ground borne vibration.

The Rezone PEIR determined that project buildout would result in significant increases in ambient noise at nine analyzed roadway segments, all located in the north portion of the City. The City’s General Plan Noise Element details that noise levels up to 65 dB(A) Ldn are considered acceptable for multifamily residential uses. Rezone Site 15, located north of SR-52 within the Santee Town Center, is eligible for by-right development and could accommodate up to 115 multi-family units. As shown in Figure 4.10-4 of the Rezone PEIR, which presents future vehicle traffic noise contours under project buildout, Site 15’s access driveway falls within the 65 dB(A) Ldn noise contour for Mission Gorge Road. However, the majority of the site’s developable area lies outside of this contour. Additionally, the Rezone PEIR describes that these noise contours do not account for shielding provided by buildings located between the site and adjacent roadways.

As a result, actual future noise levels at Site 15 would likely be lower than shown. Therefore, noise levels at Site 15 would be compatible with the City’s acceptable noise standard of 65 dB(A) Ldn, and impacts would The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
107
be less than significant. The Rezone PEIR determined that no noise reduction measures would be required for Site 15.

The Rezone PEIR describes that the existing ambient noise levels in the City are primarily generated by vehicle traffic and would be expected to remain the dominant noise source with future project buildout.

Accordingly, the Rezone PEIR determined that the future noise levels from new residential uses throughout the City would not be expected to significantly increase the current average stationary noise levels. Future development of new stationary noise sources would be required to comply with the City’s Noise and Abatement and Control Ordinance, which establishes general noise regulations, prohibits disturbing or excessive noise, and sets limits on motorized equipment and loading and unloading activities. As such, stationary-source noise from future residential development would not substantially increase ambient noise levels, and impacts would be less than significant.

The Rezone PEIR describes that future development implemented under the project would result in temporary increases in ambient noise due to construction activities. However, such development would be subject to SMC Section 5.04.090, which regulates construction noise through timing restrictions and requires advance notice when construction equipment rated at 85 dB(A) Lmax or greater is used. The Rezone PEIR modeled construction equipment noise contours for sites with potential for ministerial development, including Rezone Site 15, and determined that typical construction noise levels will range from 65 to 75 dB(A) Leq near site boundaries. Although nearby residences could experience construction noise above ambient levels, the expose would be temporary. Further, all future projects would be required to comply with the City’s construction noise standards per SMC Section 5.04.090. However, construction near sensitive receptors could result in disturbances, specifically depending on equipment type, construction phasing, timing, and duration.

As such, construction noise impacts would be potentially significant. With implementation of MM-NOS-2, which requires the City review future development applications to determine if project construction would exceed 75 dB at the nearest receptor and thereby requiring a Construction Noise Best Management Plan, including site-specific noise analysis and various noise reduction measures, impacts related to construction noise would be reduced to less than significant.

Groundborne Vibration: The Rezone PEIR describes that construction activities such as demolition, excavation, and foundation work can generate vibration, particularly when equipment like pile drivers or vibratory rollers is used. These types of construction equipment have the highest potential to produce perceptible vibration. The Rezone PEIR determined that with administrative controls in place, including compliance with SMC Section 5.04.090, which requires that construction activities be scheduled during hours with the least potential to affect nearby properties, perceptible vibration can be managed to a minimum and would result in less-than-significant impact with respect to perception. However, because the construction details and equipment for future development are not yet known, vibration levels could potentially exceed Federal Transit Administration (FTA) thresholds for architectural damage, and impacts would therefore considered potentially significant. Implementation of MM-NOS-3 would require project applicants prepare a noise and vibration analysis to assess potential impacts from construction activities such as pile driving or vibratory roller use. If necessary, construction vibration monitoring must be conducted to ensure vibration thresholds are not exceeded. Implementation of MM-NOS-3 would ensure that future projects with the potential to generate substantial vibration would include plans to mitigate those impacts. Therefore, impacts related to groundborne vibration would be reduced to less than significant.

Airport Noise: The Rezone PEIR described that Gillespie Field Airport, located south of the City within the City of El Cajon, and MCAS Miramar, located northwest of the City within the City of San Diego are considered within the City of Santee’s vicinity. As such, the Rezone PEIR determined that all Rezone Sites are located outside of the 65 CNEL aircraft noise contours per Figure 4.10-3 of the Rezone PEIR. Therefore, the project would not expose people to significant aircraft noise levels, and impacts would be less than significant.

The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
108
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
This section was prepared using the following report:
• Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis. Prepared by LSA in June 2025 (Appendix H). a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
No New Impact.

As detailed in the Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis (Appendix H), to identify the existing ambient noise level environment, three long-term (24-hour) noise level measurements were taken at locations near the Project site. Figure 5-1 shows the location of each noise measurement. Table N-1 presents a summary of the measured hourly noise levels and calculated community noise equivalent level (CNEL) from the long-term noise level measurements. As shown in Table N-1, the average daily noise levels around the Project site range from 58.3 dBA CNEL to 60.8 dBA CNEL. Hourly noise levels at surrounding sensitive uses are as low as 43.7 dBA Leq during nighttime hours and 45.4 dBA Leq during daytime hours.

Table N-1: Existing Noise Level Measurements
Location
Number Location Description
Daytime Noise
Levels1
(dBA Leq)
Nighttime Noise
Levels2
(dBA Leq)
Average
Daily Noise
Levels
(dBA Ldn)
Primary Noise
Sources
LT-1
Near the northwest corner of the
project site, on a tree.

Approximately 1,750 feet from
the SR-52 centerline.

45.4-60.2 40.8–55.0 58.3
Vehicle
traffic on
SR-52 and
Mission
Gorge Road
LT-2
Near San Ysidro Health Center,
120 Town Center Parkway, on
a tree southwest of the building.

Just east of the project site.

Approximately 1,750 feet from
the SR-52 centerline.

49.1-62.1 43.7-55.4 59.6
Vehicle
traffic on
SR-52 and
Mission
Gorge Road
LT-3
On the east side of Lowe’s, 9416
Mission Gorge Road, on a tree.

West of the project site.

Approximately 1,350 feet from
the SR-52 centerline.

52.4-61.9 45.7-57.1 60.8
Vehicle
traffic on
SR-52 and
Mission
Gorge Road
1 Daytime Noise Levels = noise levels during the hours of 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM 2 Nighttime Noise Levels = noise levels during the hours of 10:00 PM to 7:00 Source: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis (Appendix H) Noise Measurement Locations
Mission Gorge Residential Project Figure 5-1
City of Santee
LT-1
LT-3
LT-2
Maxar
0 150 300
US Feet
±
Legend
Long Term Noise
Monitoring Location
Project Boundary
Mission Gorge Road
Town Center Parkway
Original Data from LSA
The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee
The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
110
This page intentionally left blank.

The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
111
Construction
During construction, short-term noise impacts could occur as a result of construction crew commutes and the transport of construction equipment and materials to the site. However, construction crew commutes and the transport of construction equipment and materials to the site would have a small effect on longer-term ambient noise levels when compared to the existing average daily traffic (ADT) volume on Mission Gorge Road. Based on the 2013 ADT volumes provided in the City of Santee Mobility Element, the ADT on Mission Gorge Road is approximately 32,200 (City of Santee, 2017b). Although the current traffic volume on Mission Gorge Road is likely higher, using the 2013 volumes would be considered conservative because the delta is based on a ratio; therefore, the lower the baseline, the larger the increase would be for the same value of Project added traffic. During the grading phase, approximately 1,209 acoustically equivalent trips would occur during an average day from worker and delivery activities resulting in a traffic noise increase of approximately 0.2 dBA (see Appendix B of Appendix H for calculations). A noise level increase of less than 3 dBA would not be perceptible to the human ear in an outdoor environment (Appendix H). Therefore, shortterm construction-related impacts associated with worker commutes and equipment transport to the Project site would be less than significant.

Noise generated by construction equipment would include a combination of trucks, power tools, concrete mixers, and portable generators that when combined can reach high levels. Construction is expected to occur in the following stages: site preparation, grading, building construction, architectural coating, and paving.

The Project construction noise would be temporary in nature as the operation of each piece of construction equipment would not be constant throughout the construction day, and equipment would be turned off when not in use. For the purposes of the Noise Impact Analysis, the nearest sensitive receptor are the existing single-family residences located approximately 15 feet west of the Project site boundary.

Table N-2 shows the nearest uses to the Project site, their distance from the center of construction activities, as recommended by FTA guidance, and composite noise levels expected during construction. As shown, it is expected that composite noise levels during construction at the nearest off-site commercial uses to the east would reach 74 dBA Leq while construction noise levels would approach 73 dBA Leq at the nearest residential uses to the west during daytime hours. Construction noise would not exceed 75dB threshold therefore Rezone PEIR MM-NOS 2 would not be required. Construction noise would also not exceed the 80 dBA Leq and 85 dBA Leq, 1-hour construction noise level criteria for daytime construction noise level criteria as established by the FTA for residential and commercial land uses, respectively. Additionally, these noise levels would only occur when all construction equipment is operating simultaneously; therefore, these predicted levels are assumed to be conservative. Therefore, impacts related to construction noise would be less than significant and no new or increased impact would occur.

Table N-2: Estimated Construction Noise Levels at Nearest Receptors Receptor (Location) Composite Noise Level
(dBA Leq) at 50 feet1
Distance
(feet)2
Composite Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
Commercial Uses (East)
88 250 74
Residential Uses (West) 280 73
Postal Office (South) 280 73
Commercial Uses (West) 320 72
Commercial Uses (North) 415 69
1 The composite construction noise level represents the site preparation and paving phases, which are expected to result in the greatest noise levels as compared to other phases.
2 Measured from the center of construction activities.

Source: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis (Appendix H) The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
112
Additionally, construction activities for the proposed Project would not occur before 7:00 AM or after 7:00 PM on Mondays through Saturdays and would not occur any time on Sundays and holidays in accordance with SMC Section 5.04.090. Thus, construction noise levels would be less than significant. No new or increased impact would occur.

Operation
Operational noise generated by the Project would primarily occur from Project-generated traffic on nearby roadways. The Project is anticipated to result in 600 daily trips (Appendix I). According to the City’s Mobility Element of the General Plan, the existing (2013) ADT on Mission Gorge Road adjacent to the Project site is 32,200 (City of Santee, 2017b). Although the current traffic volume on Mission Gorge Road is likely higher, using the 2013 volumes would be considered conservative. The Noise Impact Analysis calculated the change in noise level that would occur with the addition of Project-generated trips. The results of the calculations show that an increase of approximately 0.1 dBA CNEL is expected along Mission Gorge Road. A noise level increase of less than 1 dBA would not be perceptible to the human ear; therefore, the traffic noise increase in the vicinity of the Project site resulting from the proposed Project would be less than significant (Appendix H).

During Project operation, adjacent off-site land uses would be potentially exposed to stationary-source noise levels from heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment. Proposed HVAC equipment would be installed at each home and would comply with the City’s noise standards presented in Table 4.10-2 of the Rezone PEIR. Additionally, the Project also proposes the construction of a recreational space. Typical activities at a recreational space are not expected to generate excessive noise levels and would occur during daytime hours. Therefore, noise impacts associated with on-site sources (HVAC and recreational space activities) would be less than significant. No new or increased impact would occur. b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? No New Impact.

Construction
Construction activity can cause varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment and methods used, the distance to receptors, and soil type. Construction vibrations are intermittent, localized intrusions. The use of heavy construction equipment, particularly large bulldozers, and large loaded trucks hauling materials to or from the site generate construction-period vibration impacts.

The Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis (Appendix H) uses vibration standards from the California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans) Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual (Caltrans Manual) (2020) to analyze ground-borne vibration impacts on human annoyance and building damage. The analysis discusses the level of human annoyance using vibration levels in RMS (root mean square) and assesses the potential for building damages using vibration levels in PPV (peak particle velocity) (in/sec). The Caltrans guidelines indicate that the threshold at which vibration levels would result in annoyance would be 0.04 RMS in/sec. Caltrans indicates that for newer residential structures and modern industrial or commercial buildings, the construction vibration damage criterion is 0.5 in/sec in PPV. Table N-3 shows reference RMS and PPV values at 25 feet from the construction vibration source.

The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
113
Table N-3: Construction Vibration Reference Levels
Equipment
Reference PPV/Lv at 25 feet
PPV (in/sec) RMS (in/sec)1
Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.062
Loaded Trucks 0.076 0.053
1 RMS vibration velocity is 70 percent of maximum PPV.

Source: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis (Appendix H) Table N-4 shows the summary of vibration annoyance levels due to construction equipment at each of the closest receptors. Because vibration annoyance assesses an average condition, the distance from the center of construction activities to surrounding land uses was utilized. As shown in Table N-4, vibration levels are expected to approach 0.002 RMS in/sec at the closest residential use to the west which is below the 0.04 RMS in/sec annoyance threshold for daytime residential uses.

Table N-4: Construction Vibration Annoyance Impacts at Nearest Receptor Receptor (Location)
Reference Vibration
Level (RMS in/sec) at 25
feet1
Distance
(feet)2
Vibration Level
(RMS in/sec)
Commercial Uses (East)

0.062
250 0.002
Residential Uses (West) 280 0.002
Postal Office (South) 280 0.002
Commercial Uses (West) 320 0.001
Commercial Uses (North) 415 0.001
1 The reference vibration level is associated with a large bulldozer, which is expected to be representative of the heavy equipment used during construction. 2 The assessment distance is associated with the average condition, identified by the distance from the center of construction activities to surrounding uses. Source: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis (Appendix H) Table N-5 shows the summary of vibration damage levels due to construction equipment at each of the closest receptors. The construction vibration damage criteria is a peak or maximum scenario to assess the potential for effects such as the cracking of building façade. Thus, when assessing potential vibration damage, the appropriate distance to assess a peak or maximum vibration condition is perimeter of construction to surrounding buildings. As shown in Table N-5, vibration levels are expected to approach

0.191 PPV in/sec at the closest residential use to the west and at the closest commercial uses to the east, which is below the 0.5 PPV in/sec damage threshold considered safe for newer residential structures and modern industrial or commercial buildings.

Table N-5: Construction Vibration Damage Impacts at Nearest Receptor Receptor (Location) Reference Vibration
Level (PPV) at 25 feet1
Distance
(feet)2
Vibration Level PPV)
Commercial Uses (East)

0.089
15 0.191
Residential Uses (West) 15 0.191
Postal Office (South) 50 0.031
Commercial Uses (West) 85 0.014
Commercial Uses (North) 180 0.005
1 The reference vibration level is associated with a large bulldozer, which is expected to be representative of the heavy equipment used during construction. 2 The assessment distance is associated with the peak condition, identified by the distance from the perimeter of construction activities to surrounding structures. Source: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis (Appendix H) The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
114
As such, construction related vibration would remain below thresholds and impacts would be less than significant. Additionally, as described above, the Project would adhere to the construction hours permitted by SMC Section 5.04.090 which states that construction activities shall not occur before 7:00 AM or after 7:00 PM on Mondays through Saturdays and shall not occur at any time on Sundays and holidays. Thus, construction related vibration would not occur during sensitive evening hours. No new or increased impact would occur.

Operation
Once operational, the Project would not be a significant source of ground-borne vibration. Ground-borne vibration surrounding the Project currently results from traffic on Mission Gorge Road. Operations of the Project would include passenger cars traveling to and from the residences. Vibration levels generated from Project-related traffic on the adjacent roadways are unusual for on-road vehicles because the rubber tires and suspension systems of on-road vehicles provide vibration isolation. Based on a reference vibration level of 0.089 in/sec PPV, structures greater than 20 feet from the roadways that contain Project trips would experience vibration levels below the most conservative standard of 0.12 in/sec PPV; therefore, vibration levels generated from Project-related traffic on the adjacent roadways would be less than significant. No new or increased impact would occur.
c) 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? No New Impact.

The closest airport to the Project site is Gillespie Field, located approximately 0.9 miles to the southeast.

According to the Gillespie Field ALUCP, the Project site is outside of the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour but the southwest portion of the site is within the 60 dBA CNEL airport noise contour (San Diego County Airport Land Use Commission, 2010). The portion of the site with proposed residential development would be outside of the 60 dBA CNEL contour. Additionally, the noise contours contained in the ALUCP do not take into consideration shielding from existing development. Thus, actual noise levels at the site would be less than presented in the ALUCP. The Project would be compatible with the City’s normally acceptable noise standard of 65 dBA; thus, impacts related to airport noise would be less than significant. No new or increased impact would occur.

Conclusion
Based on the foregoing information, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding noise. There have not been (1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the Rezone PEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the Rezone PEIR was adopted as completed.

The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
115
Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPP)
PPP NOS-1: Construction Hours. Project construction shall adhere to the construction hours permitted by Santee Municipal Code (SMC) Section 5.04.090 which states that construction activities shall not occur before 7:00 AM or after 7:00 PM on Mondays through Saturdays and shall not occur at any time on Sundays and holidays.

Rezone PEIR Mitigation Measures
The following Rezone PEIR Mitigation Measures would be applicable to the proposed project:

MM-NOS-3 is applicable to the proposed project, however it has been satisfied through the preparation of the Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis (Appendix H), which determined construction vibration would not exceed 0.191 PPV in/sec at the nearest structures.

MM-NOS-3 Applications for future development, where the City has determined a potential for vibration impacts in relation to sensitive receptors, shall be required to comply with the following mitigation measure:

Prior to the issuance of a permit to develop at the Rezone Sites, the City shall determine whether the construction process will require equipment or activities that may result in vibration, such as pile driving. For projects requiring pile driving during construction within 135 feet of fragile structures, such as historical resources, 100 feet of non-engineered timber and masonry buildings (e.g., most residential buildings), or within 75 feet of engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster); or a vibratory roller within 25 feet of any structure, the project applicant shall prepare a noise and vibration analysis to assess and mitigate potential noise and vibration impacts related to these activities. These distances are based on reference vibration levels generated by pile drivers and vibratory rollers and standard vibration propagation rates as published by the Federal Transit Administration Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA 2018). This noise and vibration analysis shall be conducted by a qualified and experienced acoustical consultant or engineer. The vibration levels shall not exceed Federal Transit Administration architectural damage thresholds (e.g., 0.12 inches per second [in/sec] peak particle velocity [PPV] for fragile or historical resources, 0.2 in/sec PPV for non-engineered timber and masonry buildings, and 0.3 in/sec PPV for engineered concrete and masonry). If vibration levels would exceed this threshold, alternative uses such as drilling piles as opposed to pile driving, and static rollers as opposed to vibratory rollers, shall be used. If necessary, construction vibration monitoring shall be conducted to ensure vibration thresholds are not exceeded.

The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
116

5.11. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project: Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or
Additions
No New
Impact/
No
Impact
a) Induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (for example,
by proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the construction
of replacement housing elsewhere?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Rezone PEIR
The Rezone PEIR discussed impacts related to population and housing under Section 4.11. The Rezone PEIR describes that the project would result in adoption of rezones required to implement the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element. SANDAG allocated 1,219 units as the City’s share of the regional housing need for the 2021-2029 RHNA period and forecasted that the City needs to plan for an 11.8 percent increase in population between 2025 and 2050. The proposed rezones would result in the potential future construction of up to 1,945 residential units, which would accommodate more than the City’s RHNA allocation of 1,219 units. The excess rezones were proposed to provide flexibility for decisionmakers, a buffer should the City’s RHNA allocation increase, and capacity for projected growth in the region. In addition, the project would facilitate land use changes that would allow the City and region to meet their housing goals while advancing SANDAG’s goals by locating higher density development in areas with existing infrastructure and access to transit, consistent with the RTP/SCS. As such, all of the rezones are located within existing developed areas with access to services and roadways and therefore would not include substantial unplanned population growth.

The Rezone PEIR identified that 14 of the 27 Rezone Sites contain a single-family residence, which would have the potential to displace some people and housing. However, the 14 Rezone Sites are proposed for higher-density redevelopment, which would result in more housing units replacing each removed home to accommodate more people and ensure no net loss of housing. Additionally, the Rezone PEIR discussed that the analysis provided in the PEIR evaluated and identified mitigation that would be applied to ensure physical impacts related to future housing construction are minimized to the greatest extent feasible.

Therefore, impacts related to displacement of people and housing would be less than significant.

The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
117
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly? No New Impact.

