The State Water Resources Control Board has authority over wetlands through Section 401 of the CWA, the Porter– Cologne Act, California Code of Regulations Section 3831(k), and California Wetlands Conservation Policy. The CWA requires that an applicant for a Section 404 permit (to discharge dredge or fill material into waters of the United States) first obtain certification from the appropriate state agency stating that the fill is consistent with the state’s water quality standards and criteria. In California, the authority to either grant certification or waive the requirement for permits is delegated by the State Water Resources Control Board to the nine RWQCBs. A request for certification is submitted to the RWQCB at the same time that an application is filed with USACE.
State
California Endangered Species Act
CESA (California Fish and Game Code Sections 2050–2068) provides protection for and prohibits the take of plant, fish, and wildlife species listed by the State of California. Unlike FESA, under CESA, state-listed plants have the same degree of protection as wildlife, but insects and other invertebrates may not be listed. Take is defined
4.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.3-7
similarly to FESA and is prohibited for both listed and candidate species. Take authorization may be obtained by a project applicant from CDFW under CESA Section 2081, which allows take of a listed species for educational, scientific, or management purposes. In this case, developers consult with CDFW to develop a set of measures and standards for managing the listed species, including full mitigation for impacts, funding of implementation, and monitoring of mitigation measures.
California Fish and Game Code
Fully Protected Species
Sections 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515 of the California Fish and Game Code outline protection for fully protected species of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish. Species that are fully protected by these sections may not be taken or possessed at any time. CDFW cannot issue permits or licenses that authorize the “take” of any fully protected species, except under certain circumstances, such as scientific research and live capture and relocation of such species pursuant to a permit for the protection of livestock. On July 10, 2023, Senate Bill 147 was signed into law; it amends the California Fish and Game Code to allow a 10-year permitting mechanism for a defined set of projects within the renewable energy, transportation, and water infrastructure sectors. Furthermore, it is the responsibility of CDFW to maintain viable populations of all native species. Toward that end, CDFW has designated certain vertebrate species as Species of Special Concern, because declining population levels, limited ranges, and/or continuing threats have made them vulnerable to extinction.
Sections 1600–1616
CDFW jurisdiction includes ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial watercourses (including dry washes) and lakes characterized by the presence of (1) definable bed and banks and (2) existing fish or wildlife resources. CDFW takes jurisdiction to the top of bank of the stream, or to the limit of the adjacent riparian vegetation, which may include oak woodlands in canyon bottoms. Historical court cases have further extended CDFW jurisdiction to include watercourses that seemingly disappear but reemerge elsewhere. Under the CDFW definition, a watercourse need not exhibit evidence of an ordinary high water mark to be claimed as jurisdictional. CDFW does not have jurisdiction over ocean or shoreline resources.
Under California Fish and Game Code Sections 1600–1616, CDFW has the authority to regulate work that will substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of, or substantially change or use any material from, the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake. CDFW also has the authority to regulate work that will deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it may pass into any river, stream, or lake. This regulation takes the form of a requirement for a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement and is applicable to all projects. Applications to CDFW must include a complete certified California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) document.
California Native Plant Protection Act
The Native Plant Protection Act of 1977 (see Section 1900 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code) directed CDFW to carry out the Legislature’s intent to “preserve, protect and enhance rare and endangered plants in this State.” The Native Plant Protection Act gave the California Fish and Game Commission the power to designate native plants as “endangered” or “rare” and protect endangered and rare plants from take. CESA expanded on the original Native Plant Protection Act and enhanced legal protection for plants, but the Native Plant Protection Act remains part of the California Fish and Game Code. To align with federal regulations, CESA created the categories
4.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.3-8
of “threatened” and “endangered” species. It converted all “rare” animals into the act as threatened species but did not do so for rare plants. Thus, there are three listing categories for plants in California: rare, threatened, and endangered. Because rare plants are not included in CESA, mitigation measures for impacts to rare plants are specified in a formal agreement between CDFW and the project proponent.
Nesting Birds
Section 3503 of the California Fish and Game Code states that it is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nests or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation made pursuant thereto.
Section 3503.5 protects all birds of prey (raptors) and their eggs and nests. Section 3511 states that fully protected birds or parts thereof may not be taken or possessed at any time. Section 3513 states that it is unlawful to take or possess any migratory nongame bird as designated in the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA requires identification of a project’s potentially significant impacts on biological resources and ways that such impacts can be avoided, minimized, or mitigated. CEQA also provides guidelines and thresholds for use by lead agencies for evaluating the significance of proposed impacts.
The State of California CEQA Guidelines (CEQA Guidelines) Section 15380(b)(1) defines endangered animals or plants as species or subspecies whose “survival and reproduction in the wild are in immediate jeopardy from one or more causes, including loss of habitat, change in habitat, overexploitation, predation, competition, disease, or other factors.” A rare animal or plant is defined in Section 15380(b)(2) as a species that, although not presently threatened with extinction, exists “in such small numbers throughout all or a significant portion of its range that it may become endangered if its environment worsens; or … [t]he species is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range and may be considered ‘threatened’ as that term is used in the federal Endangered Species Act.” Additionally, an animal or plant may be presumed to be endangered, rare, or threatened if it meets the criteria for listing, as defined further in CEQA Guidelines Section 15380(c).
CDFW has developed a list of “Special Species” as “a general term that refers to all of the taxa the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) is interested in tracking, regardless of their legal or protection status.” This is a broader list than those species protected under FESA, CESA, and other California Fish and Game Code provisions, and includes lists developed by other organizations, including, for example, the Audubon Watch List Species. Guidance documents prepared by other agencies, including the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s Sensitive Species and USFWS Birds of Special Concern, are also included on this CDFW Special Species list. Additionally, CDFW has concluded that plant species listed as CRPR 1 and 2 by the California Native Plant Society, and potentially some CRPR 3 plants, are covered by CEQA Guidelines Section 15380. Section IV, Appendix G (Environmental Checklist Form), of the CEQA Guidelines requires an evaluation of impacts to “any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.”
Porter–Cologne Water Quality Control Act
Pursuant to provisions of the Porter–Cologne Act, the RWQCBs regulate the discharge or proposed discharge of waste within any region that could affect a water of the state (California Water Code, Section 13260[a]). The State Water Resources Control Board defines a waters of the state as “any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state” (California Water Code, Section 13050[e]). All waters of the United
4.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.3-9
States are waters of the state. Waters of the state include wetlands, and the State Water Resources Control Board definition of wetlands includes the following (SWRCB 2021):
1. Natural wetlands.
2. Wetlands created by modification of a surface water of the state.
3. Artificial wetlands that meet any of the following criteria:
Approved by an agency as compensatory mitigation for impacts to other waters of the state, except where the approving agency explicitly identifies the mitigation as being of limited duration. - Specifically identified in a water quality control plan as a wetland or other water of the state. - Resulted from historic human activity, is not subject to ongoing operation and maintenance, and has become a relatively permanent part of the natural landscape. - Greater than or equal to 1 acre in size unless the artificial wetland was constructed and is currently used and maintained, primarily for one or more of the following purposes: industrial or municipal wastewater treatment or disposal; settling of sediment; detention, retention, infiltration, or treatment of stormwater runoff and other pollutants or runoff subject to regulation under a municipal, construction, or industrial permitting program; treatment of surface waters; agricultural crop irrigation or stock watering; fire suppression; industrial processing or cooling water; active surface mining – even if the site is managed for interim wetlands functions and values; log storage; treatment, storage, or distribution of recycled water; maximizing groundwater recharge (this does not include wetlands that have incidental groundwater recharge benefits); or fields flooded for rice growing.