The Project proposes 100 units on the 4.18-acre site. Using the average household size of 2.19 persons per household used in the Rezone PEIR, the Project is anticipated to result in up to 219 new residents. As described above, the Rezone PEIR estimated an 11.8 percent population increase between 2025 and 2050, which equates to an increase of 4,712 residents over the next 25 years. Thus, the proposed Project would represent approximately five percent of the City’s anticipated population growth. Additionally, the Rezone PEIR anticipated the Project site would be developed with up to 115 residential units; thus, the increase in population that would result from buildout of the Project has been previously considered and determined to be less than significant.

Further, consistent with the analysis in the Rezone PEIR, the housing development facilitated through implementation of the Project would not be classified as unplanned growth but rather would accommodate planned regional housing growth included in the SANDAG RHNA. State law requires that the City accommodate their RHNA “fair share” of the region’s housing needs, which cannot be achieved without future residential development. Thus, while the proposed Project would result in an increase to projected population, the Project would in part satisfy the State requirements to provide new housing opportunities to increase housing supply. Further, the Project area is currently served by existing roads and other infrastructure, and the Project would only require minor extensions or laterals from nearby roads and utilities to the site.

Therefore, the Project would not induce unplanned growth by proposing new infrastructure improvements beyond what is needed to accommodate the proposed Project. Impacts would be less than significant and no new or increased impacts would occur.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No New Impact.

The Project would develop 100 residential units on the Project site, which is currently vacant and undeveloped. No people or housing would be displaced by implementation of the proposed Project.

Conversely, housing would be developed by the Project, thus the Project would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere, and no new or increased impacts would occur. As such, the proposed Project is consistent with the findings of the Rezone PEIR. No new or increased impact would occur.

Conclusion
Based on the foregoing information, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding population and housing. There have not been (1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effect; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the Rezone PEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects of a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the Rezone PEIR was adopted as completed.

The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
118
Because none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate project impacts, the Project is consistent with the Rezone PEIR.

Rezone PEIR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures related to population and housing are included in the Rezone PEIR. Project impacts would be less than significant; therefore, no mitigation measures related to population and housing are required.

The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
119

5.12. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) 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 any of the
public services:

Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or
Additions
No New
Impact/
No
Impact
i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Rezone PEIR
The Rezone PEIR discussed impacts related to public services under Section 4.12. The Rezone PEIR determined that the project would not directly construct new housing but rather provide capacity for future development consistent with the proposed rezones needed to implement the 6th Cycle Housing Element program and fulfill the City’s RHNA allocation obligations. Future development at the Rezone Sites would accommodate future population growth within the City. Of the 27 Rezone Sites, all are developed/occupied by structures except 11 sites.

Fire Protection: Fire protection services are provided by the Santee Fire Department to the currently developed sites and in the surrounding area of the vacant sites. The Rezone PEIR describes that future housing development facilitated by the project would accommodate future population growth within the City, however, the buildout of the anticipated residential units could potentially increase demand for fire protection facilities. The Rezone PEIR describes that all future development would be required to adhere to the City’s Municipal Code, including Chapter 12.50 which requires payment of development impact fees (DIF) to ensure the costs of construction public facilities that are related to the impacts of new development.

Further, all projects must comply with the City’s General Plan which requires developers to pay the cost of ensuring adequate public services and facilities. Future development would be required to adhere to the Safety Element Policies 4.2, which requires that new development meets established response time standards for fire and life safety services, and Policy 4.12, which requires that the timing of additional fire station construction, renovation, or new services be related to the rise of service demands. The Rezone PEIR determined that the development of the Rezone Sites would not directly result in sufficient demand that would require construction of new fire facilities, as each housing development would pay DIF towards anticipated fire facility needs that would provide funding for fire facility improvements and operations support. When future fire facilities are proposed they would be subject to a separate environmental review and compliance with existing regulations at the time to address potential environmental impacts related to The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
120
the construction and operation of new fire facilities. Therefore, the Rezone PEIR determined that the project would not result in a need for expanded or newly constructed facilities, and impacts related to fire services would be less than significant.

Police Protection: The Rezone PEIR describes that the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department is under contractual agreement with the City to provide police protection. The City’s Sheriff substation has approximately 54 sworn law enforcement officers and has a ratio of one officer per 1,000 residents. The Rezone PEIR describes that future housing development facilitated by the project would accommodate future population growth within the City, however, the buildout of the anticipated residential units could potentially increase demand for police protection facilities. All future development would be required to adhere to the City’s Municipal Code, including Chapter 12.50 which requires payment of DIF to ensure the costs of construction public facilities that are related to the impacts of new development. Further, all projects must comply with the City’s General Plan which requires developers to pay the cost of ensuring adequate public services and facilities. Future development would be required to adhere to the Safety Element Policy 5.4, which requires the involvement of law enforcement personnel in the review of new development applications apart of the Development Review Process. The Rezone PEIR determined that the development of the Rezone Sites would not directly result in sufficient demand to require construction of new police facilities, as each housing development would pay DIF towards anticipated police facility needs. When future police facilities are proposed they would be subject to a separate environmental review and compliance with existing regulations at the time to address potential environmental impacts related to the construction and operation of new police facilities. Therefore, the Rezone PEIR determined that the project would not result in a need for and/or provision of new or expanded police facilities and impacts related to police services would be less than significant.

Schools: The Rezone PEIR describes that future housing development is anticipated to generate 495 students within the Santee School District (SSD) and 300 high school students within the Grossmont Union High School District (GUHSD). The Rezone PEIR describes that schools in the SSD and GUHSD have excess enrollment capacity, indicating that additional students generated from the future development of the Rezone Sites can be accommodated.

The Rezone PEIR states that all future development would be required to adhere to state statutory fees pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 50. As such, both the SDD and GUHSD are consistent with SB 50, as each levies impact fees on development within their respective district boundaries. In addition, the City’s General Plan requires developers to ensure that adequate schools are available for potential residents, a requirement that future projects would be required to demonstrate compliance with. Based on SSD and GUHSD’s existing capacity at their schools in conjunction with payment of SB 50 fees development within the Rezone Sites would not directly result in sufficient demand to require construction of new school facilities. When future school facilities are proposed they would be subject to a separate environmental review and compliance with existing regulations at the time to address potential environmental impacts related to the construction and operation of new school facilities. Therefore, the Rezone PEIR determined that the project would not result in a need for and/or provision of new or expanded school facilities and impacts related to schools would be less than significant.

Parks: The Rezone PEIR describes that although the City meets its overall goal for parkland, 10 acres per 1,000 residents, construction of additional residential units could potentially increase park and recreational facility demand. However, all future development would be required to adhere to SMC Section 12.40 which mandates the payment of in-lieu fees consistent with the Quimby Act to fund additional park facilities within the City. The payment of these fees would enable the City to continue implementing of the following General Plan Policies related to maintenance and expansion of the City’s park and recreation facilities: Land Use Policy 3.1 which ensures project related improvements, dedications, and fees cover the incremental costs of new or upgraded public facilities, Conservation Element Policies 11.1, 11.2, and 11.4, which promote The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
121
dedication and connectivity of open space, parklands, and private open space throughout the City, Recreation Element Policies 1.1 and 2.2, which aim to increase overall park and recreational acreage, and several Trails Element Policies which support the expansion of the City’s bicycle, equestrian and pedestrian trails and connectivity to regional systems.

The Rezone PEIR determined that the development of the Rezone Sites would not directly result in sufficient demand to require construction of new or expanded parks and recreational facilities, as each housing development would pay DIF towards anticipated park needs. When a future parkland project is proposed it would be subject to a separate environmental review and compliance with existing regulations at the time to address potential environmental impacts related to the construction and operation of new park facilities.

Therefore, the Rezone PEIR determined that the project would not result in a need for and/or provision of new or expanded parks and recreation facilities and impacts would be less than significant.

Libraries: The Rezone PEIR describes that although the San Diego County service ratio goal for library services at the Santee Library are at a deficit, library services within the City are considered adequate with the combination of a cooperative library system with surrounding cities and Bookmobile participation. The Rezone PEIR describes that development of additional residential units could potentially increase demand for library services. However, all future development would be required to adhere to the City’s Municipal Code including Chapter 12.50, which mandates payment of DIF to ensure costs of constructing public facilities that are related to the impacts of the new development, including libraries. In addition, the City would continue participating in existing programs that provide residents with access to library books and programming as well as support of the non-profit organization Friends of Santee Library, which focuses on fundraising for a new larger library. The Rezone PEIR determined that the development of the Rezone Sites would not directly result in sufficient demand to require construction of a new or expanded library, as each housing development would pay DIF towards anticipated library facility needs. When a future library is proposed it would be subject to a separate environmental review and compliance with existing regulations at the time to address potential environmental impacts related to the construction and operation of a new library. Therefore, the Rezone PEIR determined that the project would not result in a need for and/or provision of new or expanded library and impacts would be less than significant.

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
a) 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:
i. Fire Protection and Emergency Services
No New Impact.

Fire protection services to the Project site are provided by the Santee Fire Department. There are two fire stations nearby, each approximately 1.3 miles away from the Project site: Santee Fire Station 4 to the east located at 8950 Cottonwood Avenue, and Santee Fire Station 5 to the northwest located at 9130 Carlton Oaks Drive.

Implementation of the Project would be required to adhere to the City’s Municipal Code and General Plan. The proposed Project would be required to pay development impact fees pursuant to SMC Chapter

12.50 (PPP PS-1), as well as comply with General Plan requirement for developers to pay the cost of ensuring adequate public services and facilities. In addition, the Project would adhere to Safety Element Policy 4.2, which would require that all new development meet established response time standards for fire and life safety services and Policy 4.12 which requires the timing of additional fire station construction or renovation or new services to be related to the rise of service demands.

The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
122
The proposed Project includes the development of 100 residential units, which would result in an increase in demand for fire protection and emergency medical services. As described in Section 5.11, Population and Housing, the Project is anticipated to result in up to 219 new residents, which is within the population increase identified by the Rezone PEIR. Due to increase in residents that would occur from implementation of the Project, an incremental increase in demand for fire protection and emergency medical services would occur. However, as identified in the Rezone PEIR, fire protection facilities, equipment, and staffing can be augmented by the City as needed with assistance from the development impact fees required by SMC Chapter 12.50 to expand, improve, and maintain fire protection and emergency services and facilities. Therefore, impacts related to fire protection services from the proposed Project would be less than significant. Therefore, no new or increased impact related to fire protection services would occur. ii. Police Protection
No New Impact.

Police protection services to the Project site are provided by the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department per their contractual agreement with the City. The Santee Sheriff’s substation is located at 8811 Cuyamaca Street, approximately 0.7 miles southeast of the Project site.

The proposed Project includes the development of 100 residential units, which would result in an increase in demand for police protection services. However, the increase would not be significant when compared to current demand levels. As described in Section 5.11, Population and Housing, the Project is anticipated to result in up to 219 new residents. As described previously, the City’s ratio of officers to 1,000 residents is approximately 1. Based on the City’s ratio of officers to residents, implementation of the Project with 219 new residents would result in the demand for less than one additional police officer. Since the proposed Project demand is less than one full-time police officer, the proposed Project would not require the construction or expansion of the City’s existing police facilities.

In addition, the Project would be required to pay development impact fees pursuant to the SMC Chapter

12.50 (PPP PS-1). The Project would also adhere to Safety Element Policy 4.2, which would require that all new development meets established response time standards for fire and life safety services and Policy 5.4, which requires that law enforcement be involved in the review of new development applications, as part of the development review process. The development impact fees collected would ensure the level of police protection services in the City, particularly near the Project site, are maintained.

Police protection facilities, equipment, and staffing can be augmented by the City as needed with assistance from the development impact fees to expand, improve, and maintain police protection services and facilities. Therefore, impacts related to police protection services from the proposed Project would be less than significant. Therefore, no new or increased impact related to police protection services would occur.
iii. School Services
No New Impact.

The Project site is located within the SSD and the GUHSD. The SSD has ten schools for grades kindergarten through 8th grade, nine of which are located within the City of Santee. The GUHSD has 19 schools for grades nine through 12, two of which are located within the City of Santee. The schools that would serve the Project site include: Rio Seco School, located approximately one mile from the Project site, and West Hills High School located approximately two miles from the Project site (SSD, 2025; GUHSD, 2025).

The proposed Project includes the development of 100 residential units, which would result in an increase in demand for school services. As described in Section 5.11, Population and Housing, the Project is anticipated to result in up to 219 new residents of which only a portion would be school-aged children.

The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
123
However, both school districts have enrollment capacity for additional students. Further, pursuant to Government Code Section 65995 et seq., the need for additional school facilities is addressed through compliance with school impact fee assessment. SB 50 (Chapter 407 of Statutes of 1998) sets forth a State school facilities construction program that includes restrictions on a local jurisdiction’s ability to condition a project on mitigation of a project’s impacts on school facilities in excess of fees set forth in the Government Code. These fees are collected by school districts at the time of issuance of building permits for development projects. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65995, applicants shall pay developer fees to the appropriate school districts at the time building permits are issued; and payment of the adopted fees provides full and complete mitigation of school impacts (PPP PS-2). Therefore, impacts related to school facilities would be less than significant with the Government Code required fee payments. Therefore, no new or increased impact related to school services would occur. iv. Parks
No New Impact.

As described previously, it is estimated that the Project would result in the addition of 219 residents.

Based on the City’s park dedication requirement of five acres per 1,000 persons per SMC Section

12.40.070, the Project would be required to provide approximately one acre of parkland. The Project proposes 52,227 SF (1.2 acres) of common open space and residential amenities including an open turf lawn for active and passive play, tot lot on rubberized play surface, overhead shade structure with barbeque island, picnic tables, bench seating, and trash receptacles for small social events and gatherings, and a fenced in dog run with artificial turf. Additionally, in accordance with General Plan Conservation Policy 11.1, the Project would provide 7,320 SF of private open space, equating to 73 SF per unit. Thus, the Project’s proposed on-site amenities would in part satisfy the City’s parkland dedication requirement and the proposed Project would not require the construction or expansion of the City’s existing park facilities.

According to the Rezone PEIR, the City has approximately 838.22 acres of developed park, open space, and recreational facilities which represents a ratio of 12.98 acres for every 1,000 residents, meeting the City’s overall goal for parkland. Therefore, there are many recreational facilities in the area that can be used by the residents of the Project. Consistent with the findings of the Rezone PEIR, while the Project would increase the number of residents in the area, thereby increasing the need for and use of park facilities, the residents resulting from the Project would not increase the use of existing parks and recreational facilities such that new park facilities would be needed. In addition, the Project would pay its fair share toward anticipated park needs through in-lieu fees consistent with the Quimby Act and City Municipal Code Section 12.40 to fund additional park facilities within the City (PPP PS-3). Through Project adherence to General Plan and SMC requirements, and payment of in-lieu fees, the Project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that the provision of nor need for new or expanded parks and park facilities would occur. Therefore, impacts related to parks and park facilities would be less than significant and no new or increased impact related to park facilities would occur.
v. Other Public Facilities – Libraries
No New Impact.

The Project site is within the San Diego County Library (SDCL) system, which consists of 33 public library branches, five MySDCL kiosks, two bookmobiles, and one administration office. The nearest library to the Project site is the Santee Library Branch, located at 9225 Carlton Hills Boulevard, approximately 0.8 miles northwest of the Project site.

The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
124
The proposed Project includes the development of 100 residential units, which would result in an increase in demand for library services. As described previously, the Project is anticipated to result in up to 219 new residents, which is within the population increase identified by the Rezone PEIR. Due to the increase in residents on-site, the Project could incrementally increase the demand for library services at the Santee Library Branch. However, as identified in the Rezone PEIR, library facilities and staffing can be augmented by the City as needed with assistance from the DIF required pursuant to the SMC Chapter

12.50, to ensure the costs to expand, improve, and maintain library services and facilities (PPP PS-1).

Therefore, impacts related to libraries from the proposed Project would be less than significant. Therefore, no new or increased impact related to library services would occur.

Conclusion
Based on the foregoing information, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding public services. There have not been (1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the Rezone PEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the Rezone PEIR was adopted as completed.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPP)
PPP PS-1: Development Impact Fees. The Project Applicant/Developer shall pay the required development impact fees prior to the issuance of a building permit as required by Santee Municipal Code Chapter 12.50.

PPP PS-2: School Fees. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65995, the Project Applicant/Developer shall pay developer fees to the Santee School District (SSD) and Grossmont Union High School District (GUHSD) at the time building permits are issued.

PPP PS-3: Park Fees. The Project Applicant/Developer shall pay the required park land dedication fees pursuant to Santee Municipal Code Chapter 12.40 for the purpose of providing park or recreation facilities to serve future residents of the Project.

Rezone PEIR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures related to public services are included in the Rezone PEIR. Project impacts would be less than significant; therefore, no mitigation measures related to public services are required.

The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
125

5.13. RECREATION
Would the project: Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or
Additions
No New
Impact/
No
Impact
a) 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?
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which might
have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Rezone PEIR
The Rezone PEIR discussed impacts related to recreation under Section 4.12. The Rezone PEIR details that the City’s Parks and Recreation Master Plan set the City’s goals for parks at 10 acres of parkland for every 1,000 people in the City. Currently, the City is meeting this standard by providing approximately 12.98 acres of developed park, open space, and recreational facilities for every 1,000 residents. The buildout of the anticipated residential units under the Rezone PEIR could potentially increase demand for recreational facilities. As such, all future development would be required to pay in-lieu fees consistent with the Quimby Act, which authorizes jurisdictions to establish ordinances requiring developers to dedicate land for park and recreational purposes or pay equivalent fees for park improvements. In accordance with the Quimby act, SMC Section 12.40, establishes the City’s provisions or land dedication or fee payment to provide park and recreation facilities for future subdivision residents.

In addition, the City has numerous General Plan policies intended to maintain and expand park and recreation facilities within the City which future projects would be required to comply with. Land Use Policy

3.1 ensures that project related improvements, dedications, and fees cover the incremental costs of new or upgraded public facilities. The Conservation Element includes Policies 11.1, 11.2, and 11.4, which promote dedication of open space, parklands, and private open space and encourage connectivity between open space throughout the City. The Recreation Element includes Policies 1.1 and 2.2, which are aimed at increasing the total acreage of parks and recreational facilities in the City. Further, the Trails Element contains several Policies which focus on the provision of the expansion of the City’s bicycle, equestrian and pedestrian trails as well as connectivity to the regional trails systems. Payment of in-lieu fees would allow the City to implement the General Plan policies mentioned above.

The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
126
The Rezone PEIR determined that the development of the Rezone Sites would not directly result in sufficient demand that would require construction or expansion of recreation facilities, as each housing development would pay in-lieu fees towards anticipated park needs that would provide funding for park and recreation facility improvements and operations support. When a future parkland project is proposed it would be subject to a separate environmental review and compliance with existing regulations at the time to address potential environmental impacts related to the construction and operation of new park facilities. Therefore, the Rezone PEIR determined that the project would not result in a need for expanded or newly constructed facilities, and impacts related to parks and recreation facilities would be less than significant.

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that physical deterioration of the facility would be accelerated? No New Impact.

As described in Section 5.11, Population and Housing, it is estimated that the Project would result in the addition of 219 residents. Based on the City’s park dedication requirement of five acres per 1,000 persons per SMC Section 12.40.070, the Project would be required to provide approximately one acre of parkland.

The Project proposes 52,227 SF (1.2 acres) of common open space and residential amenities including an open turf lawn for active and passive play, tot lot on rubberized play surface, overhead shade structure with barbeque island, picnic tables, bench seating, and trash receptacles for small social events and gatherings, and a fenced in dog run with artificial turf. Additionally, in accordance with General Plan Conservation Policy 11.1, the Project would provide 7,320 SF of private open space, equating to 73 SF per unit. Thus, the Project’s proposed on-site amenities would in part satisfy the City’s parkland dedication requirement. However, due to the small site acreage, it would be infeasible to add a minipark. Therefore, the Applicant would pay in-lieu fees consistent with the Quimby Act and City Municipal Code Section 12.40 to fund additional park facilities within the City (PPP PS-3).

According to the Rezone PEIR, the City has approximately 838.22 acres of developed park, open space, and recreational facilities. Therefore, there are many recreational facilities in the area that can be used by the residents of the Project. Consistent with the findings of the Rezone PEIR, while the Project would increase the number of residents in the area, thereby increasing the need for and use of recreational facilities, the residents resulting from the Project would not increase the use of existing parks and recreational facilities such that physical deterioration of the facility would be accelerated. Through Project adherence to General Plan and SMC requirements, and payment of in-lieu fees, the Project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration would occur or be accelerated. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. No new or increased impact would occur.
b) Require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
No New Impact.

Consistent with SMC Section 12.40.070, the Project Applicant would be required to provide adequate parkland equal to 5 acres per 1,000 residents (0.005 acre per resident) or pay an in-lieu fee prior per the Chapter 12.40. As described above, the Project includes 52,227 SF (1.2 acres) of common open space recreation area and 7,320 SF of private open space, equating to 73 SF per unit. The impacts related to development of the open space recreation area are considered part of the impacts of the proposed Project as a whole and are analyzed throughout the various sections of this document. For example, activities such as excavation, grading, and construction as required for the recreation area are analyzed in the Air Quality (Section 5.2), Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Section 5.6), Noise (Section 5.10), and Transportation (Section The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
127

5.14) sections. The Project would also contribute park development fees consistent with the Quimby Act and City Municipal Code Section 12.40 to fund additional park facilities within the City and allow the City to continue to implement numerous General Plan policies in place to maintain park and recreation facilities within the City. These fees are standard with every residential development, and the proposed Project would not require the construction or expansion of other recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. As a result, impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, the Project would have no new or increased impacts related to expansion of recreational facilities.

Conclusion
Based on the foregoing information, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding recreation. There have not been (1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the Rezone PEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the Rezone PEIR was adopted as completed.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPP)
PPP PS-3: Park Fees. As listed previously in Section 5.12, Public Services.

Rezone PEIR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures related to recreation are included in the Rezone PEIR. Project impact would be less than significant; therefore, no mitigation measures related to recreation are required.

The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
128

5.14. TRANSPORTATION
Would the project: Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or
Additions
No New
Impact/
No
Impact
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or
policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent
with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3,
subdivision (b)?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Rezone PEIR
The Rezone PEIR analyzed impacts related to transportation under Section 4.13. The Rezone PEIR determined future development of the Rezone Sites could affect the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. However, future discretionary development would undergo site-specific environmental review to evaluate consistency with all applicable plans such as the Active Santee Plan.

Discretionary review would ensure that any policy related impacts would be less than significant.

Future ministerial development would be subject to review by the City’s Engineering Department to ensure consistency with the City’s public works standards. The ministerial review process would ensure that future projects align with the Mobility Element and Active Santee Plan. To meet these public works standards improvements such as sidewalks and landscape buffers and ADA accessibility requirements may be necessary to support bicycle, pedestrian, and transit access. Further, the Rezone PEIR details that the project includes objective design and performance standards to support implementation of improvement requirements consistent with the Mobility element. Additionally, future development would be consistent with General Plan Land Use Policy 2.2, which promotes higher-density residential development near the multimodal transit station at Santee Town Center and along major road corridors. The Rezone PEIR concludes that the project’s added density would be located near transit, consistent with City policies. Further, all future development would be required to implement the City’s public works standards, including general circulation and parking criteria, and would be evaluated for consistency with transit facilities. Therefore, through The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
129
engineering review, consistency with the Mobility Element, and application of objective standards, future development would avoid conflict with applicable plans, ordinances, or policies related to transportation infrastructure and facilities. As such, impacts would be less than significant.

The Rezone PEIR describes that the project’s Transportation Impact Study evaluated impacts using resident VMT per capita. As such, the City of Santee VMT Analysis Guidelines recommend a VMT per capita threshold of 15 percent below existing development, therefore a project resulting at or below the 85th percentiles of the citywide average would result in a less-than-significant impact for that land use type. The Rezone PEIR identified the City’s existing average VMT per capita as 20.5 miles per person. Further the Rezone PEIR determined that with the implementation of the Rezone Sites, the average resident VMT per capita would be reduced to 18.7 miles per person. Although this represents citywide reduction in VMT, it equates to 91.2 percent of the base year citywide average, exceeding the VMT threshold of 85 percent, inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3. As a result, the impact would be considered significant. The Rezone PEIR included MM-TRA-1, which requires the application of Mobility Element Policies 9.1 through 9.5 to promote the use of transportation demand management to reduce VMT. While implementation of MM-TRA-1 would reduce VMT impacts associated with future buildout under the Rezone to the extent feasible, it would not fully mitigate VMT impacts. Therefore, impacts related to VMT would remain significant and unavoidable.

The Rezone PEIR describes that future development on the Rezone Sites may require improvements to the existing roadway network. Such improvements would be subject to engineering review to ensure consistency with established roadway design standards or a ministerial review process to confirm consistency with the City’s public works standards. These reviews would ensure that future projects do not create hazards and are designed in accordance with established standards. Further, all future development would be required to comply with the City’s Mobility Element Policies, specifically Policy 3.1, which promotes improved signalization and intersection design with consideration for the safety of all transportation modes, as well as the appropriate use of traffic control devices. Implementation of existing regulatory framework would ensure that future development would not result in hazards due to design features, and impacts would be less than significant.

The Rezone PEIR describes that future development of the Rezone Sites would provide access to the existing roadway network in a manner consistent with established roadway design standards to allow for emergency access. Implementation of the City’s the Santee Emergency Operations Plan further supports emergency access throughout the City. Accordingly, the City’s Mobility Element Policy Objective 1.0 ensures that the transportation system is accessible, safe, reliable, efficient, integrated, convenient, well-connected, and multimodal. In addition, Policy 3.3 requires that newly constructed roadways be designed to allow for rapid emergency vehicle access. Implementation of the Mobility Element is also reflected in the objective design and performance standards applicable to ministerial project review, which require project applicants to make roadway improvements along the project frontage and at adjoining intersections. The Rezone PEIR determined that the project would not result in inadequate emergency access, and related impacts would be less than significant.

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
No New Impact.

Transit, Bicycle, and Pedestrian Facilities
The Project vicinity is served by the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) Route 834. The two nearest bus stops are located approximately 0.1 miles southwest of the site on Mission Gorge Road (Lowes) and 0.1 miles northeast of the site one Town Center Parkway. The Project would not alter the existing bus stop or The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
130
sidewalk providing access to the bus stop. Additionally, the proposed Project would not alter or conflict with existing transit stops and schedule, and potential impacts related to transit services would not occur.

Bicycle facilities surrounding the Project site include an existing multi-use paved pathway along the Project frontage, westbound on Mission Gorge Road. Per the City’s Planned Bicycle Network, Rezone PEIR Figure

4.13-2, a planned multi-use paved pathways is proposed across from the Project frontage, going eastbound along Mission Gorge Road. While the Project includes off-site improvements to the northbound and southbound left turn pockets and median in Mission Gorge Road, southwest of the Project site, the Project would not include any improvements or changes to the existing multi-use paved pathway in the vicinity of the Project. As a result, the Project would not result in any conflicts with the City’s existing and planned bike lanes. Thus, impacts related to bicycle facilities would not occur.

Sidewalks currently existing along the Project frontage on Mission Gorge Road and along a portion of the northbound lane of the Project’s access driveway. The Project would improve and extend the existing unnamed access road along the western edge of the site from Mission Gorge Road to the existing Walmart parking lot north of the Project site. This improvement would include installation of a 5-foot-wide sidewalk along the Project frontage adjacent to the unnamed access road, as well as along the northern and eastern perimeter of the site. During Project construction, portions of the existing sidewalk may be temporarily closed while access road and driveway construction is occurring. However, once construction is complete, the existing sidewalks would continue to be available to pedestrians in their existing configuration in addition to the newly constructed sidewalks around the site’s perimeter providing increased access to the existing sidewalks.

As a result, the Project would not result in any conflicts with the existing or planned pedestrian network. Thus, impacts related to pedestrian facilities would not occur.

Roadway Facilities
Vehicular traffic to and from the Project site would utilize the existing network of regional and local roadways that currently serve the Project vicinity. Access to the Project site would be provided from two driveways connecting to the unnamed access road that transitions into a private driveway along the western portion of the Project site. A Project-specific trip generation (Appendix I) was prepared for the Project using trip rates from the San Diego Association of Governments’ (SANDAG) (Not So) Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region (2002). As shown in Table T-1, the Project would generate a total of 600 daily trips. According to the City of Santee Traffic Analysis Intake Form, projects that generate less than 900 daily trips are not required to prepare a level of service (LOS) technical memorandum and projects generating less than 1,000 daily trips are not required to prepare a traffic study. Given the Project’s estimated 600 daily trips, a LOS technical memorandum is not required for the Project. Additionally, the Project remains within the overall development capacity analyzed in the Rezone PEIR. As such, the operational traffic generated by the Project would be consistent with the assumptions and impact conclusions of the Rezone PEIR.

Table T-1: Trip Generation
Land Use Units Daily
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Trip Rate: Apartment (or any multifamily units more than 20 du/acre)1 Dwelling Units 6.00 0.10 0.38 0.48 0.38 0.16 0.54 Proposed Project Trip Generation:

Proposed Infill Residential Project
100 Dwelling
Units 600 10 30 48 38 16 54
Total Project Trip Generation 600 10 38 48 38 16 54
1Trip rates from SANDAG’s (Not So) Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region.

Source: Trip Generation and Vehicle Miles Traveled Technical Memorandum (Appendix I) The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
131
Construction
Construction activities associated with the Project would include short-term trips associated with the transfer of construction equipment, construction worker trips, and hauling trips for soil and construction material.

Construction activities would be temporary (approximately 16 months) and would occur during permitted hours detailed in SMC Section 5.04.080 which limits construction activities to the hours of 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM, Monday through Saturday. No construction would occur on Sundays or City recognized holidays.

All construction equipment, including construction worker vehicles, would be staged on the Project site for the duration of the construction period. If any temporary road closures would be required, as part of the grading plan and building plan review processes, the City permits would require appropriate measures to facilitate the passage of persons and vehicles through/around any required road closures (as applicable). Therefore, construction impacts related to conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system would be less than significant.

Overall, the Project would not interfere with adopted plans, programs, ordinances, or policies regarding roadway facilities. Impacts would be less than significant. No new or increased impact would occur. b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b)? No New Impact.

SB 743 was signed by Governor Brown in 2013 and required the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to amend the State CEQA Guidelines to provide an alternative to LOS for evaluating transportation impacts. SB 743 specified that the new criteria should promote the reduction of GHGs, the development of multimodal transportation networks and a diversity of land uses. In response, Section 15064.3 was added to the CEQA Guidelines beginning January 1, 2019, with the provisions of the section applying statewide beginning on July 1, 2020. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, Determining the Significance of Transportation Impacts, states that VMT is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts and provides lead agencies with the discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology and thresholds for evaluating VMT.

As described in the previous response, a Project-specific trip analysis, including a VMT technical memorandum prepared in accordance with the City of Santee’s VMT Analysis Guidelines (2022), was completed for the Project (Appendix I). As shown above in Table T-1, the Project would generate a total of 600 daily trips.

The VMT technical memorandum concluded that the Project meets Screening Criteria 1 – Projects Located in a Transit-Accessible Area, as it is located within a half-mile radius of the Santee Town Center Trolley Station, and existing major transit stop. Additionally, the Project does not meet any of the exception criteria that would invalidate the presumption of a less than significant VMT impact. Therefore, the Project is presumed to have a less-than-significant impact on VMT, requiring no further analysis. VMT impacts would be considered less than significant, and no new or increased impact would occur. c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No New Impact.

Access to the Project site would be provided via two driveways connecting to the unnamed access road which transitions into a private driveway along the western portion of the Project site. Vehicular traffic to and from the Project site would utilize the existing network of regional and local roadways that currently serve the Project vicinity. The Project would not introduce any new roadways or introduce a land use that would conflict with existing urban land uses in the surrounding area. The proposed Project would include improvements to and extension of the unnamed access road along the western edge of the site, connecting Mission Gorge Road to the existing Walmart parking lot north of the Project site. This extension would provide vehicular The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
132
access through the northwest corner of the site to the existing drive aisle along the northern boundary. Street improvements would include the installation of a 5-foot-wide sidewalk and the replacement of the existing 6-inch curb and gutter along the Project frontage, as well as along the northern and eastern edges of the site. In addition, off-site improvements would be made to the northbound and southbound left-turn pockets, as well as the median, on Mission Gorge Road southwest of the Project site. The northbound left-turn pocket would be shortened from 290 feet to 192 feet, while the southbound left-turn pocket would be extended from 95 feet to 195 feet, to create equal queuing capacity. New curb and gutters would also be installed along the median. The design of the proposed Project, including the internal private roadway, ingress, egress, off-site improvements, and other streetscape changes are subject to the City’s development standards. For example, the design of the Project streets would be reviewed to ensure fire engine accessibility and turn around area is provided to the fire code standards. As a result, impacts related to vehicular circulation design features would be less than significant and no new or increased impacts would occur.
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
No New Impact.

The proposed construction activities, including equipment and supply staging and storage, would occur within the Project site, and would not restrict access of emergency vehicles to the Project site or adjacent areas. The installation of Project driveways, connections to existing infrastructure systems, and improvements to the leftturn lane pockets on Mission Gorge Road that would be implemented during construction of the proposed Project would require temporary closure of one side or portions of the unnamed access road off of Mission Gorge Road for a short period of time (e.g., hours or a few days). Additionally, installation of the proposed storm trap storage in the northeast portion of the site would require the temporary closure of the shared driveway along the east side of the site. A Traffic Control Plan during construction will be prepared by the applicant and approved by the City prior to commencing construction. Construction activities would be required to ensure emergency access in accordance with the Santee Emergency Operations Plan and Mobility Element. Thus, implementation of the Project through the City’s review process would ensure existing regulations and applicable objective design and performance standards are adhered to and would reduce potential construction-related emergency access impacts to a less-than-significant level. No new or increased impact would occur.

Conclusion
Based on the foregoing information, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding transportation. There have not been (1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the Rezone PEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the Rezone PEIR was adopted as completed.

The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
133
Rezone PEIR Mitigation Measures
The following Rezone PEIR Mitigation Measures would be applicable to the proposed project:

MM-TRA-1 VMT Reduction
The City shall require implementation of applicable Mobility Element Policies that would support VMT reductions for individual projects. Specifically, the City shall require that future projects are compliance with Mobility Element Policies 9.1 through 9.5, which encourage the use of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies, such as ride sharing programs, flexible work schedule projects, and incentives for employees to use transit.

Additionally, alternative transportation modes, such as walking, cycling and public transit are encouraged to reduce peak hour vehicular trips, save energy, and improve air quality.

Sample TDM measures that may be applied at the project-level are provided below:
• Increase mixed-use development
• Increase transit accessibility
• Provide pedestrian network improvement along project frontage • Provide bicycle network improvement along project frontage • Provide bicycle parking and bike lockers
• Implement subsidized or discounted transit passes
• Provide rider-sharing programs
• Implement commute trip reduction marketing
• Implement school pool program
• Implement bike-sharing or micro mobility program
• Provide local shuttle to connect visitors to different attractions throughout the City Additional measures can be found in the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures report
(http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/ceqa/handbook/capcoa-quantifyinggreenhouse-gas-mitigation-measures.pdf). Mitigation measures should be consistent with the City’s Active Transportation Plan.

The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
134

5.15. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
a) Would the project cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a
tribal cultural resource, defined in Public
Resources Code section 21074 as either a
site, feature, place, cultural landscape that
is geographically defined in terms of the
size and scope of the landscape, sacred
place, or object with cultural value to a
California Native American tribe, and that
is:

Summary of Impacts Identified in the Rezone PEIR
The Rezone PEIR discussed impacts related to tribal cultural resources under Section 4.4. The Rezone PEIR determined that a tribal cultural resource is in the vicinity of the Rezone Sites in accordance with a response letter provided by the NAHC on March 9, 2021, detailing positive results for their search of the Sacred Lands File for the project area. The Rezone PEIR describes that the City provided notice to California Native American tribes identified by the NAHC or included on the City’s noticing list in compliance with SB 18 and AB 52 on December 3, 2021. The City did not receive a request for consultation regarding the project’s potential impacts on tribal cultural resources.

The Rezone PEIR identified eight Rezone Sites within areas of Moderate Potential for Register Eligible Buried Archaeological resources and 10 within the Moderate Potential for Register Eligible Archaeological resources. While the project does not propose any development or the alteration of known archaeological resources, future implementation could involve ground-disturbing activities with the potential to directly or indirectly impact undiscovered subsurface archaeological resources yet to be evaluated.

The Rezone PEIR details that three archaeological resources are known to exist and have been recorded in the City. One historic-period archaeological site was identified within four Rezone Sites, but was determined ineligible for listing thus future development would not significantly impact this resource. One known prehistoric resource and one isolated artifact were also identified. The artifact was determined not to be The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
135
significant under CEQA, while the prehistoric resource could potentially be significant and would require additional testing and excavation to determine its significance. Additionally, the Rezone PEIR described that due to long-term use of the northern El Cajon Valley, there is potential for unknown deposits to be within the Rezone Sites. As such, future development of the Rezone Sites would have the potential to directly or indirectly impact potentially significant archaeological resources as well as undiscovered subsurface archaeological resources that have not been evaluated. All future projects would be required to comply with General Plan Policies 8-1 and 8.2, which protect prehistoric sites. Additionally, MM-CUL-2 is included in the Rezone PEIR to mandate an archaeological survey for projects not surveyed within the past five years, and MM-CUL-3 is included to require archaeological and Native American monitoring requirementsand written confirmation that a qualified archaeologist and Native American monitor during ground-disturbing activities. Implementation of the mitigation measures would reduce impacts to surface and subsurface archaeological or tribal cultural resources within the Rezone Sites to less than significant.

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)? ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe?
No New Impact.

Tribal cultural resources are sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either eligible or listed in the California Register of Historical Resources or local register of historical resources (Public Resources Code § 21074).

The Project site, Rezone Site 15, consists of vacant and undeveloped land that has been disturbed due to several decades of weed abatement activities following several decades of agricultural land uses and the remaining portions of the site are developed. As the majority of the site is undeveloped, there are no buildings or structures on-site that may be considered as potential historical structure. In addition, the Rezone PEIR identified two historical resources, one adjacent to Rezone Site 20 and one within Rezone Site 24; however, Rezone Site 15 is not among the sites with identified historical resources. Further, the Site-specific Cultural and Paleontological Due Diligence Study (Appendix C) determined there are no historical resources on the Project site. Therefore, development of the proposed Project would not result in an impact on historical resources. No new impact would occur from Project implementation.

Construction of the proposed Project would involve ground disturbance activities such as site preparation and grading that may unearth an unknown archaeological or tribal cultural resource. The Rezone PEIR identified the project site, Rezone Site 15, within the Moderate Potential for Register Eligible Buried Archeological Sites. However, the Rezone PEIR completed site-specific cultural resource surveys on March 31, August 31, and November 31, 2021, which determined no cultural resources were identified within Rezone Site 15. Further, the Cultural and Paleontological Due Diligence Study (Appendix C) determined that the site has been previous studied for cultural resources and does not contain any recorded or significant cultural resources. The site has been previously graded, and while an isolated prehistoric mano The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
136
fragment was identified during the field survey, it was determined not to be a CEQA-significant resource that was likely deposited within the site by modern ground disturbances (Appendix C). Therefore, due to the disturbed nature of the site, it is unlikely that implementation of the Project would impact an unknown archaeological or tribal cultural resource. Nonetheless, the Project would comply with the City’s General Plan Policies 8.1 and 8.2, which support the protection of prehistoric sites. Overall, impacts related to tribal cultural resources are anticipated to be less than significant. No new or increased impact would occur.

Conclusion
Based on the foregoing information, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding tribal cultural resources. There have not been (1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the Rezone PEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the Rezone PEIR was adopted as completed.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPP)
PPP CUL-1: Human Remains. As listed previously in Section 5.4, Cultural Resources.

Rezone PEIR Mitigation Measures
The following Mitigation Measure from the Rezone PEIR would be applicable to the proposed project:

MM-CUL-2 As listed previously in Section 5.4, Cultural Resources.

MM-CUL-3 As listed previously in Section 5.4, Cultural Resources.

The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
137

5.16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project: Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or
Additions
No
New
Impact/
No
Impact
a) Require or result in the construction of new or
expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm
water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project and reasonably foreseeable
future development during normal, dry, and
multiple dry years?
c) 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?
d) 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?
e) Comply with federal, State, and local statutes
and regulations related to solid waste?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Rezone PEIR
The Rezone PEIR discussed impacts related to utilities and service systems under Section 4.14.