Wetlands that may not meet all of USACE’s wetland delineation criteria are considered wetland waters of the state if, “under normal circumstances, (1) the area has continuous or recurrent saturation of the upper substrate caused by groundwater, or shallow surface water, or both; (2) the duration of such saturation is sufficient to cause anaerobic conditions in the upper substrate; and (3) the area’s vegetation is dominated by hydrophytes or the area lacks vegetation” (SWRCB 2021). Additionally, aquatic resources that USACE determines to not be waters of the United States because they lack a significant nexus to a traditional navigable water or are above the ordinary high water mark limit of federal jurisdiction may also be considered waters of the state. If a CWA Section 404 permit is not required for a project, the RWQCB may still require a permit (waste discharge requirements) for impacts to waters of the state under the Porter–Cologne Act.
Regional and Local
Multiple Species Conservation Program Plan
The Project parcels are within the boundaries of the MSCP Plan (City of San Diego 1998). The MSCP Plan is a multijurisdictional habitat conservation planning program that involves USFWS, CDFW, the County of San Diego, the Cities of San Diego and Chula Vista, and other local jurisdictions and special districts. Local jurisdictions and special districts implement the MSCP Plan for their respective portions through subarea plans. The combination of the MSCP Plan and subarea plans serve as a habitat conservation plan pursuant to FESA Section 10(a)(1)(B), and as a natural community conservation plan pursuant to the California Natural Community Conservation Planning Act of 1991 (City of San Diego 1998).
The MSCP Plan study area encompasses 582,243 acres within the southwestern portion of San Diego County. As stated in the MSCP Plan, an objective of the MSCP is to conserve a connected system of biologically viable habitat lands in a manner that maximizes the protection of sensitive species and precludes the need for future listings of
4.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.3-10
species as threatened or endangered. The MSCP Plan identifies a Multi-Habitat Planning Area (MHPA), which is the area within which the permanent MSCP Preserve is assembled and managed for its biological resources. The MHPA is defined in many areas by mapped boundaries in figures in the MSCP Plan and is also defined by quantitative targets for conservation of vegetation communities and goals and criteria for MSCP Preserve design. The MSCP Plan targets 171,917 acres within the MHPA for conservation (City of San Diego 1998).
A total of 85 plant and animal species are “covered” by the MSCP Plan. The MSCP Plan Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement identifies “Vegetation Community Conservation Target Areas” for conservation by subarea (Appendix B of the MSCP Plan [City of San Diego 1998]). A total of 2,067 acres is expected to be conserved within the Santee Subarea MHPA. With approval of each subarea plan and corresponding implementing agreement, each participating local jurisdiction receives permits and/or authorization to directly impact or take MSCP Covered Species. The Covered Species include species listed as endangered or threatened by FESA and/or CESA, as well as unlisted species. Table 3-5 in the MSCP Plan provides a list of the MSCP Covered Species, and includes specific conditions required for take authorizations (City of San Diego 1998).
Draft Santee Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan The City has been preparing its subarea plan since the original approval of the San Diego MSCP Plan and is currently in the process of completing the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan. Although the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan has not yet been approved or permitted, it is used as the guidance document for projects occurring within the City. The current Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan seeks coverage for up to 20 species, and relies on a combination of hardline conservation areas, criteria-based upland standards areas, and City-owned preserve lands to protect species and habitat (City of Santee 2025). Coverage for species is dependent on a number of factors, including multijurisdictional participation, adequate building of the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan Managed Preserve (Managed Preserve) system, adequate protection of certain populations, permanent management funding, and other factors.
The Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan Managed Preserve boundaries are a result of the City’s efforts to refine and expand the MHPA boundaries, to better define conservation priorities within the City, and to formulate a habitat conservation plan under the MSCP Plan. Because the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan is still in development, portions of the subarea plan may still change. The Project parcels are located within either the developed/disturbed areas or upland habitat with infill development areas and are entirely outside of the future or existing and planned Managed Preserve areas identified in the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan (City of Santee 2025) except for the parcels shown on Figure 4.3-1:
▪ APN 378-160-25, the northernmost Project parcel, is currently designated as Neighborhood Commercial and Open Space in the Santee General Plan (City of Santee 2003). The Open Space–designated portion of the parcel overlaps Existing Protected Open Space as described in Table 2-6 in the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan (City of Santee 2025). The proposed Project would redesignate APN 378-160-25 from Neighborhood Commercial to Medium-High Residential (R-14); the portion designated Open Space would remain designated as Open Space, and no impacts are proposed within this area. ▪ APNs 383-124-18 and 383-124-20, located in the southwest portion of the Plan Area are partially within an Existing Protected Open Space area for Forester Creek, as identified in the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan (City of Santee 2025). No impacts are proposed or would occur under any future projects within the portion of these parcels that overlap the Existing Protected Open Space.
4.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.3-11
Santee General Plan
The Conservation Element of the Santee General Plan contains policies related to protection and preservation of sensitive biological resources (City of Santee 2003). The Conservation Element of the Santee General Plan states that “all development proposals impacting biological resources should be consistent with the provisions of the City’s future Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan and Implementing Agreement, and applicable State and Federal Regulations.” The following objectives and policies are relevant to the Proposed Project:
Objective 1.0. Protect areas of unique topography or environmental significance to the greatest extent possible.
Objective 2.0. Protect floodways to reduce flood hazards, protect biological resources and preserve the aesthetic quality along water corridors.
Objective 7.0. Preserve significant biological resources.
Policy 7.1. The City shall encourage the preservation and enhancement of significant biological resources in areas designated as permanent open space.
Policy 7.2. The City shall require that all development proposals provide appropriate mitigation for identified significant biological resources including selective preservation, sensitive site planning techniques and in-kind mitigation for identified impacts.
Policy 7.3. The City shall require that, for all development proposals involving the setting aside of land for permanent open space either on-site or off-site, provisions are in place to ensure the long-term management of the open space and biological resources.
Policy 7.4. The City shall complete a Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea plan that conserves a minimum of 2,600 acres in the City as permanent open space for preservation of habitats and species.
Objective 10.0. Preserve significant natural resources, such as mineral deposits, biological resources, watercourses, groundwater, hills, canyons, and major rock outcroppings, as part of a Citywide open space system.