Water: The Rezone PEIR describes that housing development facilitated by the project would occur within areas of the City already served by existing water utility infrastructure. Thus, aside from lateral connections needed to serve individual projects, the expansion of water infrastructure is not anticipated to adequately serve future development. To evaluate any localized water utility infrastructure improvements or relocations, all future housing development would be subject to the City’s development review process to ensure compliance with applicable City regulations. The development review process would include review for consistency with General Plan policies, including Land Use Element Policy 3.6, which requires development The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
138
project to be reviewed to ensure that all necessary utilities are available to serve the project. In addition, all future development would be required to adherence to the mitigation framework established in the Rezone PEIR which would ensure that any physical impacts associated with the construction of pipeline connections to existing water infrastructure would be addressed as part of the City review for each individual project. Therefore, although future development may require the construction or relocation of water supply infrastructure, potential impacts would be addressed as part of the individual projects and it is anticipated that impacts would be less than significant.

Future housing development would also be subject to existing regulations aimed at water and energy efficiency. The applicable regulations include the California Green Building Standards Code, which requires water use reduction; SMC Section 13.10.040, which requires residential development to use energy conserving appliances and fixtures; the California Energy Code for Climate Zone 10, which sets requirements for energy efficient buildings; and California Green Building Standards Tier 2 Voluntary Measures, which all new residential units must meet or exceed. In addition, all future projects must comply with the PDMWD’s water conservation measures, as authorized by Water Code Section 375.

The 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) for the PDMWD identifies that water supplies are projected to exceed the needs of the PDMWD service area and would adequately cover the demands for the project. With ongoing conservation, use of recycled water, and additional supply anticipated through the upcoming Advanced Water Purification (AWP) project, PDMWD projects that water supplies would meet demands through year 2045 during average year, single-dry year, and for five-consecutive-year drought conditions. Although future development of the Rezone Sites was not specifically included in the latest UWMP, future updates would account for the anticipated water demand consistent with adopted rezones. Further, the increase in water demand resulting from the City’s added development potential would be accommodated by PDMWD’s projected water supplies. The Rezone PEIR also notes that higher density residential development is more water efficient than single-family residential. As such, the Rezone PEIR determined that impacts related to water supply reliability would be less than significant.

Wastewater: The Rezone PEIR describes that housing development facilitated by the project would occur within areas of the City already served by existing wastewater utility infrastructure, and no expansion of existing facilities, other than localized connection to existing wastewater pipelines, would be required to serve the project and future Rezone Sites. To evaluate any wastewater utility infrastructure improvements or relocations, all future housing development would be subject to the City’s development review process to ensure compliance with applicable City regulations. The development review process would include review for consistency with General Plan policies, including Land Use Element Policy 3.6, which requires development project to be reviewed to ensure that all necessary utilities are available to serve the project. In addition, all future development would be required to adherence to the mitigation framework established in the Rezone PEIR which would ensure that any physical impacts associated with the construction of pipeline connections to existing wastewater infrastructure would be addressed as part of the City review for each individual project. Thus, although future development may require the construction or relocation of wastewater supply infrastructure, potential impacts would be addressed as part of the individual projects and it is anticipated that impacts would be less than significant.

The PDMWD provides wastewater services to the City. The Rezone PEIR describes that future housing development facilitated by the project would increase wastewater generation for the providers existing commitments. All of the Rezone Sites are located in developed areas with available wastewater infrastructure nearby. The Rezone PEIR states that with the PDMWD existing facility capacity and expansion plans for the Ray Stoyer Water Recycling Facility (WRF) in addition to the water efficiency of multi-family residential development, the provider would have adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. Additionally, all future projects would be subject to the City’s review for conformance with the SMC Chapter 12.30 for the payment of DIF and adherence to The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
139
general plan policies, including Land Use Element Policy 3.6 requiring all necessary utilities are available.

Therefore, through regulatory conformance, impacts associated with the adequacy of infrastructure and capacity related to wastewater services would be less than significant.

Stormwater Facilities: The Rezone PEIR describes that housing development facilitated by the project would occur within areas of the City already served by existing stormwater infrastructure. With consideration of the existing requirements for detention and on-site infiltration, the existing stormwater infrastructure would be able to accommodate post project stormwater flows. All future housing development would be subject to the City’s development review process to ensure compliance with applicable City regulations, including General Plan Land Use Element Policy 3.6. In addition, all future development would be required to adherence to the mitigation framework established in the Rezone PEIR as applicable which would ensure that any physical impacts associated with the construction of pipeline connections to existing stormwater infrastructure would be addressed as part of the City review for each individual project. Additionally, future projects would be required to design all on-site stormwater facilities to comply with the City’s BMP Design Manual to ensure new development and redevelopment provide adequate stormwater facilities that are compatible with existing City systems and conform to all performance standards presented in the MS4 permit. Thus, although future development may require the construction of stormwater infrastructure, potential physical impacts would be addressed as part of the individual projects and appropriate mitigation for impacts would be applied consistently with the Rezone PEIR. It is anticipated that impacts would be less than significant.

Dry Utilities – Electricity, Natural Gas, Telecommunications: The Rezone PEIR describes that housing development facilitated by the project would occur within areas of the City already served by existing electrical, natural gas, and telecommunications utility infrastructure. To evaluate any localized utility infrastructure improvements, other than future Rezone Site’s connection to existing facilities, all future housing development would be subject to the City’s development review process to ensure compliance with applicable City regulations. The development review process would include review for consistency with General Plan policies, including Land Use Element Policy 3.6, which requires development project to be reviewed to ensure that all necessary utilities are available to serve the project. In addition, all future development would be required to adherence to the mitigation framework established in the Rezone PEIR, as applicable, which would ensure that any physical impacts associated with the construction of connections to existing electrical, natural gas, and telecommunications utility infrastructure would be addressed as part of the City review for each individual project. Thus, although future development may require the construction of electrical, natural gas, or telecommunications utility infrastructure, potential physical impacts would be addressed as part of the individual projects and it is anticipated that impacts would be less than significant.

Solid Waste: The Rezone PEIR describes that the future house development facilitated by the project would occur within existing developed areas with access to solid waste disposal services and would result in an increase in the City’s solid waste generation. It is anticipated that solid waste from future housing development would be disposed of at the Sycamore Landfill in San Diego. Future projects would be required to comply with applicable State and local solid waste and recycling regulations, including the City’s obligation to meet California Integrated Waste Management Act goals for landfill diversion. In addition, State regulations require reduction of organic waste disposed of in landfills. Future development would be required to contract with solid waste service providers that include recycling and organic material recycling, consistent with existing State and local requirements. Future projects would also be required to comply with General Plan Safety Element Policy 3.8, which promotes safe and environmentally responsible solid waste disposal. Solid waste requirements for future development would be evaluated through the City’s review process for conformance with State and local regulations and General Plan policies. Therefore, impacts related to solid waste disposal and capacity would be less than significant.

The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
140
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? No New Impact.

Water
The Project would be serviced by the PDMWD for water services. The Project would install new water infrastructure at the Project site that would connect to existing water infrastructure within the unnamed access road/driveway along the western edge of the site. The new on-site system would convey water supplies to the proposed buildings and landscaping through plumbing/landscaping fixtures that are compliant with the local California water regulations (AB1881).

The proposed Project would receive water supplies through the existing water lines located within the unnamed access road/driveway along the western edge of the site that have the capacity to provide the water supplies needed to serve the proposed Project, and no expansions of the water pipelines that convey water to the Project site would be required. Installation of the new on-site water distribution lines would only serve the proposed Project and would not provide new water supplies to any off-site areas.

The construction activities related to the on-site water infrastructure that would be needed to serve the proposed Project is included as part of the Project and would not result in any physical environmental effects beyond those identified throughout this document. For example, analysis of construction emissions from excavation and installation of the water infrastructure is included in Sections 5.2, Air Quality and 5.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. In addition, the Project design would undergo review through the City’s development review process to ensure compliance with applicable City regulations, including General Plan policies. The review would also ensure consistency with the mitigation framework established in the Rezone PEIR, which would be addressed as part of the City’s evaluation of the Project. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in the construction of new water facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects, and impacts would be less than significant.

No new or increased impact would occur.

Wastewater
The Project would be services by the PDMWD for sewer services. The Project includes installation of new onsite sewer lines that would connect to the existing sewer manhole located near the center of the site along the north property line, which is tied into existing sewer lines within the northern portion of the site as well as the adjacent property to the north. The existing sewer lines would accommodate development of the Project site and would not require expansion to serve the proposed Project. The construction activities related to installation of the on-site sewer infrastructure that would serve the proposed Project are included as part of the proposed Project and would not result in any physical environmental effects beyond those identified throughout this document. For example, analysis of construction emissions for excavation and install of the sewer infrastructure is included in Section 5.2, Air Quality and 5.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and noise volumes from these activities are evaluated in Section 5.10, Noise. As the proposed Project includes facilities to serve the proposed development, it would not result in the need for construction of other new wastewater facilities or expansions, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. In addition, the Project design would undergo review through the City’s development review process to ensure compliance with applicable City regulations, including General Plan policies. The review would also ensure consistency with the mitigation framework established in the Rezone PEIR, which would be addressed as part of the City’s evaluation of the Project. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no new or increased impact would occur.

The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
141
Stormwater Drainage
The Project would install a storm drainage system that would collect surface flows via a series of curb opening modular wetland systems located throughout the site. Captured stormwater would be treated through the nine proposed modular wetland systems before being conveyed north where it would eventually drain to the San Diego River.

As discussed above in Section 5.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, the proposed storm drain improvements have been appropriately sized for the Project, as described in the Project-specific WQMP (Appendix G).

Therefore, operation of the proposed Project would not substantially increase stormwater runoff, and the Project would not require or result in the construction of new off-site stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing off-site facilities. Thus, no new or increased impacts would result.

Electric Power
The Project would connect to the existing SDG&E electrical distribution facilities that are adjacent to the Project site and would not require the construction of new electrical facilities. No new or increased impact would occur.

Natural Gas
No natural gas is proposed as part of the Project.

Telecommunications
The proposed Project would require a connection to telecommunication services, such as wireless internet service and phone service. This can be accomplished through connection to existing services that are available to the developer at the Project site. Telecommunications are provided by various private companies, including Cox and AT&T, one of which could provide service to the Project. Impacts would be less than significant nd no new or increased impact would occur.
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
No New Impact.

As described above, the Rezone PEIR described that the 2020 UWMP prepared for PDWMWD projects that water supplies will meet demand through the year 2045 under average year, single-dry year, and five-consecutive-year drought conditions. Although future development of the Rezone Sites was not specifically accounted for in the 2020 UWMP, water supplies are projected to exceed the needs of the PDMWD service area and would adequately cover the anticipated water demand consistent with adopted rezones, including the Project site. Additionally, the Project would introduce higher density residential development, which is more water efficient than single-family residential development. The Project would be subject to existing water and energy efficiency regulations, including the California Green Building Standards Code, SMC Section 13.10.040, the California Energy Code for Climate Zone 10, and California Green Building Standards Tier 2 Voluntary Measures. Further, the Project would comply with the PDMWD’s water conservation measures, as authorized by Water Code Section 375. Therefore, PDWMWD would have adequate supplies to serve the proposed Project. Impacts related to water supplies would be less than significant. No new or increased impact would occur.

The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
142
c) 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?
No New Impact.

Wastewater treatment provider for the City is PDMWD. Wastewater collected within the City’s service area is conveyed to the District’s Ray Stoyer WRF and the City of San Diego's Metropolitan Wastewater System’s Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). The WRF has a total capacity of two million gallons per day (MGD). The WWTP was upgraded to have an approximate total capacity of 240 MGD (City of Santee, 2003).

Wastewater generation rates for the City were not included in the Rezone PEIR; therefore, wastewater generation rates utilized in this analysis were from the PDMWD Sewer Capacity Fees study which estimates condos and townhomes would generate 135 gallons of wastewater per equivalent dwelling unit per day (PDMWD, 2017). As such, it is estimated that the proposed Project would generate approximately 13,500 gallons of wastewater per day, which is within the capacity of PDMWD’s and the City of San Diego’s wastewater treatment plants. In addition, the proposed Project would be subject to the City’s review for conformance with the SMC Chapter 12.30 for the payment of DIF and adherence to general plan policies, including Land Use Element Policy 3.6 requiring all necessary utilities are available. Therefore, impacts related to wastewater infrastructure would be less than significant. No new or increased impact would occur. d) 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? No New Impact.

Solid waste disposal services for Santee are provided by Waste Management, a private company under franchise agreement with the City of Santee. The Sycamore Landfill is the primary solid waste depository for the area. The Sycamore Landfill has a max capacity of 147,908,000 tons and a remaining capacity of 99,477,838 tons (CalRecycle, 2025). The facility is permitted to accept 5,000 tons per day of solid waste and is permitted to operate through 2042.

Construction
Construction of the Project would generate solid waste for landfill disposal in the form of construction waste from packaging and discarded materials, no demolition would be required as the Project site is vacant.

Utilizing a construction waste factor of 4.39 pounds per square foot of residential development (USEPA, 2003, p. 8), construction of the Project would generate approximately 370 tons of waste during construction from packaging and discarded materials ([168,540 × 4.39 lbs/SF] ÷ 2,000 lbs/ton = 370 tons). However, Section 5.408.1 of the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code requires construction activities to recycle or reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction waste. Thus, the construction solid waste that would be disposed of at the landfill would be approximately 35 percent of the waste generated.

Therefore, construction would generate approximately 241 tons of solid waste for landfill disposal. As the Sycamore Landfill has a daily throughput of 5,000 tons per day and has a remaining permitted capacity of 99,477,838 tons, the landfill would be able to accommodate the addition of solid waste during construction of the proposed Project.

Operation
Using the solid waste generation rate of 4 pounds per unit per day from the Rezone PEIR, the proposed Project would generate approximately 400 pounds of solid waste per day (0.2 tons). However, at least 75 percent of the solid waste is required by AB341 to be recycled, which would reduce the volume of landfilled solid waste to approximately 100 pounds per day (0.05 tons).

The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
143
As the Sycamore Landfill has a daily throughput of 5,000 tons per day and has a remaining permitted capacity of 99,477,838 tons, the landfill would be able to accommodate the addition of 100 pounds per day (0.05 tons) of waste per day from the Project. Therefore, the Sycamore Landfill would be able to accommodate solid waste from operation of the proposed Project, and impacts related to landfill capacity would be less than significant. No new or increased impact would occur. e) Comply with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
No New Impact.

The proposed Project would result in a new development that would generate an increased amount of solid waste. All solid waste-generating activities within the City are subject to the requirements set forth in Section

5.408.1 of the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code that requires construction activities to recycle or reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction waste, and AB 341 that requires diversion of a minimum of 75 percent of operation solid waste. The proposed Project would be required to comply with all federal, State, and local regulations related to solid waste.

Furthermore, the proposed Project would comply with all standards to solid waste diversion, reduction, and recycling during Project construction and operation. Consistent with City requirements, the Project applicant has obtained a will-serve letter from Waste Management (WM) of San Diego on May 27, 2025, confirming that WM has reviewed the proposed Project and would provide residential solid waste, recycling, and organics recycling collection services to the proposed Project. Therefore, the proposed Project is anticipated to result in less-than-significant impacts related to potential conflicts with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulation pertaining to solid waste. No new or increased impact would occur.

There have not been (1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the Rezone PEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the Rezone PEIR was adopted as completed.

Rezone PEIR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures related to utilities are included in the Rezone PEIR. Project impact would be less than significant; therefore, no mitigation measures related to utilities are required.

The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
144

5.17. WILDFIRE
If located in or near State responsibility areas or
lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project:

Substantial
Change in
Project or
Circumstances
Resulting in
New
Significant
Effects
New
Information
Showing
Greater
Significant
Effects than
Previous EIR
New
Information
Identifying
New
Mitigation
or
Alternative
to Reduce
Significant
Effect is
Declined
Minor
Technical
Changes
or
Additions
No New
Impact/
No
Impact
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby
expose project occupants to, pollution
concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled
spread of a wildfire?
c) 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?
d) 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?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the Rezone PEIR
The Rezone PEIR discussed impacts related to wildfire under section 4.15. The Rezone PEIR describes that future housing development facilitated by the project and resulting population growth would allow for housing in or proximate to a VHFHSZ. Of the 27 Rezone Sites, there are 11 sites that are in a VHFHSZ (sites one through 10 and 35) and two additional sites that are adjacent to a VHFHSZ (sites 29 and 30). The remainder of the sites are not in or near to a VHFHSZ. The Rezone PEIR describes that the proposed project would not construct new housing but rather provide capacity for future development consistent with the proposed rezones needed to implement the 6th Cycle Housing Element program and fulfill the City’s RHNA allocation obligations. Future development at the Rezone Sites would accommodate future population growth within the City, and concentrate more residents within redeveloped neighborhoods, which could result in an increase in demand for emergency evacuation. The Rezone PEIR does not propose changes to the City’s existing circulation network or changes in land uses that would impair implementation of the City’s emergency action plan, evacuation routes or conflict with San Diego County’s Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MHMP), which requires jurisdictions to make evacuation procedures publicly available. In alignment with the The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
145
MHMP, the City provides emergency preparedness materials as well as community emergency response team information and training for residents. In addition, all future projects within the Rezone Sites would be reviewed by the City’s Fire Department to ensure compliance with fire standards and regulations prior to building permit issuance. Future development would also be required to comply with Safety Element Policies

4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.11 and 4.12, which address emergency response and evacuation. Therefore, development of the Rezone Site would not conflict with emergency response and impacts would be less than significant.

The Rezone PEIR determined that 11 of the Rezone Sites (Sites 1-10 and 35) are located within the CAL FIRE VHFHZ which may result in increased fire-related risk to people and structures adjacent to or within these areas. Future developed within the VHFHZ would be required to comply with California Fire Code Title 19, Division 1, Section 3.07(b), which mandates a minimum 30-foot brush clearance around structures. In addition, SMC Chapter 11.18 requires a minimum 100-foot fuel-modified defensible place between new developments and wildland areas in fire hazard severity zones or WUIAs. All future discretionary projects would be reviewed by the Building Official/Fire Marchall to ensure consistency with General Plan Policies

4.2 through 4.13 which provide guidance for minimizing fire hazards such as response times, emergency access and structural standards, and other required planning design measures. As a result, the Rezone PEIR determined that impacts associated with risk of wildland fires would be less than significant.

The Rezone PEIR describes that infrastructure improvements, including required measures, would be evaluated for associated impacts through subsequent environmental documents or ministerial review. All future development would undergo design review in accordance with the City’s Design guidelines. For Rezone Sites within the VHFHSZ (Sites 1-10 and 35), enhanced fire protection measures consistent with the City’s building and fire codes would be required to be incorporated into project design. In addition, the City Fire Chief has the authority to require further building, planning, or landscaping measures to provide enhanced fire protection. With compliance to all regulatory requirements including the City’s fire and building codes and additional requirements imposed during future building permit review, future development would not exacerbate wildfire risk. As a result, any temporary or long-term impacts related to the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure would be less than significant.

The Rezone PEIR describes that although some housing sites are located in or nest lands classified as VHFHSZ, the project would not 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. Adherence to State and City codes and emergency and evacuation plans set by the City and County would prevent impacts to people or structures from significant risks, include downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. Therefore, the Rezone PEIR determined that impacts would be less than significant.

Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No New Impact.

According to the Rezone PEIR Figure 4.7-3 Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, and the updated CAL FIRE Hazard Severity Zone map, the Project site not located within a State Responsibility Area (SRA) or a VHFHSZ (City of Santee, 2022; CAL FIRE, 2025). The Project site does not contain any emergency facilities, nor does it serve as an emergency evacuation route. Direct access to the Project site would be provided via two driveways along a private driveway that connects to an unnamed public road along the western portion of the site, extending north from Mission Gorge Road. The Project is required to design and construct internal access and provide fire suppression facilities (e.g., hydrants and sprinklers) in conformance with SMC, and the Santee Fire Department would review the development and approve plans prior to building permit issuance to ensure adequate emergency access pursuant to the requirements in Section 503 of the CFC (Title The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
146
24, California Code of Regulations, Part 9, included in the SMC as Chapter 11.18). As a result, the proposed Project would not impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan and would not result in new impacts. As such, the proposed Project is consistent with the findings of the Rezone PEIR and no new or increased impact would occur.
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
No New Impact.

As described in the previous response, the Project site is not located with an SRA or a VHFHSZ. The Project site is relatively flat and the areas within the Project’s vicinity do not contain hillsides or other factors that could exacerbate wildfire risks. Therefore, the Project would not result in new or increased impacts related to exposure of people or structures to significant risk involving wildland fires. As, such the proposed Project is consistent with the finding of the Rezone PEIR and no new or increased impact would occur. c) 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? No New Impact.

As described in the previous responses, the Project site is not within an SRA or a VHFHSZ. The Project site is located within an urbanized area within the City of Santee. The Project does not involve any new infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risks or result in other impacts to the environment. Therefore, the Project would result in no new or increased impacts. As such, the proposed Project is consistent with the findings of the Rezone PEIR and no new or increased impact would occur.
d) 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? No New Impact.

As described in the previous responses, the Project site is not within an SRA or VHFHSZ. As discussed in Section

5.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, the Project would not result in changes to drainage. Also as discussed in Section 5.5, Geology and Soils, the Project site is flat and is not susceptible to landslides. Likewise, areas adjacent to the Project site are relatively flat urban sites that do not contain hillsides or other factors that would expose people structures to flooding or landslides as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. The Project would result in no new or increased impacts related to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. As such, the proposed Project is consistent with the findings of the Rezone PEIR and no new or increased impact would occur.

Conclusion
Based on the foregoing information, none of the conditions identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate project impacts or mitigation measures exist regarding wildfire. There have not been (1) changes related to development of the Project site that involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which development of the Project site is undertaken that require major revisions of the Rezone PEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
147
the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the Rezone PEIR was adopted as completed.

Rezone PEIR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures related to wildfire are included in the Rezone PEIR. Project impact would be less than significant; therefore, no mitigation measures related to recreation are required.

The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
148

6. REFERENCES
Albus & Associates, Inc. (August 26, 2025). Geotechnical Design Report, Proposed Multi-Family Residential Development, APN 381-040-30-00, Santee, California. (Appendix D).

BFSA Environmental Services. (May 31, 2024). Results of the Cultural and Paleontological Due Diligence Study for the Exchange at Santee Town Center Project (APN 381-040-36), City of Santee, San Diego County, California. (Appendix C).

California Department of Conservation. (November 21, 2024). Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation.

Retrieved June 23, 2025, from https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/ California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). (2025). Fire Hazard Severity Zones.

Retrieved May 12, 2025, from https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/what-we-do/community-wildfirepreparedness-and-mitigation/fire-hazard-severity-zones City of Santee. (2017a). City of Santee Land Use Map. Retrieved April 2, 2025, from https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/documents/planning-building/general-plan/gp-land-usemap.pdf City of Santee. (2017b). City of Santee Mobility Element. Retrieved June 16, 2025, from https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/departments/city-clerk/document-central/planningbuilding/general-plan/gp-mobility-element.pdf City of Santee. (January 8, 2020). City of Santee Zoning District Map. Retrieved April 2, 2025, from https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/documents/planning-building/land-use-zoning/zoning-map.pdf City of Santee. (June 17, 2022). Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (DPEIR) for the City of Santee Housing Element Rezone Program Implementation SCH #2021100263. Retrieved May 12, 2025, from https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/documents/planning-building/active-projects/draftprogram-eir-for-housing-element-rezone-program-implementation/dpeir-housing-elementrezone.pdf City of Santee. (June 6, 2003). Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Santee General Plan Update SCH No. 2002071113. Retrieved June 18, 2025, from https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/departments/city-clerk/document-central/planningbuilding/general-plan/santee-general-plan-feir.pdf City of Santee. (March 2025). Town Center Specific Plan. Retrieved May 27, 2025, from https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/planning-building/planning/town-center-specificplan#:~:text=The%20Town%20Center%20Specific%20Plan,the%20bottom%20of%20this%20p age.https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/documents/planning-building/plans/town-center-specificplan/3a-land-use-plan-map.pdf County of San Diego. (2007). Guidelines for Determining Significance and Report Format and Content Requirements – Air Quality. Retrieved June 16, 2025, from https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/pds/ProjectPlanning/docs/AQGuidelines.pdf California Department of Water Resources. (2025). California Dam Breach Inundation Maps. Retrieved June 18, 2025, from https://fmds.water.ca.gov/maps/damim/ ELMT Consulting. (May 20, 2024). Biological Resources Assessment for the Proposed the Exchange at Santee Town Center Project Located in the City of Santee, San Diego County, California. (Appendix B).

The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
149
EPD Solutions, Inc. (October 24, 2025). Trip Generation and Vehicle Miles Traveled Technical Memorandum. (Appendix I).

EPD Solutions, Inc. (October 24, 2025). Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis for the Exchange at Santee Town Center Residential Project. (Appendix A).

Grossmont Union High School District. (2025). GUHSD School Locator. Retrieved June 23, 2025, from https://www.guhsd.net/Schools/School-Enrollment-Information/Attendance-Boundaries/ LSA. (June 2025). Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis. (Appendix H).

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). (May 16, 2012). Flood Insurance Rate Map No. 06073C1653G. Retrieved June 18, 2025, from
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=9518%20Mission%20Gorge%20Rd%2C%2 0Santee%2C%20CA%2092071
Padre Dam Municipal Water District. (April 4, 2017). Water and Sewer Capacity Fees. Retrieved June 20, 2025, from
https://www.padredam.org/DocumentCenter/View/6486/Attachment3_2017_Padre-DamWater-and-Sewer-Capacity-Fees-Study?bidId= RICK. (September 18, 2025a). Drainage Study for The Exchange at Santee Town Center. (Appendix F).

RICK. (September 18, 2025b). Storm Water Quality Management Plan (SWQMP) for The Exchange at Santee Town Center. (Appendix G).

San Diego County Airport Land Use Commission. (December 20, 2010). Gillespie Field Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Retrieved May 14, 2025, from
https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/documents/planning-building/plans/gillespie-field-airport-landuse-compatibility-plan.pdf Santee School District. (2025). School Boundary Locator. Retrieved June 23, 2025, from https://www.santeesd.net/district/student_registration/school_boundary_locator Stantec. (December 9, 2024). Assessor’s Parcel Number 381-040-36-00 Mission Gorge Road and Town Center Parkway Santee, California 92071 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. (Appendix E).

The Exchange at Santee Town Center
City of Santee Environmental Consistency Analysis
150
End of document.

Page | 1

PROJECT OVERVIEW
This technical memorandum presents an analysis of the air quality, energy, and greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts for The Exchange at Santee Town Center Residential Project (proposed Project) located in the City of Santee (City), San Diego County. The site has a newly assigned address of 9506 Mission Gorge Road and is located south of the San Diego River, west of Town Center Parkway, north of Mission Gorge Road, and east of Carlton Hills Boulevard. The 4.86 gross-acre (4.18 net acres) site is comprised of one parcel identified by Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 381-040-30. The Project site is currently vacant with above ground utilities in the northern portion of the site. The Project site has a General Plan land use designation of Town Center and is zoned Town Center Specific Plan. Within the Town Center Specific Plan, the site is dually zoned as Residential TC-R-22 or Office/Commercial. The Residential TC-R-22 designation allows for residential development at a density between 22 to 30 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). The Office/Commercial zone allows for employment and professional/administrative offices and personal services rather than commodities, with limited retail uses.

The Project proposes to develop the 4.18 net-acre site for the construction of 100 attached townhome residential units, which would result in a density of 24 du/ac. Additionally, the proposed Project includes landscaping, parking, private roadways, open space, and utility and stormwater improvements.

The proposed Project would include off-site street improvements to provide vehicular access to the site. The Project proposes the extension and improvement of the existing access road along the western boundary of the Project site from Mission Gorge Road to the existing Walmart parking lot north of the site. This would include the installation of a 5-foot-wide sidewalk and the replacement of the existing 6-inch curb and gutter along the Project frontage. In addition, the Project would redevelop the existing northbound and southbound left-turn pockets on the median in Mission Gorge Road, southwest of the Project site. The existing northbound left-turn pocket would be shortened from 290 feet to 192 feet, while the existing southbound left-turn pocket would be extended from 95 feet to 195 feet. The site aerial and site plan are shown in Figure 1, Conceptual Site Plan, and Figure 2, Project Aerial, included at the end of this document.

The Project site is in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB), within the jurisdiction of the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD). To support the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) document, this report analyzes the proposed Project’s construction and operational impacts to air quality (emission of criteria pollutants), energy usage, and GHG using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod Version 2022.1) land use emission model and Emission Factor (EMFAC Version 2021) model. Table 1, Construction Schedule, shows the construction schedule, which would last approximately 16 months. The Project’s site plan has been updated since the completion of this memo. This analysis and construction schedule are based on an earlier site plan of the Project, which had a greater gross site area and building square footage. Therefore, this memo presents a conservative analysis of Project impacts to air quality, energy, and GHG.

To: City of Santee Planning Department
From: Tiffany Dang, Tina Yuan, Alex J. Garber, EPD Solutions, Inc.

Date: 10/24/2025
Re: Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis for The Exchange at Santee Town Center Residential Project, EPD Project Number 24-080 The Exchange at Santee Town Center
Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Summary
Page | 2
Table 1: Construction Schedule
The following non-default assumptions and adjustments were used in the CalEEMod emission model for this analysis:
• Land Use: The lot acreage and building square footage was adjusted to match the site plan. As previously mentioned, gross site area and building square footage have decreased with an updated site plan since the completion of this report. Offsite improvements include the turn pocket improvements on Mission Gorge Road and the western access road improvements. Project site disturbance acreage was assumed to comprise of the entire parcel (5.26 acres) due to stormwater improvements. • Construction Phases: The demolition phase was removed since the site is vacant. A 60-day trenching phase was included for utilities and storm improvements, as provided by the Project Applicant. • Construction, Off-Road Equipment: It was assumed that all equipment would be used for 8 hours per workday. Tractors/loaders/backhoes were replaced with crawler tractors in the site preparation and grading phases to accurately measure acres disturbed.
• Construction, Dust from Material Movement: Based on information provided by the Project Applicant, the grading phase is expected to result in approximately a net export of 10,000 cubic yards of soil. • Operations, Vehicle Data: Weekday trip rates were adjusted to match the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) 2002 (Not So) Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region trip rate for Apartment uses. No Saturday or Sunday trips are available for SANDAG rates. Therefore, weekend rates were adjusted to Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, edition auto trip rates for Multifamily Homes (mid-rise) (ITE Land Use Code 221).
• Operations, Hearths: Wood stoves and fireplaces were removed since none are proposed for the Project.

Activity Start Date End Date Total Working Days
Site Preparation 2/2/2026 2/13/2026 10
Grading 2/14/2026 3/13/2026 20
Building Construction 3/14/2026 1/29/2027 230
Utilities & Storm 1/30/2027 4/23/2027 60
Paving 4/24/2027 5/21/2027 20
Architectural Coating 5/22/2027 6/18/2027 20
Source: CalEEMod Output Sheets (see Appendix A).

The Exchange at Santee Town Center
Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Summary
Page | 3

SUMMARY OF AIR QUALITY, ENERGY, AND GHG IMPACTS
Air Quality
The proposed Project’s maximum daily emissions regional for construction and operation would not exceed SDAPCD’s regional thresholds of significance. In addition, all construction activities would comply with applicable SDAPCD rules and regulations, including Rule 50.1, Rule 55, and Rule 66.1, as further described below.

The construction and operation of the proposed Project would not exceed SDAPCD thresholds for any criteria pollutants. Projects that do not exceed regional thresholds are assumed not to have a significant impact on both a project level and a cumulative level. The proposed Project aligns with SDCAPCD’s 2022 Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS), reflecting adherence to regional air quality management goals and standards.

Furthermore, odors produced by the construction and operation of the proposed Project would be minimal and comply with Rule 51. Therefore, the proposed Project would have less-than-significant air quality impacts. No mitigation would be required.

Energy
The proposed Project’s energy consumption for construction activities related would be conditioned to require compliance with existing fuel standards, machinery efficiency standards, and California Air Resources Board (CARB) requirements that limit idling of construction trucks and equipment. The Project would comply with the State CEQA Guidelines for energy consumption thresholds (a), concerning wasteful, inefficient and overconsumption of energy in projects, and (b), project design impeding renewable energy development growth, respectively:
(a) Construction activities related to the proposed Project and the associated infrastructure are not expected to result in demand for fuel greater on a per-unit-of-development basis than any other development projects in Southern California.
(b) The proposed Project would be required to meet the California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24 energy efficiency standards and comply with all applicable City energy codes. The Project buildings would install solar panels in compliance with Title 24 requirements. Therefore, the Project would not inhibit the use of and would allow for future flexibility relating to renewable energy.

Through compliance with existing standards, the Project would not result in a fuel demand on a perdevelopment basis that is greater than other development projects in Southern California. There are no unusual Project characteristics that would cause the use of construction equipment that would be less energy efficient compared with other similar construction sites in other parts of the state. Therefore, the construction and operation of the Project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy. No mitigation would be required.

GHG Emissions
The proposed Project is consistent with the actions and measures of the City’s Sustainable Santee Plan and would not interfere with its policies and goals. Therefore, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact on GHG emissions. No mitigation would be required.

The Exchange at Santee Town Center
Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Summary
Page | 4

AIR QUALITY
Methodology
To calculate the construction and operational impacts, the air quality emissions were estimated using CalEEMod. The passenger vehicles were analyzed using the CalEEMod default trip distance information. 1 Regional Emissions
Pursuant to SDCAPCD Rule 20.2, projects that do not exceed the emission rate thresholds listed in Table

20.2-12 would not require the preparation of a full air quality impact analysis. The maximum daily emission thresholds for criteria pollutants (expressed in pounds/day) apply to both construction and operation of a project. While incremental regional air quality impacts of an individual project are generally very small and difficult to measure, SDCAPCD’s regional maximum emission thresholds set standards to reduce the burden of SDCAPCD to attain and maintain ambient air quality standards. Table 2, Regional Construction Emission Estimates and Table 3, Regional Operational Emission Estimates, list these thresholds of significance, along with the Project’s estimated emissions. These emission thresholds include those generated both from on-site sources (such as off-road construction equipment and fugitive dust) and off-site sources (vehicle travel arriving to and leaving from the site). The CalEEMod output sheets for the proposed Project can be found in Appendix A. As shown in Table 2 and Table 3, the Project would generate emissions below the SDAPCD thresholds, and therefore, result in less-than-significant regional air quality impacts. In addition, the Project would be required to comply with the following SDAPCD rules during construction in order to minimize impacts to air quality:
• Rule 55, Fugitive Dust Control: Aims to minimize fugitive particulate matter dust emissions during construction activities3.
• Rule 66.1, Miscellaneous Surface Coating Operations and Other Processes Emitting Volatile Organic Compounds: Limits the use of high-volatile organic compounds (VOC) paints4. 1 EPD utilized the region-wide California Statewide Travel Demand Model (CSTDM) default data provided in CalEEMod, since local Metropolitan Planning Organization data is not available for the Project Vicinity. Trip lengths are based on the statewide Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) data aggregated to San Diego County. 2 SDCAPCD. (Rev. 2019). Rule 20.2 New Source Review Non-Major Stationary Sources. Referenced at:
https://www.sdapcd.org/content/dam/sdapcd/documents/rules/current-rules/Rule-20.2.pdf 3 SDCAPCD. (2009). Rule 55 Fugitive Dust Control. Referenced at:
https://www.sdapcd.org/content/dam/sdapcd/documents/rules/current-rules/Rule-55.pdf 4 SDCAPCD. (2016). Rule 66.1 Mischellaneous Surface Coating Operations and Other Processes Emitting Volatile Organic Compounds. Referenced at: https://www.sdapcd.org/content/dam/sdapcd/documents/rules/currentrules/Rule-66.1.pdf The Exchange at Santee Town Center
Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Summary
Page | 5
Table 2: Regional Construction Emission Estimates
Construction Activity
Maximum Daily Regional Emissions
(pounds/day)
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Year 1
Site Preparation 3.9 34.7 31.7 0.1 7.6 4.3
Grading 2.3 25.0 21.9 0.1 4.7 2.3
Building Construction 1.4 11.2 17.3 <0.1 1.1 0.5
Maximum Daily Emissions – Year 1 3.9 34.7 31.7 0.1 7.6 4.3 Year 2
Building Construction 1.4 10.7 16.8 <0.1 1.0 0.5
Utilities & Storm 58.5 5.6 22.2 <0.1 0.5 0.3
Paving 1.2 7.0 10.6 <0.1 0.4 0.3
Architectural Coating 54.9 1.1 2.1 <0.1 0.1 0.1
Maximum Daily Emissions – Year 2 54.9 10.7 16.8 <0.1 1.0 0.5 Maximum Daily Emissions 58.5 34.7 31.7 0.1 7.6 4.3
SDAPCD Significance Thresholds 751 250 550 250 100 552
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Notes: ROG = reactive organic gases, NOx = nitrogen oxides, CO = carbon monoxide, SO2 = sulfur dioxide, PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns in diameter, PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter 1SDAPCD and the City of Santee do not provide thresholds for ROG. This threshold is obtained from San Diego County’s Guidelines for Determining Significance – Air Quality. The thresholds are derived from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) for the Coachella Valley. 2SDAPCD Rule 20.2 lists a maximum daily emission rate threshold of 67 pounds/day. However, previously approved environmental documents in the City of Santee use a 55 pounds/day threshold adopted by SCAQMD. Therefore, this analysis conservatively uses the 55 pounds/day threshold.

Source: CalEEMod Output Sheets (see Appendix A).

The Exchange at Santee Town Center
Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Summary
Page | 6
Table 3: Regional Operational Emission Estimates
Operational Activity
Maximum Daily Regional Emissions
(pounds/day)
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Mobile 3.2 2.3 21.8 0.1 4.5 1.2
Area 4.4 0.1 5.7 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Energy <0.1 0.5 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Total Project Operational Emissions 7.6 2.9 27.7 0.1 4.5 1.2 SDAPCD Significance Thresholds 551 250 550 250 100 552
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Notes: ROG = reactive organic gases, NOx = nitrogen oxides, CO = carbon monoxide, SO2 = sulfur dioxide, PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns in diameter, PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter 1SDAPCD and the City of Santee do not provide thresholds for ROG. This threshold is obtained from San Diego County’s Guidelines for Determining Significance – Air Quality. The thresholds are derived from the South Coast Air Quality Management District for the Coachella Valley. 2SDAPCD Rule 20.2 lists a maximum daily emission rate threshold of 67 pounds/day. However, previously approved environmental documents in the City of Santee use a 55 pounds/day threshold adopted by SCAQMD. Therefore, this analysis conservatively uses the 55 pounds/day threshold.

Source: CalEEMod Output Sheets (see Appendix A).

Air Quality Management Plan Consistency
The SDAPCD is responsible for implementing measures of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) and Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS), in order to meet federal and state ambient air quality standards for ozone, respectively. The SIP and RAQS use information on mobile and area source emissions and projected population growth, from the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). Population growth projects are informed by cities’ General Plan land use plans.

These inputs are used to project future emissions.

The City of Santee and SDAPCD do not offer thresholds to determine impacts related to air quality plan consistency. However, the County of San Diego’s Guidelines for Determining Significance and Report Format and Content Requirements – Air Quality5 states that if a project’s contributing growth is within SANDAG’s city growth projections, it would not conflict with the RAQS. Projects that exceed SANDAG’s growth projections may potentially result in significant cumulative air quality impacts.

The Project site has a General Plan land use designation of Town Center and is zoned Town Center Specific Plan. Within the Town Center Specific Plan, the site is dually zoned as Residential TC-R-22 or Office/Commercial. The Residential TC-R-22 designation allows for residential development at a density between 22 to 30 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). The proposed Project would develop 100 townhome units on a 4.18 net-acre site, which would result in a density of 24 du/ac. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with the existing General Plan land use and zoning for the site. The Project would not exceed growth projects estimated in the RAQS and would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the regional air quality plans. Impacts related to air quality management plan consistency would be less than significant. 5 County of San Diego Department of Planning and Land Use Department of Public Works. (2007). Guidelines for Determining Significance and Report Format and Content Requirements – Air Quality. Referenced at:
https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/pds/ProjectPlanning/docs/AQ-Guidelines.pdf The Exchange at Santee Town Center
Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Summary
Page | 7
Odors
Odors would be produced during the construction of the proposed Project due to the operation of heavyduty off-road equipment. The primary odor emitted would be diesel particulate matter from the vendor trucks and heavy-duty off-road equipment. This odor may be noticeable by nearby residents; however, these odors would be expected and not necessarily objectionable. These odors would also dissipate quickly and would be temporary. Therefore, due to the nature of the odor produced during construction as temporary and non-objectionable to a substantial number of people, the odor impact from the construction of the proposed Project would be less than significant. In addition, construction and operation of the proposed Project would be required to comply with SDAPCD Rule 51, Nuisance, which states:

A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public or which cause or have a natural tendency to cause injury or damage to business or property.