Policy 10.1. The City should encourage the conservation of rare or unique plants and wildlife by identifying such resources through the environmental review process and by using open space preservation, where appropriate, to preserve the resources as a condition of a project approval, consistent with the City’s future Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan.
In addition to the Conservation Element of the Santee General Plan, the City’s Land Use Element includes guiding principles that would apply to the Proposed Project as they relate to the protection of biological resources (City of Santee 2003):
▪ Guiding Principle 5: Development should respect the river environment, including protection of the riparian habitat and protected species.
▪ Guiding Principle 6: Development should protect natural drainage, and ensure protection of water quality.
4.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.3-12
4.3.3 Environmental Impacts
4.3.3.1 Methodology
The Project is a policy document that does not include or propose any site-specific development that could directly result in construction or operational impacts to the environment. Rather, implementation of the Project would result in changes to land use designations in specific areas of the City, which would allow for future development/ redevelopment to occur. Therefore, this PEIR does not assess the site-specific construction and operation details of each future development within the Plan Area. Instead, it assesses the impacts associated with the changes to existing land uses and the associated overall effects of the build-out of the Project through 2045 where reasonably foreseeable physical changes to the environment could occur.
This biological resources analysis is based on and refers to the BTR prepared for this Proposed Project and included in the PEIR as Appendix D. Although no development is currently proposed, the purpose of the BTR is to provide the City with the biological resources information needed to screen future projects for the potential to impact biological resources and determine if additional studies are required. The BTR will also enable staff to quickly determine the appropriate CEQA process related to biological resources required by each project applicant.
4.3.3.2 Thresholds of Significance
The significance criteria used to evaluate the Project’s impacts to biological resources are based on CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. For the purposes of this Project, a potentially significant impact to biological resources would occur if the Proposed Project would:
1. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
2. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
3. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.
4. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
5. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.
6. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
4.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.3-13
4.3.3.3 Land Use Element Update Relevant Goals and Policies The following proposed Land Use Element Update policies are specifically relevant to biological resources:
Policy LU-7.4. Continue to support the preservation and expansion of the Mission Trails Regional Park, consistent with the approved master plan.
Policy LU-7.5. Encourage the preservation of the biological and visual resources of the San Diego River as part of any development in the Town Center area.
Policy LU-7.6. Require that protected open space that overlaps parcels with planned development continues to be protected from the impacts of development.
4.3.3.4 Impact Analysis
Threshold 4.3-1: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? As previously described in the Methodology Section above, the following analysis considers the potential impacts related to reasonably foreseeable development facilitated by the Proposed Project. Because the majority of the Project parcels occur within the City’s Developed and Disturbed Areas, as described in Section 4.3.2.2 of the Draft Subarea Plan (City of Santee 2025), future development is not anticipated to result in impacts to special-status species. However, no special-status species surveys have been conducted within any of the future development sites in the Project parcels, and potential to occur was based, in part, on the vegetation communities occurring within the San Diego Geographic Information Source database. However, the vegetation mapping was conducted at a landscape level, and there is potential for vegetation communities that were not captured by the existing vegetation mapping data to occur within the Project parcels. Therefore, to determine special-status species potential, verification of the vegetation communities and/or land cover types within all potential future development sites would be conducted as directed by Mitigation Measure (MM)-BIO-1, which would require a general biological reconnaissance survey. The general biological reconnaissance survey would include vegetation mapping and/or confirmation of the existing vegetation mapping, as well as identification of potentially suitable habitat for specialstatus species within a future development site. If the general biological reconnaissance survey determines there is potential for special-status species, the applicable mitigation measures outlined below would be implemented.
Special-Status Plant Species
Based on the presence of suitable habitat and documented occurrences within the Project parcels, there are 51 special-status plant species with a moderate potential to occur. Although potential future development is not anticipated to result in impacts to special-status species, verification of the potential for special-status plant species within a potential future development site would occur during the general biological reconnaissance survey, as directed by MM-BIO-1. If potential future development within the Project parcels occurs within potentially suitable habitat for special-status plant species, then implementation of MM-BIO-2 would occur. MM-BIO-2 would reduce impacts to special-status plant species to less than significant through implementation of focused botanical surveys conducted during the appropriate season and implementation of appropriate compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts to special-status plant species prior to Project implementation.
4.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.3-14
Potential future development within the Project parcels has potential to result in indirect impacts to special-status plant species during construction. Therefore, MM-BIO-3 would be implemented to minimize the potential effects of construction-related impacts by requiring delineation of environmentally sensitive areas, restoration of temporary impacts, invasive species control, trash control, on-site training of construction personnel, shielded lighting, stockpiling restrictions, erosion and sedimentation control measures, and vehicle maintenance restrictions. Longterm indirect effects to special-status plants would be mitigated to less-than-significant levels through compliance with MM-BIO-4, which includes measures that would protect special-status species and prevent indirect effects associated with drainage, invasive species, and barriers.
Special-Status Wildlife Species
Based on the presence of suitable habitat and documented occurrences within the Project parcels, there are 24 special-status wildlife species with moderate or high potential to occur (Table 4.3-2). Although potential future development is not anticipated to result in impacts to special-status species, verification of the potential for specialstatus wildlife species within a potential future development site would occur during the general biological reconnaissance survey, as directed by MM-BIO-1. If potential future development within the Project parcels occurs within potentially suitable habitat for special-status wildlife species, then implementation of MM-BIO-5 through MM- BIO-14 would occur, as appropriate (Table 4.3-2). MM-BIO-5 through MM-BIO-14 would reduce direct impacts to special-status wildlife species to less than significant through implementation of focused surveys conducted during the appropriate season and implementation of appropriate compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts to special-status wildlife species prior to Project implementation. Specifically, MM-BIO-5, MM-BIO-7, MM- BIO-9, MM- BIO- 10, MM-BIO-13, and MM-BIO-14 require focused surveys for western spadefoot (Spea hammondii), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), coastal California gnatcatcher, least Bell’s vireo, Crotch's bumble bee (Bombus crotchii), and Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino) if suitable habitat is identified during the habitat assessment required by MM-BIO-1. If surveys determine species presence and impacts to individuals or habitat cannot be avoided, mitigation for impacts would be required as directed by these mitigation measures. If federally or statelisted species are impacted by any potential future development, federal and state Endangered Species Act permitting would have to be conducted separately by the Project applicant until the adoption and permitting of the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan, which would transfer take permitting authority for Covered Species to the City.
Construction-related direct impacts to other special-status wildlife species would be reduced to less than significant through pre-construction surveys, as follows: MM-BIO-6 would be implemented to avoid impacts to special-status reptile surveys; MM-BIO-8 would require nesting bird surveys, buffers to bird nests, and avoidance of impacts to nesting birds; MM-BIO-11 would require surveys for roosting bats; and MM-BIO-12 would require woodrat nest avoidance. Direct impacts to less than 0.1 acres of occupied habitat for special-status species are not considered significant and do not require habitat mitigation. All direct impacts to occupied habitat greater than 0.1 acres occurring within potential future development sites would require habitat mitigation as directed by MM-BIO-6, MM- BIO-11, and MM- BIO-12.