The provisions of this rule do not apply to odors emanating from agricultural operations in the growing of crops or raising of fowls or animals.

Thus, impacts associated with odor produced by operation of the proposed Project would be less than significant.

Conclusion
The proposed Project's maximum daily regional construction and operational emissions would not exceed SDAPCD’s thresholds of significance, as detailed in Tables 2 through 3. All construction and operational activities would comply with applicable SDAPCD rules and regulations, as described above. Additionally, the proposed Project is consistent with SDAPCD’s 2022 RAQS, reflecting adherence to regional air quality management goals and standards. Finally, odors produced during construction would be temporary and not significantly objectionable and during operation, the proposed Project would be required to comply with SDAPCD Rule 51. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in less-than-significant air quality impacts.

No mitigation would be required.

The Exchange at Santee Town Center
Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Summary
Page | 8
ENERGY
The State CEQA Guidelines do not have specific thresholds for energy consumption. Rather, the question in Appendix G: VI Energy (a) asks, “[Would the proposed Project] Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation?” and in (b) asks “[Would the project] Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?”6 Therefore, for the purpose of this analysis, a significant impact would occur if:
(a) The project design and/or location encourages wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy, especially fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas, and petroleum, as well as the use of fuel by vehicles anticipated to travel to and from the project. (b) The project design impedes the growth of future renewable energy developments.

San Diego Gas and Electric would provide electricity and natural gas for construction and operation of the proposed Project. The following assumptions were used to calculate the energy (electricity, natural gas, and petroleum) consumption of the proposed Project:
• Construction equipment fuel consumption was derived from CARB OffRoad2021 emission model. • Fuel Consumption from vehicle travel was derived from CARB EMFAC2021 emission model. • Electrical and natural gas usage was derived from the CalEEMod model Version 2022.1.

Construction
Electricity and Natural Gas Usage:

Due to the Project size and the fact that construction is temporary, the electricity used during construction of the proposed Project would be substantially less than that required for Project operation and would have a negligible contribution to the Project’s overall energy consumption. The electric power used during construction would be for as-necessary lighting and electronic equipment such as computers inside temporary construction trailers. Natural gas is not anticipated to be needed for construction activities. Any consumption of natural gas would be minor and negligible in comparison to the usage during the operation of the proposed Project. Since operation of the Project would result in a nominal increase of Countywide electricity and natural gas consumption, as described below, construction energy consumption would result in a lessthan-significant impact to energy.

Petroleum Fuel Usage:

The equipment associated with construction activities (off-road/heavy duty vehicles) would rely on diesel fuel as would vendor and haul trucks involved in delivering building materials and removing soil material from the Project site. Construction workers would travel to and from the Project site throughout the duration of construction, and for a conservative analysis, it is assumed that construction workers would travel in gasoline-powered passenger vehicles. It should be noted that the total fuel consumption is a conservative analysis and would likely overstate the amount of fuel usage, as specific construction equipment is not expected to operate during the entire duration of the construction activity (i.e., crane). Table 4, Total Construction Fuel Usage, shows the overall fuel consumption for Project construction. Detailed tables of fuel consumption by construction equipment and on-road vehicles can be found in Appendix C. 6 California Energy Commission 2023. CEQA Statutes and Guidelines Attachment 10 Appendix G: Environmental Checklist Form. Referenced at: https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2024-01/11_Attachment_10_- _Appendix_G_from_CEQA_Handbook_ada.docx
The Exchange at Santee Town Center
Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Summary
Page | 9
Table 4: Total Construction Fuel Usage
Source Diesel Fuel (Gallons) Gasoline Fuel (Gallons)
Proposed Project On-Road Construction Vehicles 8,768 18,865 Proposed Project Off-Road Construction Equipment 35,636 0 Proposed Project Total Consumption 44,404 18,865
San Diego County On-Road Vehicles 163,413,134 1,059,512,762 San Diego County Off-Road Construction Equipment 14,877,910 759,042 On-Road Project Percentage (%) 0.005 0.002
Off-Road Project Percentage (%) 0.2 -
Source: Fuel Calculation Sheets (see Appendix B).

As shown in Table 4, the Project is estimated to consume a total of approximately 44,404 gallons of diesel fuel and approximately 18,865 gallons of gasoline fuel. According to the projected 2025 fuel consumption data obtained from EMFAC2021 for San Diego County, on-road vehicles would consume approximately 163,413,134 gallons of diesel fuel and 1,059,512,762 gallons of gasoline. The data for San Diego County can be found in Appendix B. On-road construction vehicles from the proposed Project would account for

0.005 percent of diesel fuel consumption and 0.002 percent of gasoline fuel consumption within San Diego County in 2025. Off-road consumption within San Diego County in 2025 would total approximately 14,877,910 gallons of diesel fuel and 759,042 gallons of gasoline fuel. Off-road construction equipment from the proposed Project would account for 0.2 percent of diesel consumption within San Diego County in 2025. As such, Project construction would have a negligible effect on energy supplies within San Diego County. Additionally, the Project would be required to comply with regulations implemented to reduce emissions from construction, such as CCR Title 13, Motor Vehicles, Section 2449(d)(3), Idling, which limits idling times of construction vehicles to no more than 5 minutes. Thus, the Project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy during construction. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in less-than-significant energy impacts during construction. No mitigation would be required.

Operation
The operation of the proposed Project would consume electricity and petroleum. The Project does not propose any connections to natural gas lines and therefore would not consume any natural gas. However, to provide a conservative analysis of energy consumption, CalEEMod defaults were assumed. Operational energy consumption can be found in Table 5, Project Annual Operational Energy Requirements, below. Electricity and natural gas consumption can be found in the CalEEMod Output Sheets attached (Appendix A). The gasoline consumption rates utilize the same assumptions that were used for the worker vehicles. The most recent data available for electricity and natural gas usage from the California Energy Commission is for the year 2023.

In 2023, electricity consumption in San Diego County was estimated at 19,102,000,000 Kilowatt-Hours7 and natural gas consumption was estimated at 53,237,288,680 Thousands British Thermal Units8. As shown 7 California Energy Commission. (2023). Electricity Consumption by County. Referenced at:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/california-energyconsumption-dashboards-0 8 California Energy Commission. (2023). Natural Gas Consumption by County. Referenced at:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/california-energyconsumption-dashboards-1 The Exchange at Santee Town Center
Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Summary
Page | 10
in Table 5, the proposed Project would result in a 0.002 percent increase in electricity consumption and

0.005 percent increase in natural gas consumption within San Diego County. As previously shown in Table 4, gasoline consumption in San Diego County in 2025 is estimated at 1,059,512,762 gallons (see Appendix B). As shown in Table 5, the proposed Project would account for 0.002 percent of gasoline fuel consumption in San Diego County. Thus, the Project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy during operation. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in less-than-significant energy impacts during operation. No mitigation would be required.

Table 5: Project Annual Operational Energy Requirements Electricity (Kilowatt-Hours)
Proposed Project 423,238
San Diego County 19,102,000,000
Project Percent Increase (%) 0.002
Natural Gas (Thousands British Thermal Units)
Proposed Project 2,056,473
San Diego County 45,309,168,520
Project Percent Increase (%) 0.005
Petroleum (Gasoline) Consumption
Annual VMT Gallons of Gasoline Fuel
Proposed Project 2,060,888 85,983
San Diego County 22,668,642,642 1,059,512,762
Project Percentage (%) - 0.002
Notes: VMT = vehicle miles traveled
Source: CalEEMod Output Sheets (see Appendix A).

Future Renewable Energy Developments
The proposed Project would be required to meet the CCR Title 24 energy efficiency standards in effect during permitting of proposed Project and comply with all applicable City energy codes. The City’s administration of the CCR Title 24 requirements includes review of design components and energy conservation measures that occurs during the permitting process, which ensures that all requirements are met.

In addition, Project design and operation would comply with State Building Energy Efficiency Standards, appliance efficiency regulations, and green building standards. The Project buildings would install rooftop solar panels in compliance with Title 24 requirements. As such, the Project would not inhibit the use of and would allow for future flexibility relating to renewable energy.

Conclusion
The Project’s energy consumption for construction activities related to development of the site for residential uses would be permitted to require compliance with existing fuel standards, machinery efficiency standards, and CARB requirements that limit idling of construction trucks and equipment. The proposed Project would comply with the State CEQA Guidelines for energy consumption thresholds (a), concerning wasteful, inefficient and overconsumption of energy in projects, and (b), project design impeding renewable energy development growth, respectively:

The Exchange at Santee Town Center
Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Summary
Page | 11
(a) Construction activities related to the proposed Project and the associated infrastructure are not expected to result in demand for fuel greater on a per-unit-of-development basis than any other development projects in Southern California. Also, CCR Title 13, Motor Vehicles, section 2449(d)(3), Idling, limits idling times of construction vehicles to no more than 5 minutes, thereby precluding unnecessary and wasteful consumption of fuel due to unproductive idling of construction equipment.
(b) The proposed Project would be required to meet the CCR Title 24 energy efficiency standards, comply with all applicable City energy codes. In addition, the Project buildings would install rooftop solar panels in compliance with Title 24 requirements. Therefore, the Project would not inhibit the use of and would allow for future flexibility relating to renewable energy.

The operation of the Project would comply with Title 24 as well as all applicable City business and energy codes and ordinances. Through compliance with existing standards, the Project would not result in a fuel demand on a per-development basis that is greater than other similar-scale development projects in Southern California. There are no unusual Project characteristics that would cause the use of construction equipment that would be less energy efficient compared with other similar construction sites in other parts of the state.

Therefore, the construction and operation of the Project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy, and no mitigation would be required.

The Exchange at Santee Town Center
Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Summary
Page | 12

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Regulatory Background and Thresholds
California State Executive Order S-3-05, issued by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in June 2005, established comprehensive GHG reduction targets for the state. 9 It mandated reducing GHG emissions to 2000 levels by 2010, to 1990 levels by 2020, and to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. This Executive Order laid the foundation for subsequent climate change mitigation efforts in California, including the development of various policies and programs aimed at reducing emissions across sectors such as transportation, energy, and industry. The objective of the Executive Order is to contribute to capping worldwide CO2 concentrations at 450 parts per million (ppm), stabilizing global climate change.

Project Consistency with Plans, Policies, and Regulations The City of Santee’s Sustainable Santee Plan, adopted in 2019, is a qualified GHG emissions reduction plan in compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5. GHG reduction targets for the City are set at 40 percent below 2005 levels by 2030 and 49 percent below 2005 levels by 2035, in order to follow the statewide goals set by Senate Bill 32 (2016). Pursuant to this Section 15183.5, project-level documents may tier from Climate Action Plans or sustainability plans, which have analyzed GHG emissions at a programmatic level. The Sustainable Santee Plan includes a Consistency Checklist (Checklist) that contains GHG reduction measures that are required to be implemented to meet the reduction targets. Projects that are consistent with the Checklist would be considered to have a less-than-significant cumulative impact to GHG10.

As shown below in Table 6, Sustainable Santee Plan Consistency, the Project would comply with all applicable plans and programs intended to reduce GHG emissions. In addition, the Project’s Checklist is included in Appendix D, which includes discussion of the Project’s compliance and applicability with all measures.

Therefore, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact on GHG emissions.

Table 6: Sustainable Santee Plan Consistency
Checklist Item Project Consistency
Measure 2.1. New residential construction meet or
exceed California Green Building Standards Tier 2
Voluntary Measures, such as obtaining green building
ratings including LEED, Build it Green, or Energy Star
Certified building certifications in scoring development and explain the measures implemented.

Consistent. The proposed Project would meet California
Green Building Standards Tier 2 Voluntary Measures by
being Energy Star Certified.

Measure 5.1 Project utilizes tree planting for shade
and energy efficiency such as tree planting in parking
lots and streetscapes.

Consistent. The Project includes tree planting in parking areas and streetscapes, as seen in the attached site plan (Figure 1).

Measure 6.1. Proposed project streets include
sidewalks, crosswalks, and other infrastructure that
promotes non-motorized transportation options.

Consistent. The Project proposes public street sidewalks, as shown in the attached site plans (Figure 1).
9 Executive Department State of California. Executive Order S-3-05. Referenced at: https://www.library.ca.gov/wpcontent/uploads/GovernmentPublications/executive-order-proclamation/5129-5130.pdf 10 https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/documents/planning-building/sustainable-santee-plan.pdf The Exchange at Santee Town Center
Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Summary
Page | 13
Checklist Item Project Consistency
Measure 6.2. Proposed project installs bike paths to
improve bike transit.

Consistent. The Project would develop a section of the
town center path. While it is not a designated bike path, it may be used by pedestrians and bicyclists.

Measure 7.1.b. For new Multifamily Residential, install e-chargers for 13 percent of total parking.

Consistent. The Project would provide 230 parking spaces, 100 of which will be electric vehicle ready within the
garage spaces (43% of spaces would be electric).

Measure 9.1. Reduce waste at landfills. Consistent. The project would provide exterior recycling storage space in accordance with CalGreen the Santee
Municipal Code.

Consistent. The proposed Project would install a minimum of 2.8kW or higher per unit of PV solar systems, if the roof configuration can support such systems.

Source: City of Santee. (2019). Sustainable Santee Plan, Appendix D – Sustainable Santee Action Plan Consistency Checklist. Referenced at: https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/documents/planning-building/sustainable-santee-plan.pdf Project GHG Emissions
As discussed above, the City uses the Checklist to determine whether a project would result in significant impacts to GHG. The quantified GHG emissions below are provided for informational purposes. The Project’s construction GHG emissions are shown in Table 7, Project Construction GHG Emissions, and the overall construction and operational emissions are shown in Table 8, Project Total GHG Emissions, below. These emissions were calculated using the CalEEMod model. The construction emissions are amortized over 30 years and added to the operational GHG emissions. As shown in Table 8, the Project’s construction and operation GHG emissions would total 924 MTCO2e per year.

Table 7: Project Construction GHG Emissions
Activity
Annual GHG Emissions
(MTCO2e)
Year 1 436
Year 2 90
Total Emissions 526
Total Emissions Amortized Over 30 Years 18
Source: CalEEMod Output Sheets (see Appendix A).

The Exchange at Santee Town Center
Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Summary
Page | 14
Table 8: Project Total GHG Emissions
Activity
Annual GHG Emissions
(MTCO2e)
Mobile 758
Area 1
Energy 118
Water 5
Waste 23
Refrigeration <0.1
Total Project Operation Emissions 906
Project Construction Emissions 18
Total Project Emissions 924
Source: CalEEMod Output Sheets (see Appendix A).

Conclusion
As described above, the proposed Project would implement the GHG reduction measures required by the Sustainable Santee Plan. In addition, the Project’s construction and operational GHG emissions would total 924 MTCO2e. With compliance with the Sustainable Santee Plan, the Project would have a less-thansignificant impact related to GHG emissions. No mitigation would be required.

The Exchange at Santee Town Center
Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Summary
Page | 15
Figure 1: Conceptual Site Plan
The Exchange at Santee Town Center
Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Summary
Page | 16
Figure 2: Project Aerial
The Exchange at Santee Town Center
Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Summary
APPENDIX A: CALEEMOD OUTPUT SHEETS
24-080 Proposed Mission Gorge Detailed Report, 5/14/2025 1 / 42
24-080 Proposed Mission Gorge Detailed Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Site Preparation (2026) - Unmitigated

3.3. Grading (2026) - Unmitigated

3.5. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated

3.7. Building Construction (2027) - Unmitigated

3.9. Paving (2027) - Unmitigated
24-080 Proposed Mission Gorge Detailed Report, 5/14/2025 2 / 42

3.11. Architectural Coating (2027) - Unmitigated

3.13. Utilities & Storm (2027) - Unmitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated
24-080 Proposed Mission Gorge Detailed Report, 5/14/2025 3 / 42

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

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

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation
24-080 Proposed Mission Gorge Detailed Report, 5/14/2025 4 / 42

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment 24-080 Proposed Mission Gorge Detailed Report, 5/14/2025 5 / 42

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
24-080 Proposed Mission Gorge Detailed Report, 5/14/2025 6 / 42

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data
24-080 Proposed Mission Gorge Detailed Report, 5/14/2025 7 / 42

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name 24-080 Proposed Mission Gorge
Construction Start Date 9/1/2025
Operational Year 2026
Lead Agency City of Santee
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.60
Precipitation (days) 7.60
Location 32.84045232391011, -116.99043447647188
County San Diego
City Santee
Air District San Diego County APCD
Air Basin San Diego
TAZ 6528
EDFZ 12
Electric Utility San Diego Gas & Electric
Gas Utility San Diego Gas & Electric
App Version 2022.1.1.29

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Condo/Townhouse 100 Dwelling Unit 2.92 168,540 52,227 — 279 — 24-080 Proposed Mission Gorge Detailed Report, 5/14/2025 8 / 42
Parking Lot 30.0 Space 0.27 0.00 0.00 — — —
Other Asphalt
Surfaces

2.07 Acre 2.07 0.00 0.00 — — —
Other Asphalt
Surfaces

0.89 Acre 0.89 0.00 0.00 — — Offsite
Improvements

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

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Unmit. 58.5 11.2 22.2 0.03 1.09 0.54 3,593
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Unmit. 58.5 34.7 31.7 0.06 7.58 4.34 7,893
Average Daily (Max) — — — — — — —
Unmit. 12.8 8.76 11.8 0.02 1.09 0.55 2,631
Annual (Max) — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2.33 1.60 2.16 < 0.005 0.20 0.10 436
Exceeds (Daily Max) — — — — — — —
Threshold 75.0 250 550 250 100 67.0 —
Unmit. No No No No No No —
Exceeds (Average
Daily)
— — — — — — —
Threshold 75.0 250 550 250 100 67.0 —
Unmit. No No No No No No —
Exceeds (Annual) — — — — — — —
24-080 Proposed Mission Gorge Detailed Report, 5/14/2025 9 / 42
Threshold 13.7 40.0 100 40.0 15.0 10.0 —
Unmit. No No No No No No —

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily - Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
2026 1.42 11.2 17.3 0.03 1.09 0.54 3,593
2027 58.5 6.98 22.2 0.01 0.47 0.30 1,655
Daily - Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
2026 3.89 34.7 31.7 0.06 7.58 4.34 7,893
2027 58.5 10.7 22.1 0.03 1.05 0.50 3,537
Average Daily — — — — — — —
2026 1.05 8.76 11.8 0.02 1.09 0.55 2,631
2027 12.8 1.98 5.27 < 0.005 0.17 0.10 545
Annual — — — — — — —
2026 0.19 1.60 2.16 < 0.005 0.20 0.10 436
2027 2.33 0.36 0.96 < 0.005 0.03 0.02 90.3

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Unmit. 7.65 2.68 27.7 0.05 4.54 1.21 6,219
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Unmit. 7.07 2.84 21.0 0.05 4.53 1.21 5,959
Average Daily (Max) — — — — — — —
Unmit. 6.96 2.59 21.5 0.05 4.05 1.08 5,473
24-080 Proposed Mission Gorge Detailed Report, 5/14/2025 10 / 42
Annual (Max) — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.27 0.47 3.93 0.01 0.74 0.20 906
Exceeds (Daily Max) — — — — — — —
Threshold 75.0 250 550 250 — — —
Unmit. No No No No — — —
Exceeds (Average
Daily)
— — — — — — —
Threshold 75.0 250 550 250 — — —
Unmit. No No No No — — —
Exceeds (Annual) — — — — — — —
Threshold 13.7 40.0 100 40.0 15.0 10.0 —
Unmit. No No No No No No —