Given the mobile nature of bat and bird species (i.e., they are likely to move away from impact areas to utilize adjacent areas of equally suitable habitat), Project implementation would not result in direct impacts to foraging individuals. Very minimal natural roosting or nesting habitat (e.g., trees, shrubs, etc.) is present within the Project parcels, but the Project parcels does include buildings and human-made structures that could provide roosting habitat for bat species and ornamental trees for nesting birds. Impacts to foraging habitat used by these species would be mitigated through implementation of MM-BIO-15, which would require mitigation for impacts to sensitive natural vegetation communities at the ratios described in Table 5-13, Uniform Mitigation Ratios, of the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan (City of Santee 2025), and MM-BIO-17, which would require replacement of City’s Urban Forestry Ordinance trees at a 1:1 ratio.
4.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.3-15
Potential future development within the Project parcels has potential to result in indirect impacts to special-status wildlife species during construction. Therefore, implementation of MM-BIO-3 would be implemented to minimize the potential effects of construction-related impacts by requiring delineation of environmentally sensitive areas, restoration of temporary impacts, invasive species control, trash control, on-site training of construction personnel, shielded lighting, stockpiling restrictions, erosion and sedimentation control measures, and vehicle maintenance restrictions. Long-term indirect effects to special-status wildlife would be mitigated to less-than-significant levels through compliance with MM-BIO-4, which includes measures that would protect special-status species and prevent indirect effects associated with drainage, lighting, noise, invasive species, and barriers.
Table 4.3-2. Mitigation Required for Special-Status Wildlife Species with Moderate or High Potential to Occur
Scientific Name Common Name
Status
(Federal/
State)
Draft Santee
MSCP
Subarea Plan
Mitigation Required Only If
Project Parcel Includes
Suitable Habitat Based on
MM-BIO-1 Recon Survey:
Amphibians
Spea hammondii western spadefoot NoneFPT/PL,
SSC
Covered MM-BIO-5 Western Spadefoot
Survey and Mitigation
Reptiles
Anniella stebbinsi southern California
legless lizard
None/SSC None MM-BIO-6 Pre-Construction
Survey for Special-Status
Reptiles and Avoidance
Arizona elegans
occidentalis
California glossy
snake
None/SSC None MM-BIO-6 Pre-Construction
Survey for Special-Status
Reptiles and Avoidance
Aspidoscelis
hyperythra beldingi
Belding’s orangethroated whiptailNone/WL Covered MM-BIO-6 Pre-Construction Survey for Special-Status
Reptiles and Avoidance
Aspidoscelis tigris
stejnegeri
San Diegan tiger
whiptail
None/SSC None MM-BIO-6 Pre-Construction
Survey for Special-Status
Reptiles and Avoidance
Coleonyx variegatus
abbotti
San Diego banded
gecko
None/SSC None MM-BIO-6 Pre-Construction
Survey for Special-Status
Reptiles and Avoidance
Crotalus ruber red diamondback
rattlesnake
None/SSC None MM-BIO-6 Pre-Construction
Survey for Special-Status
Reptiles and Avoidance
Phrynosoma
blainvillii
Blainville’s horned
lizard
None/SSC Covered MM-BIO-6 Pre-Construction
Survey for Special-Status
Reptiles and Avoidance
Salvadora hexalepis
virgultea
coast patch-nosed
snake
None/SSC None MM-BIO-6 Pre-Construction
Survey for Special-Status
Reptiles and Avoidance
Thamnophis
hammondii
two-striped
gartersnake
None/SSC None MM-BIO-6 Pre-Construction
Survey for Special-Status
Reptiles and Avoidance
4.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.3-16
Table 4.3-2. Mitigation Required for Special-Status Wildlife Species with Moderate or High Potential to Occur
Scientific Name Common Name
Status
(Federal/
State)
Draft Santee
MSCP
Subarea Plan
Mitigation Required Only If
Project Parcel Includes
Suitable Habitat Based on
MM-BIO-1 Recon Survey:
Birds
Athene cunicularia
(burrow sites &
some wintering
sites)
burrowing owl BCC/SSC, SC Covered MM-BIO-7 Burrowing Owl Survey and Mitigation
Elanus leucurus
(nesting)
white-tailed kite None/FP None MM-BIO-8 Nesting Bird
Survey
Icteria virens
(nesting)
yellow-breasted
chat
None/SSC None MM-BIO-8 Nesting Bird
Survey
Polioptila californica
californica
coastal California
gnatcatcher
FT/SSC Covered MM-BIO-9 Coastal California
Gnatcatcher Survey and
Mitigation
Setophaga petechia
(nesting)
yellow warbler None/SSC None MM-BIO-8 Nesting Bird
Survey
Vireo bellii pusillus
(nesting)
least Bell's vireo FE/SE Covered MM-BIO-10 Least Bell’s Vireo Survey and Mitigation
Mammals
Antrozous pallidus pallid bat None/SSC None MM-BIO-11 Roosting Bat Avoidance and Mitigation
Dasypterus
xanthinus
western yellow bat None/SSC None MM-BIO-11 Roosting Bat Avoidance and Mitigation
Eumops perotis
californicus
western mastiff bat None/SSC None MM-BIO-11 Roosting Bat Avoidance and Mitigation
Nyctinomops
macrotis
big free-tailed bat None/SSC None MM-BIO-11 Roosting Bat Avoidance and Mitigation
Lasiurus frantzii western red bat None/SSC None MM-BIO-11 Roosting Bat Avoidance and Mitigation
Neotoma lepida
intermedia
San Diego desert
woodrat
None/SSC None MM-BIO-12 Woodrat Nest
Avoidance and Mitigation
Invertebrates
Bombus crotchii Crotch’s bumble
bee
None/SC Covered MM-BIO-13 Crotch’s Bumble
Bee Survey and Mitigation
Euphydryas editha
quino
quino checkerspot
butterfly
FE/NoneSC Covered MM-BIO-14 Quino
Checkerspot Survey and
Mitigation
Notes: MSCP = Multiple Species Conservation Program; Recon = reconnaissance. If the general biological reconnaissance survey determines there is no potential for special-status species occurrences, then no further CEQA documentation or mitigation measures would be required. If federally or state-listed species are impacted by any potential future development, federal and state Endangered Species Act permitting would have to be conducted separately by the Project applicant until the adoption and permitting of the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan, which would transfer take permitting authority for Covered Species to the City of Santee.