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Mobile 3.20 2.11 21.8 0.05 4.49 1.17 5,315
Area 4.42 0.05 5.67 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 15.2
Energy 0.03 0.52 0.22 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 716
Water — — — — — — 32.6
Waste — — — — — — 139
Refrig. — — — — — — 1.21
Total 7.65 2.68 27.7 0.05 4.54 1.21 6,219
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Mobile 3.13 2.32 20.7 0.05 4.49 1.17 5,071
Area 3.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy 0.03 0.52 0.22 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 716
24-080 Proposed Mission Gorge Detailed Report, 5/14/2025 11 / 42
Water — — — — — — 32.6
Waste — — — — — — 139
Refrig. — — — — — — 1.21
Total 7.07 2.84 21.0 0.05 4.53 1.21 5,959
Average Daily — — — — — — —
Mobile 2.76 2.05 18.5 0.04 4.00 1.04 4,577
Area 4.17 0.03 2.80 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 7.51
Energy 0.03 0.52 0.22 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 716
Water — — — — — — 32.6
Waste — — — — — — 139
Refrig. — — — — — — 1.21
Total 6.96 2.59 21.5 0.05 4.05 1.08 5,473
Annual — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.50 0.37 3.38 0.01 0.73 0.19 758
Area 0.76 < 0.005 0.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.24
Energy 0.01 0.09 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 118
Water — — — — — — 5.40
Waste — — — — — — 23.1
Refrig. — — — — — — 0.20
Total 1.27 0.47 3.93 0.01 0.74 0.20 906

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Site Preparation (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Onsite — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
24-080 Proposed Mission Gorge Detailed Report, 5/14/2025 12 / 42
Daily, Winter (Max)———————
Off-Road Equipment 3.83 34.6 31.0 0.05 1.77 1.62 5,551
Dust From Material
Movement
———— 5.66 2.69—
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily———————
Off-Road Equipment 0.10 0.95 0.85 < 0.005 0.05 0.04 152 Dust From Material
Movement
———— 0.16 0.07—
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual———————
Off-Road Equipment 0.02 0.17 0.16 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 25.2 Dust From Material
Movement
———— 0.03 0.01—
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite———————
Daily, Summer (Max)———————
Daily, Winter (Max)———————
Worker 0.06 0.05 0.67 0.00 0.15 0.03 156
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily———————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.31
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual———————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.71 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
24-080 Proposed Mission Gorge Detailed Report, 5/14/2025 13 / 42

3.3. Grading (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Onsite — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 2.16 19.1 19.1 0.03 1.04 0.96 3,146
Dust From Material
Movement
— — — — 2.26 0.94 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily — — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.12 1.04 1.05 < 0.005 0.06 0.05 172 Dust From Material
Movement
— — — — 0.12 0.05 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.02 0.19 0.19 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 28.5 Dust From Material
Movement
— — — — 0.02 0.01 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.57 0.00 0.13 0.03 133
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.09 5.87 2.20 0.03 1.24 0.37 4,614
Average Daily — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.01 < 0.005 7.39
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
24-080 Proposed Mission Gorge Detailed Report, 5/14/2025 14 / 42
Hauling 0.01 0.32 0.12 < 0.005 0.07 0.02 253
Annual — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.22
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling < 0.005 0.06 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 41.9

3.5. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Onsite — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 1.16 10.7 14.1 0.03 0.41 0.38 2,639
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 1.16 10.7 14.1 0.03 0.41 0.38 2,639
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily — — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.66 6.12 8.07 0.01 0.23 0.22 1,513
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.12 1.12 1.47 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 251 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Worker 0.26 0.20 3.11 0.00 0.61 0.14 679
Vendor 0.01 0.34 0.16 < 0.005 0.07 0.02 275
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
24-080 Proposed Mission Gorge Detailed Report, 5/14/2025 15 / 42
Worker 0.26 0.22 2.75 0.00 0.61 0.14 640
Vendor 0.01 0.35 0.16 < 0.005 0.07 0.02 274
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily — — — — — — —
Worker 0.15 0.13 1.59 0.00 0.35 0.08 371
Vendor 0.01 0.20 0.09 < 0.005 0.04 0.01 157
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.02 0.29 0.00 0.06 0.01 61.4
Vendor < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 26.1
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.7. Building Construction (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Onsite — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 1.11 10.2 14.0 0.03 0.36 0.34 2,639
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily — — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.06 0.58 0.80 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 150 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.01 0.11 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 24.8 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
24-080 Proposed Mission Gorge Detailed Report, 5/14/2025 16 / 42
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Worker 0.25 0.22 2.59 0.00 0.61 0.14 630
Vendor 0.01 0.34 0.16 < 0.005 0.07 0.02 268
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.15 0.00 0.03 0.01 36.1
Vendor < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 15.2
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.01 < 0.005 5.97
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.52 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.9. Paving (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Onsite — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.74 6.94 9.95 0.01 0.30 0.27 1,516
Paving 0.42 — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.04 0.38 0.55 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 83.1 Paving 0.02 — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.01 0.07 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 13.8 24-080 Proposed Mission Gorge Detailed Report, 5/14/2025 17 / 42
Paving < 0.005 — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.04 0.61 0.00 0.13 0.03 139
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.01 < 0.005 7.26
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.20
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.11. Architectural Coating (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Onsite — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.15 1.11 1.50 < 0.005 0.03 0.02 179 Architectural Coatings 54.7 — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 0.01 0.06 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 9.79 24-080 Proposed Mission Gorge Detailed Report, 5/14/2025 18 / 42
Architectural Coatings 3.00 — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.62 Architectural Coatings 0.55 — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.04 0.59 0.00 0.12 0.03 134
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.01 < 0.005 6.97
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.15
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.13. Utilities & Storm (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Onsite — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 58.4 5.57 21.4 0.01 0.30 0.25 1,265
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
24-080 Proposed Mission Gorge Detailed Report, 5/14/2025 19 / 42
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 58.4 5.57 21.4 0.01 0.30 0.25 1,265
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily — — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 9.61 0.92 3.51 < 0.005 0.05 0.04 208 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — —
Off-Road Equipment 1.75 0.17 0.64 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 34.4 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Offsite — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.05 0.82 0.00 0.17 0.04 186
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.06 0.72 0.00 0.17 0.04 175
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.01 29.0
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.01 < 0.005 4.81
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4. Operations Emissions Details
24-080 Proposed Mission Gorge Detailed Report, 5/14/2025 20 / 42

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Condo/Townhouse 3.20 2.11 21.8 0.05 4.49 1.17 5,315
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 3.20 2.11 21.8 0.05 4.49 1.17 5,315
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Condo/Townhouse 3.13 2.32 20.7 0.05 4.49 1.17 5,071
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 3.13 2.32 20.7 0.05 4.49 1.17 5,071
Annual — — — — — — —
Condo/Townhouse 0.50 0.37 3.38 0.01 0.73 0.19 758
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.50 0.37 3.38 0.01 0.73 0.19 758

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
24-080 Proposed Mission Gorge Detailed Report, 5/14/2025 21 / 42
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Condo/Townhouse — — — — — — 53.3
Parking Lot — — — — — — 1.33
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — 0.00
Total — — — — — — 54.6
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Condo/Townhouse — — — — — — 53.3
Parking Lot — — — — — — 1.33
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — 0.00
Total — — — — — — 54.6
Annual — — — — — — —
Condo/Townhouse — — — — — — 8.83
Parking Lot — — — — — — 0.22
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — 0.00
Total — — — — — — 9.05

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Condo/Townhouse 0.03 0.52 0.22 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 661
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.03 0.52 0.22 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 661
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Condo/Townhouse 0.03 0.52 0.22 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 661
24-080 Proposed Mission Gorge Detailed Report, 5/14/2025 22 / 42
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.03 0.52 0.22 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 661
Annual — — — — — — —
Condo/Townhouse 0.01 0.09 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 109
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.01 0.09 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 109

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Consumer Products 3.62 — — — — — —
Architectural Coatings 0.30 — — — — — —
Landscape Equipment 0.50 0.05 5.67 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 15.2 Total 4.42 0.05 5.67 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 15.2
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Consumer Products 3.62 — — — — — —
Architectural Coatings 0.30 — — — — — —
Total 3.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
24-080 Proposed Mission Gorge Detailed Report, 5/14/2025 23 / 42
Consumer Products 0.66 — — — — — —
Architectural Coatings 0.05 — — — — — —
Landscape Equipment 0.05 < 0.005 0.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.24 Total 0.76 < 0.005 0.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.24

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Condo/Townhouse — — — — — — 32.6
Parking Lot — — — — — — 0.00
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — 0.00
Total — — — — — — 32.6
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Condo/Townhouse — — — — — — 32.6
Parking Lot — — — — — — 0.00
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — 0.00
Total — — — — — — 32.6
Annual — — — — — — —
Condo/Townhouse — — — — — — 5.40
Parking Lot — — — — — — 0.00
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — 0.00
Total — — — — — — 5.40
24-080 Proposed Mission Gorge Detailed Report, 5/14/2025 24 / 42

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Condo/Townhouse — — — — — — 139
Parking Lot — — — — — — 0.00
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — 0.00
Total — — — — — — 139
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Condo/Townhouse — — — — — — 139
Parking Lot — — — — — — 0.00
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — 0.00
Total — — — — — — 139
Annual — — — — — — —
Condo/Townhouse — — — — — — 23.1
Parking Lot — — — — — — 0.00
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — 0.00
Total — — — — — — 23.1

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
24-080 Proposed Mission Gorge Detailed Report, 5/14/2025 25 / 42
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Condo/Townhouse — — — — — — 1.21
Total — — — — — — 1.21
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Condo/Townhouse — — — — — — 1.21
Total — — — — — — 1.21
Annual — — — — — — —
Condo/Townhouse — — — — — — 0.20
Total — — — — — — 0.20

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment Type ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment Type ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
24-080 Proposed Mission Gorge Detailed Report, 5/14/2025 26 / 42
Total — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment Type ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetation ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
24-080 Proposed Mission Gorge Detailed Report, 5/14/2025 27 / 42
Total — — — — — — —

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — —

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T CO2e
Daily, Summer (Max) — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
24-080 Proposed Mission Gorge Detailed Report, 5/14/2025 28 / 42
Removed — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Site Preparation Site Preparation 2/2/2026 2/13/2026 5.00 10.0 — Grading Grading 2/14/2026 3/13/2026 5.00 20.0 —
Building Construction Building Construction 3/14/2026 1/29/2027 5.00 230 — Paving Paving 4/24/2027 5/21/2027 5.00 20.0 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 5/22/2027 6/18/2027 5.00 20.0 — Utilities & Storm Trenching 1/30/2027 4/23/2027 5.00 60.0 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 367 0.40 24-080 Proposed Mission Gorge Detailed Report, 5/14/2025 29 / 42
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back Diesel Average 0.00 8.00 84.0 0.37 Site Preparation Crawler Tractors Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 87.0 0.43 Grading Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 0.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Crawler Tractors Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 87.0 0.43 Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 37.0 0.48 Utilities & Storm Trenchers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 40.0 0.50 Utilities & Storm Dumpers/Tenders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 16.0 0.38 Utilities & Storm Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Utilities & Storm Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 71.0 0.37 Utilities & Storm Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Utilities & Storm Plate Compactors Gasoline Average 1.00 8.00 6.00 0.55

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
24-080 Proposed Mission Gorge Detailed Report, 5/14/2025 30 / 42
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 17.5 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 7.63 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 15.0 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 7.63 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 62.5 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 72.0 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 10.7 7.63 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 15.0 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 7.63 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 14.4 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 7.63 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT
Utilities & Storm — — — —
Utilities & Storm Worker 20.0 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
24-080 Proposed Mission Gorge Detailed Report, 5/14/2025 31 / 42
Utilities & Storm Vendor — 7.63 HHDT,MHDT
Utilities & Storm Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Utilities & Storm Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 341,294 113,765 0.00 0.00 8,442

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (cy) Material Exported (cy) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres) Site Preparation — — 35.0 0.00 —
Grading — 10,000 50.0 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.23

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day) PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water Exposed Area 3 74% 74%

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
24-080 Proposed Mission Gorge Detailed Report, 5/14/2025 32 / 42
Condo/Townhouse — 0%
Parking Lot 0.27 100%
Other Asphalt Surfaces 2.07 100%
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.89 100%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2026 0.00 45.1 0.03 < 0.005
2027 0.00 45.1 0.03 < 0.005

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Condo/Townhouse 732 814 628 266,033 5,671 6,306 4,865 2,060,888 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Condo/Townhouse —
24-080 Proposed Mission Gorge Detailed Report, 5/14/2025 33 / 42
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 0
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 100
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Pellet Wood Stoves 0

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
341293.5 113,765 0.00 0.00 8,442

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Condo/Townhouse 412,935 45.1 0.0330 0.0040 2,056,473
Parking Lot 10,303 45.1 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 45.1 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
24-080 Proposed Mission Gorge Detailed Report, 5/14/2025 34 / 42
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 45.1 0.0330 0.0040 0.00

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Condo/Townhouse 3,513,307 953,931
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Condo/Townhouse 73.9 —
Parking Lot 0.00 —
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 —
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 —

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Condo/Townhouse Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
24-080 Proposed Mission Gorge Detailed Report, 5/14/2025 35 / 42
Condo/Townhouse Household R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00 refrigerators and/or
freezers

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor

5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)

5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
24-080 Proposed Mission Gorge Detailed Report, 5/14/2025 36 / 42

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.

Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 12.4 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 3.90 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 7.98 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
24-080 Proposed Mission Gorge Detailed Report, 5/14/2025 37 / 42
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 0 0 N/A
Wildfire 1 0 0 N/A
Flooding 0 0 0 N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2
Wildfire 1 1 1 2
Flooding 1 1 1 2
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.
24-080 Proposed Mission Gorge Detailed Report, 5/14/2025 38 / 42
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 62.5
AQ-PM 44.7
AQ-DPM 43.7
Drinking Water 10.9
Lead Risk Housing 32.2
Pesticides 0.00
Toxic Releases 24.4
Traffic 45.3
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 0.00
Groundwater 6.97
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 81.5
Impaired Water Bodies 77.3
Solid Waste 2.52
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 35.6
Cardio-vascular 30.2
Low Birth Weights 22.2
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
24-080 Proposed Mission Gorge Detailed Report, 5/14/2025 39 / 42
Education 30.4
Housing 9.53
Linguistic 38.1
Poverty 29.5
Unemployment 18.3

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 80.66213268
Employed 91.37687668
Median HI 77.38996535
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 61.5167458
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 55.10073143
Transportation —
Auto Access 92.6344155
Active commuting 24.80431156
Social —
2-parent households 31.51546259
Voting 80.803285
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 38.93237521
Park access 60.61850379
Retail density 95.23931734
Supermarket access 65.87963557
24-080 Proposed Mission Gorge Detailed Report, 5/14/2025 40 / 42
Tree canopy 10.714744
Housing —
Homeownership 82.71525728
Housing habitability 93.76363403
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 37.85448479 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 95.09816502
Uncrowded housing 96.93314513
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 88.23302964
Arthritis 0.0
Asthma ER Admissions 59.9
High Blood Pressure 0.0
Cancer (excluding skin) 0.0
Asthma 0.0
Coronary Heart Disease 0.0
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 0.0
Diagnosed Diabetes 0.0
Life Expectancy at Birth 75.0
Cognitively Disabled 82.5
Physically Disabled 78.7
Heart Attack ER Admissions 49.6
Mental Health Not Good 0.0
Chronic Kidney Disease 0.0
Obesity 0.0
Pedestrian Injuries 89.1
Physical Health Not Good 0.0
Stroke 0.0
Health Risk Behaviors —
24-080 Proposed Mission Gorge Detailed Report, 5/14/2025 41 / 42
Binge Drinking 0.0
Current Smoker 0.0
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 0.0
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 4.2
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 43.1
Elderly 70.0
English Speaking 94.2
Foreign-born 6.8
Outdoor Workers 41.4
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 43.9
Traffic Density 34.7
Traffic Access 23.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 27.6
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 80.0

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 17.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 81.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No 24-080 Proposed Mission Gorge Detailed Report, 5/14/2025 42 / 42
a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Land Use Adjusted lot acreage to match site plan provided by client. Offsite improvements include the turn pocket improvements and western access road improvements.

Construction: Construction Phases Removed demolition phase since the site is vacant. Included a 60 day trenching phase for utilities and storm improvements, as provided by the Project applicant.

Construction: Off-Road Equipment Conservatively assumed all equipment would run 8 hours a day. Replaced tractors/loaders/backhoes with crawler tractor to accurately assess site disturbance. Included typical equipment needed for utility lateral installations.

Operations: Vehicle Data Adjusted weekday trip to match SANDAG 2002 Trip Generate Rate for Apartment uses. No Saturday or Sunday trips are available for SANDAG trip rates. Therefore, these rates were changed to ITE 11th edition rates for multifamily homes mid-rise (code 221).

Operations: Hearths Wood stoves and fireplaces are removed since none are proposed for the project.

Construction: Dust From Material Movement Adjusted material export as per Project grading plan.

Operations: Energy Use Removed natural gas consumption since the Project does not propose natural gas connections.

The Exchange at Santee Town Center
Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Summary
APPENDIX B: FUEL CALCULATIONS

PROPOSED PROJECT
Model Output: OFFROAD2021 (v1.0.5) Emissions Inventory
Region Type: Sub-Area
Region: San Diego (SD)
Calendar Year: 2025 <- Construction Start Year
Scenario: All Adopted Rules - Exhaust
Vehicle Classification: OFFROAD2021 Equipment Types
Units: tons/day for Emissions, gallons/year for Fuel, hours/year for Activity, Horsepower-hours/year for Horsepower-hours Region Calendar Year VehClass MdlYr HP_Bin Fuel Fuel Consumption Horsepower Hours Fuel Rate San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Rubber Tired Dozers Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 95063.32396 2003240.084 0.047454783 San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 2544497.532 47900225.54 0.053120784 San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Graders Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 380663.4077 7385887.541 0.051539291 San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Excavators Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 2601259.809 50790885.68 0.051215091 San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Scrapers Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 980470.7281 20387969.27 0.048090652 San Diego (SD) 2025 Industrial - Forklifts Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 745246.5844 13994200.88 0.053253958 San Diego (SD) 2025 Light Commercial - Misc - Generator Sets Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 390123.8174 4873527.45 0.080049578 San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Cranes Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 290407.1089 5478101.494 0.053012364 San Diego (SD) 2025 Light Commercial - Misc - Welders Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 426537.5945 13307921.9 0.032051405 San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Pavers Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 167459.2584 3250592.32 0.051516537 San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Paving Equipment Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 185750.5663 3630398.724 0.051165335 San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Rollers Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 442711.4609 8417901.57 0.052591665 San Diego (SD) 2025 Light Commercial - Misc - Air Compressors Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 81809.79984 2714505 0.030138018 San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Misc - Concrete/Industrial Saws Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 3715.45 88410.3 0.042025081 San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Crawler Tractors Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 816561.0142 16173283.7 0.050488264 San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Off-Highway Trucks Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1083392 22141214.74 0.04893101 San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Trenchers Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 88513.21905 1672436.87 0.0529247 San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Misc - Other Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 12610.75 289277.1 0.043594014 San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Skid Steer Loaders Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 899736.1615 16210871.52 0.055502023 Source: EMFAC2025 (v2.0.0) Emissions Inventory
Region Type: Sub-Area
Region: San Diego (SD)
Calendar Year: 2025
Season: Annual 2025 Construction start year
Vehicle Classification: EMFAC2007 Categories
Units: miles/year for Combustion VMT and Electric VMT, trips/year for Trips, tons/year for Emissions, 1000 gallons/year for Fuel Consumption, kWh/year for Energy Consumption, kg/year for Hydrogen Consumption Region Calendar Year Vehicle Category Model Year Speed Fuel VMT Fuel Consumption Fuel Rate San Diego (SD) 2025 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 211331911.8 25138.792 8.41 100% San Diego (SD) 2025 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 560765746.7 93651.76766 5.99 100% Source: EMFAC2025 (v2.0.0) Emissions Inventory
Region Type: Sub-Area
Region: San Diego (SD)
Calendar Year: 2025
Season: Annual
Vehicle Classification: EMFAC2007 Categories
Units: miles/year for Combustion VMT and Electric VMT, trips/year for Trips, tons/year for Emissions, 1000 gallons/year for Fuel Consumption, kWh/year for Energy Consumption, kg/year for Hydrogen Consumption Region Calendar Year Vehicle Category Model Year Speed Fuel VMT Fuel Consumption San Diego (SD) 2025 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 9537769006 366884.9183 26.00 100% San Diego (SD) 2025 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 1251945943 56878.52194 22.01 100% San Diego (SD) 2025 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 6994198196 319812.1798 21.87 100%