Status Legend
Federal
BCC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern
4.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.3-17
FE: Federally listed as endangered
FT: Federally listed as threatened
FPT: Federally proposed for listing as threatened
State
FP: CDFW Fully Protected species
PL: Proposed for listing
SC: State Candidate Species
SE: State listed as endangered
SSC: California Species of Special Concern
WL: CDFW Watch List species
Threshold 4.3-2: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Because the majority of the Project parcels occur within the City’s Developed and Disturbed Areas, as described in Section 4.3.2.2 of the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan (City of Santee 2025), potential future development is not anticipated to result in impacts to sensitive natural communities. As described in Section 4.3.1, Existing Conditions, the existing vegetation mapping data includes six vegetation communities and/or land cover types within the Project. Of that total, there are four vegetation communities (southern cottonwood–willow riparian forest, tamarisk scrub, Diegan coastal sage scrub, and non-native grassland) considered sensitive natural communities by the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan (City of Santee 2025). Therefore, impacts to these four vegetation communities would be significant under CEQA. It should be noted that the vegetation communities listed in Section 4.3.1 are mapped at a landscape level, and there is potential for vegetation communities that were not captured by the existing vegetation mapping data to occur within the Project parcels. Therefore, Project-specific vegetation mapping would be required to determine the specific alliances within all future project sites, as directed by MM-BIO-1. If potential future development within the Project occurs within a sensitive natural community or riparian habitat, impacts would be reduced to less than significant through implementation of MM-BIO-15, which would require mitigation for impacts to sensitive natural vegetation communities at the ratios described in Table 5-13, Uniform Mitigation Ratios, of the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan (City of Santee 2025).
Indirect impacts to sensitive natural communities or riparian habitat within the Project parcels would be avoided through implementation of MM-BIO-3, which would minimize the potential effects of construction-related impacts by requiring delineation of environmentally sensitive areas, restoration of temporary impacts, invasive species control, trash control, on-site training of construction personnel, shielded lighting, stockpiling restrictions, erosion and sedimentation control measures, and vehicle maintenance restrictions. Long-term indirect effects to natural communities or riparian habitat would be mitigated to less-than-significant levels through compliance with MM-BIO-4, which includes measures that would prevent indirect effects associated with drainage, invasive species, and barriers.
Threshold 4.3-3: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Because the majority of the Project parcels occur within the City’s Developed and Disturbed Areas as described in Section 4.3.2.2 of the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan (City of Santee 2025), potential future development is not anticipated to result in impacts to state or federal wetlands (i.e., jurisdictional aquatic resources). Although a formal jurisdictional delineation was not conducted, a preliminary assessment providing an overview of the potential jurisdictional resources within the Project parcels is shown on Figure 4.3-4. All of the potential jurisdictional aquatic resources are potentially regulated by USACE under Section 404 of the CWA, RWQCB under Section 401 of the CWA and Porter–Cologne Act, and CDFW under Section 1600-1616 of the California Fish and Game Code. Therefore,
4.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.3-18
verification of jurisdictional aquatic resources within all potential future development sites would be conducted as directed by MM-BIO-1. If there is potential for these resources to occur, a formal delineation of these resources shall be conducted in accordance with each agency’s requirements, guidance, and standards, as directed by MM- BIO-16. Potential direct impacts to state and/or federally regulated jurisdictional aquatic resources, would be reduced to less than significant through MM-BIO-16 and MM-BIO-15, which would require mitigation for impacts to sensitive natural vegetation communities at the ratios described in Table 5-13, Uniform Mitigation Ratios, of the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan (City of Santee 2025).
Indirect impacts to jurisdictional aquatic resources within the Project parcels would be avoided through implementation of MM-BIO-3, which would minimize the potential effects of construction-related impacts by requiring delineation of environmentally sensitive areas, restoration of temporary impacts, invasive species control, trash control, on-site training of construction personnel, shielded lighting, stockpiling restrictions, erosion and sedimentation control measures, and vehicle maintenance restrictions. Long-term indirect effects to natural communities or riparian habitat would be mitigated to less-than-significant levels through compliance with MM-BIO-4, which includes measures that would prevent indirect effects associated with drainage, invasive species, and barriers.
Threshold 4.3-4: Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Because the majority of the Project parcels occur within the City’s Developed and Disturbed Areas, as described in Section 4.3.2.2 of the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan (City of Santee 2025), potential future development is not anticipated to result in impacts to wildlife movement or nursery sites. Overall, the Project parcels do not function as wildlife corridors or habitat linkages due to the limited number of undeveloped areas within the Project parcels and the surrounding buffer. A total of five Project parcels (APNs 378-160-25, 383-156-03, 383-450-02, 383-450- 05, and 383-450-04) partially or completely overlap the established biological core areas located within the City as shown on Figure 4.3-2 and only three of those parcels (378-160-25, 383-450-05, and 383-450-04) contain areas with native vegetation. Areas of natural vegetation associated with APN 378-160-25 would not be impacted by future projects due to its designation as Open Space. APNs 383-450-05 and 383-450-04 are currently developed parcels with natural vegetation associated with Mast Park. Future impacts within these parcels would not significantly impact wildlife movement. Additionally, the species-specific mitigation measures and any future project’s obligation to comply with the City’s Urban Forestry Ordinance (City Municipal Code Section 8.06) would further reduce any potential impacts to wildlife movement.
Potential future development within the Project parcels has potential to result in indirect impacts to wildlife movement during construction. Therefore, implementation of MM-BIO-3 would be implemented to minimize the potential effects of construction-related impacts by requiring delineation of environmentally sensitive areas, restoration of temporary impacts, invasive species control, trash control, on-site training of construction personnel, shielded lighting, stockpiling restrictions, erosion and sedimentation control measures, and vehicle maintenance restrictions. Long-term indirect effects to wildlife movement would be mitigated to less-than-significant levels through compliance with MM-BIO-4, which includes measures that would prevent indirect effects associated with drainage, invasive species, and barriers.
Threshold 4.3-5: Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
The City’s Urban Forestry Ordinance contains tree-related policies, regulations, and generally accepted standards for planting, trimming, and removing trees on public property and public rights-of-way (City Municipal Code
4.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.3-19
Section 8.06 [City of Santee 2020]). The ordinance gives the City control of all trees, shrubs, and other plantings in any street, park, public right-of-way, landscape maintenance district or easement, or other City-owned property. City staff review of development plans for City-owned and maintained property would ensure that the proposed landscaping and maintenance requirements conform to the Urban Forestry Ordinance. Therefore, the proposed Project would comply with the City’s Urban Forestry Ordinance, and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated (i.e., MM-BIO-17).
In the Conservation Element of the Santee General Plan, biological resources are discussed, and specific objectives and policies are presented (City of Santee 2003). City staff review of any future projects would ensure there are no conflicts with the objectives and policies presented in the Conservation Element of the Santee General Plan (City of Santee 2003). Therefore, impacts to local policies and ordinances would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.
Threshold 4.3-6: Would the project 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 Project parcels are within the boundaries of the MSCP Plan (City of San Diego 1998). The Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan would serve as a habitat conservation plan under the MSCP Plan (City of San Diego 1998) pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of FESA and as a natural community conservation plan pursuant to the California Natural Community Conservation Planning Act of 1991. The Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan, once finalized, will contribute to the regional MSCP for preservation, mitigation for impacts, and conservation of sensitive biological resources within San Diego County. The Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan is also intended to provide cumulative mitigation for impacts to Covered Species within the City’s jurisdiction, as long as projects are consistent with and covered by provisions of the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan, and that they ensure sufficient biological resources are conserved to assist in the conservation and recovery of Covered Species under the MSCP.
Although the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan has not yet been approved or permitted, it is used as the guidance document for projects occurring within the City. As shown on Figure 4.3-1 and discussed in Section 4.3.2, the Project parcels are entirely outside of the Managed Preserve areas identified in the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan (City of Santee 2025), with the exception of three parcels that partially overlay Existing Conservation Areas. However, no impacts are proposed or would occur under any future projects within the portion of these parcels that overlap the Existing Protected Open Space. The Project’s mitigation measures MM-BIO-1 through MM-BIO-16 are in compliance with the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan (City of Santee 2025), and their implementation would reduce any potential biological impacts occurring from future proposed projects to less than significant. Furthermore, Project implementation would not conflict with the provisions of the MSCP Plan or Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan, would not prevent the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan from being approved, and would not compromise continued implementation of the MSCP in San Diego County. Therefore, implementation of the Project’s mitigation program would reduce impacts to less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
4.3.4 Mitigation Measures
As stated in the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan (City of Santee 2025), future Covered Activities occurring with the City’s Developed and Disturbed Areas and Infill Development Areas require that projects’ address avoidance and minimization measures pursuant to Section 5.5 of the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan. This section includes recommendations for avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation of impacts from potential future development within the Project parcels to special-status biological resources to reduce the impacts to less-than-significant levels
4.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.3-20
and provide consistency with the measures summarized in Table 5-12 of the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan (City of Santee 2025). If an applicant proposing potential future development within the Project parcels does not want to comply or cannot comply with these mitigation measures, additional CEQA documentation by the project applicant would be required. Furthermore, although unlikely, because the vegetation communities listed in Section 4.3.1.1 are mapped at a landscape level and not based on field surveys, there is potential for special-status wildlife species that were not captured by this EIR’s analysis to occur within the Project parcels. If this particular scenario applies to a Project parcel, additional CEQA documentation by the project applicant may be required.
Additionally, if federally or state-listed species are impacted by any potential future development, federal and state Endangered Species Act permitting would have to be conducted separately by the project applicant until the adoption and permitting of the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan, which would transfer take permitting authority for Covered Species to the City.
MM-BIO-1 General Biological Reconnaissance Survey. Prior to issuance of a grading permit within the Project site, a general biological reconnaissance survey, including vegetation mapping and/or confirmation of the existing mapping, identification of potentially suitable habitat for special-status species (i.e., those defined in Section 3.3 and analyzed in Sections 4.3 and 4.4 of the Santee Land Use Element Update Biological Technical Report), and an assessment of the potential for jurisdictional aquatic resources, shall be conducted by a qualified biologist approved by the City of Santee (City). Qualified biologist is defined in Section 5.5.1.1 of the Draft Santee Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan as a person having the appropriate expertise and level of experience to complete habitat assessments, focused surveys, and application of avoidance, minimization, and avoidance measures described in the Draft MSCP Subarea Plan. At minimum, the person shall have a BS or BA in wildlife management, ecology, zoology, botany, biology, or other closely related field, and at least 2 years’ experience conducting field investigations in San Diego County. If undertaking surveys or activities (e.g., relocation, translocation) that could result in take of any federally listed species, the person shall possess appropriate Section 10(a)(1)(A) recovery permits and for any state-listed or state Species of Special Concern shall possess appropriate state permits/memoranda to conduct such surveys or activities. Qualifications shall be approved by the City. The biological reconnaissance survey must include a habitat assessment of the proposed project site for Draft MSCP Subarea Plan Covered Species and suitable habitats during the appropriate field conditions and timing in accordance with protocols, as applicable. Documentation of the survey results shall be incorporated into a biological resources technical report and provided to the City, including whether the site contains any sensitive natural communities; an assessment of potential for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and/or Regional Water Quality Control Board jurisdictional aquatic resources of the United States/state; and the potential for any special-status species. Based on the results of the field surveys, the City shall require the project proponent to modify the project design, as appropriate, prior to approval. The City shall also require that the project is adjusted, as necessary, to ensure the project implementation scheduling avoids and minimizes effects on biological resources while taking into consideration the degree of sensitivity of biological resources within the project area. Habitat types with a higher degree of sensitivity, such as rare/limited vegetation types (e.g., native grasslands, cactus scrub) and riparian/ wetland features, shall be avoided to the maximum extent practicable, as determined by the City in coordination with the Wildlife Agencies (i.e., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Wildlife).
4.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.3-21
If the general biological reconnaissance survey determines there are no sensitive natural vegetation communities, no potentially jurisdictional aquatic resources, and no potential for special-status species occurrences, then no further California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documentation or mitigation measures would be required. If the results of the general biological reconnaissance survey determine there are biological resources that are not evaluated in the City of Santee Land Use Element Update Biological Technical Report, then additional CEQA documentation would be required by the project applicant. If the general biological reconnaissance survey determines there are sensitive natural vegetation communities, potential jurisdictional aquatic resources, and/or potential for special-status species that are evaluated in the City of Santee Land Use Element Update Biological Technical Report, then the applicable mitigation measures outlined in MM-BIO-2 through MM-BIO-16 shall be implemented.
MM-BIO-2 Special-Status Plant Focused Surveys and Mitigation: Prior to issuance of a grading permit involving undeveloped lands within the Project site, a habitat assessment for the potential for special-status plants to occur shall be conducted by a qualified biologist, as directed by MM-BIO-1.
If there is suitable habitat for special-status plants, then a focused survey during the species’ appropriate blooming period shall be required. If potential habitat for San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Covered Species, including Narrow Endemic Species, occurs within any future project site, then the project shall comply with Section 5.5.6, Narrow Endemic Species Standards, and Section 5.5.8, Covered Plant Species Translocation and Restoration Conservation Standards, of the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan, as outlined below.
If special-status plants are found during the focused survey, occupied areas shall be avoided to the greatest extent feasible and shall be fenced during project activities to avoid indirect impacts. Onsite avoidance areas shall be conserved in place and would be dedicated to the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan Managed Preserve with in-perpetuity management. If avoidance is not possible, then additional measures shall be required as outlined below.