23.97 COUNTY CONSUMPTION
Source: EMFAC2025 (v2.0.0) Emissions Inventory
Region Type: Sub-Area
Region: San Diego (SD)
Calendar Year: 2025
Season: Annual
Vehicle Classification: EMFAC2007 Categories
Units: miles/year for Combustion VMT and Electric VMT, trips/year for Trips, tons/year for Emissions, 1000 gallons/year for Fuel Consumption, kWh/year for Energy Consumption, kg/year for Hydrogen Consumption Region Calendar Year Vehicle Category Model Year Speed Fuel Total VMT Fuel Consumption San Diego (SD) 2025 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 560765746.7 93651.76766 San Diego (SD) 2025 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 40520978.25 1116.991537 San Diego (SD) 2025 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 601537.8314 27.85142918 San Diego (SD) 2025 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 16210456.44 567.5364074 50/25/25 Splits
San Diego (SD) 2025 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 282046398.5 17604.19304 San Diego (SD) 2025 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 213588985.7 15380.69571 San Diego (SD) 2025 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 133737559.5 5741.744238 San Diego (SD) 2025 MH Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 14838531.07 1584.565134 San Diego (SD) 2025 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 211331911.8 25138.792 San Diego (SD) 2025 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 10451568.85 1417.507052 San Diego (SD) 2025 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 9357481.672 1181.489936 San Diego (SD) 2025 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 146042.6168 42.55829318 San Diego (SD) 2025 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 9537769006 366884.9183 San Diego (SD) 2025 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 1251945943 56878.52194 San Diego (SD) 2025 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 6994198196 319812.1798 San Diego (SD) 2025 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 461553496.3 47492.96853 San Diego (SD) 2025 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 93968210.95 10396.90975 San Diego (SD) 2025 MCY Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 134901583.8 3420.999368 San Diego (SD) 2025 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 4065085172 227492.043 San Diego (SD) 2025 MH Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 34174032.24 7751.260058 San Diego (SD) 2025 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 74325606.8 15384.65751 San Diego (SD) 2025 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 15525184.49 3274.173465 San Diego (SD) 2025 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 3577731.498 367.8527067 San Diego (SD) 2025 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 1472435.948 313.7190165 22668642642 DIESEL TOTAL 163413 163413134.1
Model Output: OFFROAD2021 (v1.0.5) Emissions Inventory GASOLINE TOTAL 1059513 1059512762 Region Type: Sub-Area
Region: San Diego (SD)
Calendar Year: 2025
Scenario: All Adopted Rules - Exhaust
Vehicle Classification: OFFROAD2021 Equipment Types
Units: tons/day for Emissions, gallons/year for Fuel, hours/year for Activity, Horsepower-hours/year for Horsepower-hours Region Calendar Year Vehicle Category Model Year Horsepower Bin Fuel Fuel Consumption Horsepower_Hours_hhpy San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Bore/Drill Rigs Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 316929.3158 6273788.525 San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Bucket Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 7538.625676 146407.3701 San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Compactor Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 12257.74929 241009.6255 San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Concrete Mixer Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1134.176606 22097.5817 San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Concrete Pump Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 11439.89774 225587.3587 San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Crane less than 35ton Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 5872.536282 107765.8049 San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Cranes Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 290407.1089 5478101.494 San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Crawler Tractors Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 816561.0142 16173283.7 San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Crushing/Processing Equipment Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 44199.88331 872798.3542 San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Excavators Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 2601259.809 50790885.68 San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Graders Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 380663.4077 7385887.541 San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Hopper Tractor Trailer Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 747.3319122 14814.80767 San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Misc - Bore/Drill Rigs Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 65.1 0 San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Misc - Cement And Mortar Mixers Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 95.3 0 San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Misc - Concrete/Industrial Saws Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 3715.45 88410.3 San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Misc - Dumpers/Tenders Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 7.68 0 San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Misc - Excavators Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 54.9 0 San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Misc - Other Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 204.7 0 San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Misc - Pavers Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 14.4 0 San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Misc - Paving Equipment Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 24.5 0 San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Misc - Plate Compactors Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 68.6 0 San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Misc - Rollers Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 421 0 San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Misc - Rubber Tired Loaders Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 9.98 0 San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Misc - Signal Boards Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 2705.2 36733.6 San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Misc - Skid Steer Loaders Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 2830 0 San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Misc - Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 263 0 San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Misc - Trenchers Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 353.5 0 San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Nurse Rig Other Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 67.53872665 1338.860591 San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Off-Highway Tractors Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 463531.7915 9101169.525 San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Off-Highway Trucks Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1083392 22141214.74 San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Other Construction Equipment Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 535058.3066 10433692.62 San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Other Material Handling Equipment Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 165167.9182 3237359.19 San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Pavers Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 167459.2584 3250592.32 San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Paving Equipment Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 185750.5663 3630398.724 San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Rollers Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 442711.4609 8417901.57 San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Rough Terrain Forklifts Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 549135.8129 10536382.23 San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Rubber Tired Dozers Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 95063.32396 2003240.084 San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Rubber Tired Loaders Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1898084.489 37598201.9 San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Scrapers Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 980470.7281 20387969.27 San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Skid Steer Loaders Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 899736.1615 16210871.52 San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Spray Truck Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 10942.3632 212110.8973 San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Spreader Tractor Trailer Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1373.501074 27102.85032 San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Spreader Truck Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 8576.457416 168242.7208 San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Surfacing Equipment Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 87933.91174 1745866.661 San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Tank Truck Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 18779.40164 371895.5543 San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Tanker Truck Trailer Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1439.457936 27625.39307 San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Telescopic Handler Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 37622.84278 721514.4006 San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 2544497.532 47900225.54 San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Trenchers Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 88513.21905 1672436.87 San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Vacuum Truck Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 28340.91305 558406.3032 San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Water Truck Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 84416.57838 1673249.845 San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Misc - Asphalt Pavers Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 15471.5 162111.1 San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Misc - Bore/Drill Rigs Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 10023.45 120413.5 San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Misc - Cement And Mortar Mixers Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 57808 0 San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Misc - Concrete/Industrial Saws Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 74074.15 323010.4 San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Misc - Cranes Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 8292.8 177733.1 San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Misc - Crushing/Proc. Equipment Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 373 0 San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Misc - Dumpers/Tenders Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 6009.35 14213.1 San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Misc - Other Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 12610.75 289277.1 San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Misc - Paving Equipment Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 108562.7 162140.3 San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Misc - Plate Compactors Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 39464 0 San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Misc - Rollers Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 52202.4 489870.15 San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Misc - Rough Terrain Forklifts Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 58480.3 972279.7 San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Misc - Rubber Tired Loaders Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 30999.45 587562.4 San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Misc - Signal Boards Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 1116.4 0 San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Misc - Skid Steer Loaders Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 113439.1 1497609.6 San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Misc - Surfacing Equipment Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 47866 0 San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Misc - Tampers/Rammers Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 6508 0 San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Misc - Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 19881.55 427707 San Diego (SD) 2025 Construction and Mining - Misc - Trenchers Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 95859.4 841814.1 DIESEL TOTAL 14877910
GASOLINE TOTAL 759042
8,768 18,865
163,413,134 1,059,512,762

0.005% 0.002%
35,636
14,877,910

0.2395%
The Exchange at Santee Town Center
Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Summary
APPENDIX C: DETAILED CALCULATION TABLES
Phase Equipment Amount Usage Horse P Load Days Horse PH Fuel Consumption Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8 367 0.4 10 35,232 0.047454783 1,672 Crawler Tractors 4 8 84 0.37 10 9,946 0.05048826 502
Excavators 1 8 36 0.38 20 2,189 0.05121509 112
Graders 1 8 148 0.41 20 9,709 0.05153929 500
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 367 0.4 20 23,488 0.04745478 1,115 Crawler Tractors 3 8 87 0.43 20 17,957 0.08004958 1,437 Cranes 1 8 367 0.29 230 195,831 0.05312078 10,403
Forklifts 3 8 82 0.2 230 90,528 0.03205140 2,902
Generator Sets 1 8 14 0.74 230 19,062 0.08004958 1,526
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8 84 0.37 230 171,562 0.05151654 8,838 Welders 1 8 46 0.45 230 38,088 0.05116533 1,949
Trenchers 1 8 40 0.5 60 9,600 0.05292470 508
Dumpers/Tenders 1 8 16 0.38 60 2,918 0.04893101 143
Excavators 1 8 36 0.38 60 6,566 0.05121509 336
Plate Compactors 1 8 8 0.43 60 1,651 0.04359401 72
Skid Steer Loaders 1 8 71 0.37 60 12,610 0.05550202 700 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8 84 0.37 60 29,837 0.05312078 1,585 Pavers 2 8 81 0.42 20 10,886 0.05259167 573
Paving Equipment 2 8 89 0.36 20 10,253 0.05312078 545
Rollers 2 8 36 0.38 20 4,378 0.030138018 132
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 8 37 0.48 20 2842 0.030138018 86 Total 35,636
Fuel Consumption by Construction Equipment
Paving
Site Preparation
Grading
Building Construction
Utilities
Est. Project Fuel Usage by Construction Vehicle
Construction Source Total Trips VMT Fuel Rate Gallons of Diesel Fuel
Gallons of
Gasoline Fuel
Haul Trucks 625 25,000 5.99 4175 0
Vendor Trucks 2530 38,608 8.41 4593 0
452,160
515,768
Worker Vehicles
Total 20795 - 8,768
17640 23.97 0 18,865
18,865
The Exchange at Santee Town Center
Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Impact Summary
APPENDIX D: SUSTAINABLE SANTEE ACTION PLAN CONSISTENCY AND

IMPLEMENTATION TRACKING CHECKLIST
Sustainable Santee Action Plan Consistency and Implementation Tracking Checklist The Sustainable Santee Action Plan Project Consistency Checklist (Checklist) is intended to be a tool for development projects to demonstrate consistency with Santee’s (City’s) Sustainable Santee Action Plan, which is a qualified greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction plan in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15183.5. This Checklist has been developed as part of the Sustainable Santee Action Plan implementation and monitoring process and will support the achievement ofindividual GHG reduction measures as well as the City’s overall GHG reduction goals. In addition, this Checklist will further the City’s sustainability goals and policies that encourage sustainable development and aim to conserve and reduce the consumption of resources, such as energy and water, among others.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5 allows lead agencies to analyze the impacts associated with GHG emissions at a programmatic level in plan‐level documents such as Climate Action Plans or sustainability plans, so that project‐level environmental documents may tier from the programmatic review. Projects that meet the requirements of this Checklist will be deemed to be consistent with the Sustainable Santee Action Plan and will be found to have a less than significant contribution to cumulative GHG (i.e., the project’s incremental contribution to cumulative GHG effects is not cumulatively considerable), pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(h)(3), 15130(d), and 15183(b). Projects that do not meet the requirements in this Checklist will be deemed to be inconsistent with the Sustainable Santee Action Plan and must prepare a project‐specific analysis of GHG emissions, including quantification of existing and projected GHG emissions and incorporation of the measures in this Checklist to the extent feasible. This GHG Checklist can be updated to reflect adoption of new GHG reduction strategies or to comply with any changes and updates in the Plan or local, State or federal regulations.

Sustainable Santee Action Plan Consistency Checklist December 2019 Project No./Name:

Address:Applicant Name:Contact Information:1. What is the size of the Project (acres)?

2. Identify all Applicable Proposed Land uses:
a. Residential‐Single Family (Indicate number of single‐family units)b. Residential‐Multifamily (Indicate number of multifamily units)c. Commercial (total square footage) d. Industrial (total square footage)e. Other (describe)

1. Project Information
Contact Information
Project Description Characteristics

3. Provide a brief description of the project proposed:

Sustainable Santee Action Plan Consistency Checklist December 2019 Yes No

1. Is the proposed project consistent with the existing General Plan and land use zoning designations? OR2. If the proposed project is not consistent with the existing land use plan and zoning designations, does the project include a land use plan and/or zoning designationamendment that is identified in the Sustainable Santee Action Plan Land Use Buffer(see Appendix A, Table 11)?

3. If the proposed project is not consistent with the existing land use plan, zoning designations, or Land Use Buffer, does the project include a land use plan and/orzoning designation ammendment that will result in an equivalent or less GHG‐ intensive project when compared to the existing designations? Notes:

For questions 1, if the answer is Yes, proceed to the Sustainable Santee Action Plan Consistency Checklist. If the answer is No, procced to question 2.

For question 2, if the answer is Yes, proceed to the Sustainable Santee Action Plan Consistency Checklist.

If the answer is No, proceed to question 3.

For question 3, if the answer is Yes provide estimated project emissions under both existing and proposed designation (s) for comparison. Compare the maximum buildout of the existing designation and the maximum buildout of the proposed designation. If the answer of question 3 is No then, in accordance with the City’s Significance Determination Thresholds, the project’s GHG impact may be significant. The project must nonetheless incorporate each of the applicable measures identified in the Checklist tomitigate cumulative GHG emissions impacts unless the decision maker finds that a measure is infeasible in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15091.

As the first step in determining the consistency with the Sustainable Santee Action Plan for the discretionary development projects, this section allows the City to determine the project’s consistency with the land use assumptions used in the Plan.

2. Determining Land Use Consistency
Checklist Item
Sustainable Santee Action Plan Consistency Checklist December 2019 Notes
Emissions Measures Category: Energy Efficiency
Land Use Sector‐ResidentialGoal 1. Increase Energy Efficiency in Existing Residential Units Measure 1.2. For existing Residential Unit Permit for Major Modifications (more than 30% of dwelling unit size, including bathroom and kitchen) that is considered a Project under CEQA must implement energyefficiency retrofits recommended from City Energy Audit and explain the energy efficiency retrofits implemented.

Measure 1.2 only applies if
alteration is subject to
CEQA
Goal 2. Increase Energy Efficiency in the New Residential UnitsMeasure 2.1. New residential construction meet or exceed California Green Building Standards Tier 2 Voluntary Measures, such as obtaining green building ratings including LEED, Build it Green, or Energy Star Certified building certifications in scoring development and explain the measures implemented.

Land Use Sector‐Commercial
Goal 3. Increase Energy Efficiency in Existing Commercial Units Measure 3.2. For existing commercial units of 10,000 sq. ft. or more seeking building permits for modifications representing 30% or more sq. ft, and considered a Project under CEQA must implement energy efficiency retrofits recommended by the City to meet California Green Building Standards Tier 1 Voluntary Measures and explain the retrofits implemented.

Measure 3.2 only applies if
alteration is subject to
CEQA
Goal 4. Increase Energy Efficiency in New Commercial UnitsMeasure 4.1. New commercial units meet or exceed California Green Building Standards Tier 2 Voluntary Measures such as obtain green building ratings including: LEED, Build it Green, or Energy Star Certified buildings certifications in scoring development and explain the measures implemented.

Emissions Measures Category: Advanced Goals Measures
Land Use Sector‐CommercialGoal 5. Decrease Energy Demand through Reducing Urban Heat Island Effect Measure 5.1. Project utilizes tree planting for shade and energy efficiency such as tree planting in parking lots and streetscapes.Measure 5.2. Project uses light‐reflecting surfaces such as enhanced cool roofs on commercial buildings.

Emissions Measures Category: Transportation
Land Use Sector‐Residential and Commercial
Goal 6. Decrease GHG Emissions through a Reduction in VMT Measure 6.1. Proposed project streets include sidewalks, crosswalks, and other infrastructure that promotes non‐motorized transportation options.

Measure 6.2. Proposed project installs bike paths to improve bike transit.

Sustainable Santee Action Plan CEQA Project Consistency Checklist Measure Applicability
Yes No N/A Description
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measure This checklist is to be filled out by the applicant Measure 1.1 is not on
checklist because it focuses
on minor residental
alterations not subject to
CEQA
Measure 3.1 is not on
checklist because it focuses
on minor alterations which
are not subject to CEQA
Sustainable Santee Action Plan CEQA Project Consistency Checklist December 2019 Land Use Sector‐Residential and Commercial
Goal 7: Increase Use of Electric VehiclesMeasure 7.1. Install electric vehicle chargers in all new residential and commercial developments.a. For new Single‐Family Residential, install complete 40 Amp electrical service and one e‐charger. b. For new Multifamily Residential, install e‐chargers for 13 percent of total parking.c. For new Office Space, Regional Shopping Centers, and Movie Theaters, install e‐chargers for 5 percent of total parking spaces.
d. For new Industrial and other Land Uses employing 200 or more employees, install e‐charges for 5 percent of total parking spaces.Land Use Sector‐Residential and CommercialGoal 8. Improve Traffic FlowMeasure 8.1. Implement traffic flow improvement program. a. Install smart traffic signals at intersections warranting a traffic signal, OR b. Install roundabout.

Emissions Measures Category: Solid Waste
Land Use Sector‐Residential and Commercial
Goal 9: Decrease GHG Emissions through Reducing Solid Waste GenerationMeasure 9.1. Reduce waste at landfills. p g y waste.Emissions Measures Category: Clean Energy
Land Use Sector‐Residential and Commercial
Goal 10. Decrease GHG Emissions through Increased Clean Energy UseMeasure 10.1. Increase distributed energy generation within City of Santee by implementing the following applicable photovoltaic solar systems:a. Single‐family residential to install at least 2kW per unit of PV solar systems, unless the installation is infeasible due to poor solar resources established in a solar feasibility study prepared by a qualified solar consultant submitted with an applicationb. Multifamily residential to install at least 1kW per unit of PV solar systems, unless the installation is infeasible due to poor solar resources established in a solar feasibility study prepared by a qualified solar consultant submitted with an applicant’s formal project submittal to City.c. On commercial buildings, install at least 2 kW per square foot of building area (e.g., 2,000 sq. ft. = 3 kW)unless the installation is infeasible due to poor solar resources.

Projects that include
traffic controls need to
show consistency with
one of these
Sustainable Santee Action Plan CEQA Project Consistency Checklist December 2019 2201 N. Grand Avenue #10098 | Santa Ana, CA 92711-0098 | (714) 716-5050 www.ELMTConsulting.com
May 20, 2024

BORSTEIN ENTERPRISES
Attention: Erik Pfahler
11766 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 820
Los Angeles, California 90025
SUBJECT: Biological Resources Assessment for the Proposed Mission Gorge and Town Center Project Located in the City of Santee, San Diego County, California Introduction
This report contains the findings of ELMT Consulting’s (ELMT) habitat assessment for the Mission Gorge and Town Center Project (project site, site) located within Assessor Parcel Numbers (APN) 381-040-30 in the City of Santee, San Diego County, California. The report was prepared to document baseline conditions and assess the potential for special-status1 plant and wildlife species to occur within the boundaries of the proposed project that could pose a constraint to project implementation. Special attention was given to the suitability of the on-site habitat to support special-status species identified by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and other electronic databases as potentially occurring in the general vicinity of the project. Additionally, the report also addresses resources protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code (FGC), federal Clean Water Act (CWA) regulated by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) respectively, and Section 1602 of the FGC administered by CDFW.

Project Location
The project site is generally located north of State Route 52, west of State Route 67, east of Interstate 15, and south of State Route 78 in the City of Santee, San Diego County, California. The site is depicted on the El Cajon quadrangle of the United States Geological Survey’s (USGS) 7.5-minute map series within an unsectioned portion (Section 00) of Township 15 South, Range 1 West. Specifically, the site is located south of the San Diego River, west of Town Center Parkway, north of Mission Gorge Road, and east of Carlton Hills Boulevard within APN 381-040-30. Refer to Exhibits 1 and 2 in Appendix A.

Project Description
The project proposes the development of a housing complex consisting of 115 total domestic units, 254 parking spaces, and associated open spaces and thoroughfares. Refer to Attachment B, Site Plan. 1 As used in this report, “special-status” refers to plant and wildlife species that are federally, State, and MSHCP listed, proposed, or candidates; plant species that have been designated with a California Native Plant Society Rare Plant Rank; wildlife species that are designated by the CDFW as fully protected, species of special concern, or watch list species; and specially protected natural vegetation communities as designated by the CDFW.

Exchange at Santee Town Center at Santee Town Center (ELMT) assessment for the
Exchange
in Assess
Consulting’s habitat
May 20, 2024

Page 2 ends

Santee City CouncilDecember 10, 2025

Santee City Council
December 10, 2025