If impacts are proposed to occupied areas, habitat mitigation shall occur in accordance with the mitigation ratios included in Table 5-13 of the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan and consistent with MM-BIO-15, and at a minimum 1:1 ratio (occupied acres preserved to occupied acres impacted), which can occur through on- or off-site preservation and/or transplanting. All preservation areas shall receive permanent protection through a conservation easement or other protective mechanism, as well as funding for long-term management and monitoring. To meet the 1:1 habitat mitigation ratio, it may be necessary to transplant individuals from the impact area to unoccupied areas within the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan Managed Preserve. Prior to transplantation, a mitigation and monitoring plan shall be submitted to the City of Santee (City) (and appropriate resource agencies if listed species are proposed for transplanting) for review by a qualified biologist and approval prior to ground disturbance to occupied habitat. Upon approval, the plan shall be implemented by the applicant.
For all project activities that have the potential to impact any one of the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan Narrow Endemic Species (i.e., San Diego ambrosia [Ambrosia pumil], San Diego thornmint [Acanthomintha ilicifolia], and variegated dudleya [Dudleya variegate]), the project shall be required to implement standards that require avoidance and minimization of impacts and speciesspecific mitigation measures for any remaining unavoidable impacts that will not exceed 20% loss of any individual subpopulation/occurrence, in accordance with Section 5.5.6 of the Draft Santee
4.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.3-22
MSCP Subarea Plan. If the 80% conservation standard cannot be met for a given project, the project applicant may present a Biologically Superior Alternative and biological equivalency findings consistent with the guidelines described in Section 5.5.6 of the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan.
The City shall obtain approval of the deviation from these standards from the Wildlife Agencies at the time of project-specific environmental review or other permitting process.
If a proposed project has occurrences/populations of Covered Species San Diego barrel cactus (Ferocactus viridescens), San Diego goldenstar (Bloomeria clevelandii), variegated dudleya, or willowy monardella (Monardella viminea), the project proponent shall be required to demonstrate that 80% of the occurrences/populations will be protected in perpetuity through protection and/or translocation/restoration within the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan Managed Preserve lands. If translocation or restoration is required to meet this threshold, the project proponent shall complete a restoration plan as described below and in accordance with Section 7.3 of the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan.
The mitigation and monitoring plan for the transplanted special-status plant(s) shall describe habitat improvement/restoration measures to be completed prior to introducing transplanted special-status plants. Habitat improvement/restoration shall be based on special-status plant occupied habitat. The plan shall specify: (1) the location of mitigation site(s); (2) site preparation measures such as topsoil treatment, soil decompaction, erosion control, temporary irrigation systems, or other measures as appropriate; (3) the source of all plant propagules (seed, potted nursery stock, etc.) and the quantity and species of seed or potted stock of all plants to be introduced or planted into the restoration/enhancement areas; (4) a schedule and action plan to maintain and monitor the enhancement/restoration areas that shall include, at minimum, qualitative annual monitoring for revegetation success and site degradation due to erosion, trespass, or animal damage for a period no less than 2 years; (5) measures to avoid long-term indirect effects; and (6) contingency measures such as replanting, weed control, or erosion control to be implemented if habitat improvement/ restoration efforts are not successful. In addition, the plan shall specify methods to collect specialstatus plants and introduce them into the mitigation site.
If federally or state-listed plants are impacted by any potential future development, federal and state Endangered Species Act permitting would have to be conducted separately by the applicant until the adoption and permitting of the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan, which would transfer the take permitting authority for Covered Species to the City.
MM-BIO-3 Standard Best Management Practices. Prior to issuance of a grading or construction permit, the following best management practices (BMPs), when applicable, shall be included on grading and construction plans notes, in accordance with Section 5.5.1.1 of the Draft Santee Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan. The City of Santee (City) shall have the right to access and inspect any sites of approved projects, including any restoration/enhancement area for compliance with project approval conditions, including these BMPs.
Delineation of Environmentally Sensitive Areas
▪ Prior to clearing, grubbing, grading, or construction activities, highly visible barriers (such as orange construction fencing, stakes, or flagging, depending on the size of the project and the sensitivity and proximity of the biological resources) shall be installed around areas along the
4.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.3-23
edge of the project footprint to designate environmentally sensitive areas to be protected from construction-related activities. Environmentally sensitive areas to be avoided shall be identified as part of the environmental review process by a qualified biologist. No project activity of any type shall be permitted within these environmentally sensitive areas (with exceptions for planned biological restoration activities such as transplantation). In addition, heavy equipment, including motor vehicles, shall not be allowed to operate within the environmentally sensitive areas. All construction equipment shall be operated in a manner so as to prevent accidental damage to environmentally sensitive areas and associated barriers. No structure of any kind, equipment staging, incidental storage of equipment or supplies, or construction access roads shall be allowed within these protected zones. Silt fence barriers shall be installed, as appropriate, at the environmentally sensitive area boundary to prevent accidental deposition of fill material or sediment runoff into areas where vegetation or other sensitive features are adjacent to planned grading activities. Construction footprints abutting the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan Managed Preserve (Managed Preserve) shall be clearly defined with flagging and/or fencing and shall be removed upon completion of the project activities.
Restoration of Temporary Impacts
▪ Areas of natural habitat that are temporarily affected by project activities shall be restored to a condition that will reflect the surrounding native vegetation characteristics and return these areas to pre-disturbance conditions, if not better, if the site is in degraded condition at the initiation of the project. Restoration plans shall be completed as part of the project design for review and approval by the City. Restoration plans shall include specific details for on-site and off-site restoration activities and shall document how the proposal provides offsets for the temporal loss (as described in Table 5-13, Uniform Mitigation Ratios, of the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan), including success criteria (e.g., percent cover of specified plants) and the timeline for restoration. Restoration that does not meet the success criteria within 3 years shall be considered a permanent impact and shall be required to mitigate accordingly, consistent with MM-BIO-15.
Invasive Species Control
▪ Invasive exotic plant species shall be removed from the project work area and controlled during construction and operation periods. The use (i.e., planting, seeding, propagation, or transplantation) of known invasive plant species (i.e., plant species listed in the California Invasive Plant Council California Invasive Plant Inventory) shall be prohibited for construction, revegetation, and landscaping activities. Project measures shall be included to ensure invasive plant material is not spread from the project site to other areas by disposal off site or by tracking seed on equipment, clothing, and shoes. Equipment/material imported from an area of invasive plants must be identified and measures implemented to prevent importation and spreading of non-native plant material within the project site. Disposal of the plant debris shall follow the regulations set by the County of San Diego agriculture commissioner. All construction equipment shall be cleaned to remove dirt, seeds, vegetative material, or other debris that could contain or hold seeds of noxious weeds before entering and leaving the project site.
Eradication strategies (i.e., exotic plant abatement programs) shall be employed should an invasion occur during construction. In addition, all planting stock to be brought onto the project site for landscaping shall be first inspected by a qualified pest inspector to ensure it is free of
4.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.3-24
pest species (e.g., Argentine ants [Iridomyrmex humil] and fire ants [Solenopsis invicta]) that could invade natural areas.
Trash Control
▪ To avoid attracting predators of Covered Species and other sensitive species, the project site shall be kept clean of debris. All food-related trash items shall be enclosed in sealed containers and removed from the site(s) daily.
On-Site Training and Construction Monitoring
▪ When in or near natural habitat areas, all personnel involved in the on-site project construction shall be required to participate in a pre-construction training and education program administered by the City to understand the avoidance and minimization obligations of the project. ▪ The City shall require that a qualified biologist monitor construction activities, as determined during the project-specific environmental review, for the duration of the project to ensure that measures are being employed to avoid incidental disturbance of habitat, species of concern, and other sensitive biological resources outside the project footprint.
Lighting
▪ Any temporary safety or security night lighting for project activities abutting or near the Managed Preserve shall be selectively placed, use the lowest light intensity practicable, be fully shielded to prevent spillover in Managed Preserve areas, and be directed away from all native vegetative communities.
▪ No new lighting shall be allowed in the Managed Preserve areas except where essential for roadways, facility use, and safety and security purposes. New light sources abutting or near the Managed Preserve shall be oriented downward, use the lowest light intensity, be pointed away from habitat areas to the extent practicable, and be fully shielded so that the lighting does not spill over into Managed Preserve areas and potentially impact wildlife and other ecosystem resources.
Stockpiling Topsoil
▪ Topsoil stockpiles associated with project activities shall be placed only outside of Managed Preserve areas to minimize the damage to habitats. If fill or topsoil is imported into the Managed Preserve, the fill shall be clean and free of foreign debris and non-native plant material.
Stormwater and Water Quality Best Management Practices
▪ The City shall require project proponents to identify and implement structural and nonstructural BMPs to control sediment and nonstormwater discharges from project sites to protect water quality and minimize sedimentation/siltation effects off site. Actions to prevent sediment from entering watercourses, aquatic areas, wetlands, and riparian areas during and after construction may include, but are not limited to, the following BMPs: sedimentation basins, silt fencing, fiber rolls and other erosion control blankets, gravel bag berms, sand bag barriers,
4.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.3-25
tracking controls, stockpile management, dry season scheduling, proper material delivery and storage, solid waste management, concrete waste management, preservation of existing vegetation, temporary soil stabilization, dust and erosion control, soil binders, and straw mulch.
No site personnel shall discard solid or liquid materials into jurisdictional water features, wetland or riparian areas, or any Managed Preserve lands. ▪ In addition to temporary construction-related BMPs, permanent treatment BMPs shall be included in the project design as part of the upgrading and installation of storm drain system facilities and storm drain controls associated with a project. Permanent BMPs shall be implemented for the protection of water quality that are designed to meet Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit requirements and shall be included within the project footprint. The probable selection of permanent treatment BMPs includes infiltration devices (infiltration trenches), biofiltration swales, and biofiltration strips. Infiltration trenches are basins or trenches that store runoff and allow it to infiltrate into the ground, thus preventing pollutants in the captured runoff from reaching surface waters. Biofiltration strips are vegetated land areas over which stormwater flows as sheet flow. Biofiltration swales are vegetated channels, typically configured as trapezoidal or v-shaped channels, that receive and convey stormwater flows while meeting water quality criteria and other flow criteria. Pollutants are removed by filtration through the vegetation, sedimentation, adsorption to soil particles, and infiltration through the soil. Strips and swales are effective at trapping litter, total suspended sediment, and particulate metals. Biofiltration strips and swales shall be required by the City where appropriate, with consideration toward wherever site conditions and climate allow vegetation to be established and where flow velocities will not cause scour. The intent of the BMPs implemented for the Covered Activities is to reduce pollutants in stormwater discharge to the maximum extent practicable.
Vehicle and Equipment Restrictions and Maintenance
▪ Equipment storage, fueling, and staging areas shall be located on upland sites with minimal risks of direct drainage into riparian areas, other sensitive habitats, and jurisdictional waters of the United States/state. These designated areas shall be located in such a manner as to prevent any runoff from entering these sensitive habitats. Necessary precautions shall be taken to prevent the release of cement or other toxic substances into surface waters. Projectrelated spills of hazardous materials shall be reported to appropriate entities including but not limited to the applicable jurisdictional city or county, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and/or RWQCB and shall be cleaned up immediately and contaminated soils removed to approved disposal areas.
MM-BIO-4 Avoidance/Minimization of Long-Term Indirect Impacts. Prior to issuance of a construction permit, the City of Santee shall ensure that potential future development plans and conditions of approval adhere to the following adjacency requirements to avoid and minimize potential indirect impacts to nearby Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan Managed Preserve (Managed Preserve) areas, including native species and vegetation communities:
Fuel Modification Zones: Any future development project implemented under the Proposed Project that is required to include fuel modification zones and is located adjacent to existing open space
4.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.3-26
areas shall include the fuel modification zones within the project footprint thereby not encroaching on or resulting in impacts to existing open space areas.
Drainage: Future development within 300 feet of Managed Preserve areas shall incorporate measures, including measures required through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System requirements, to ensure that the quantity and quality of runoff discharged from a future project site is not altered in an adverse way when compared with existing conditions. In particular, measures shall be put in place to avoid discharge of untreated surface runoff from developed and paved areas into suitable habitat for special-status species. Stormwater systems shall be designed to prevent the release of toxins, chemicals, petroleum products, excess water, exotic plant materials, or other elements that might degrade or harm biological resources or ecosystem processes. This can be accomplished using a variety of methods, including natural detention basins, grass swales, or mechanical trapping devices. Regular maintenance shall occur to ensure effective operations of runoff control systems.
Lighting: Night lighting from new development within 300 feet of Managed Preserve areas shall be fully shielded and directed downward and away from suitable habitat for special-status species to protect species from direct night lighting. Shielding shall be incorporated in project designs to ensure ambient lighting is not increased.
Noise: Project activities within 300 feet of Managed Preserve areas shall implement minimization and mitigation measures for unavoidable noise impacts that would be above 60 A-weighted decibels energy equivalent level (dBA Leq) hourly (or for project noise impacts that would be measurably above ambient noise levels, if ambient noise levels are above 60 dBA Leq hourly) at the Managed Preserve, including incorporating noise reduction strategies in equipment, siting and site design, features, timing, noise barriers, landscaping, and buffer separation.
Invasives: When approving landscape plans for potential future development, invasive, non-native plant species listed on the most recent California Invasive Plant Council inventory (https://www.calipc.org/plants/inventory/) with a rating of moderate or high shall not be included in landscaping.
All landscape areas within 300 feet of Managed Preserve areas shall be planted and maintained with native species that reflect the nearby natural vegetation communities.
Barriers: New development shall incorporate fencing, barriers, or functional edge treatment and signage within parcels abutting Managed Preserve areas to minimize unauthorized public access, domestic animal predation, illegal trespass, or dumping. This requirement may be waived with written approval from the Wildlife Agencies.
MM-BIO-5 Western Spadefoot Survey and Mitigation. Prior to issuance of a grading permit on undeveloped areas within any future project sites, a habitat assessment for potential western spadefoot (Spea hammondii) breeding locations to occur shall be conducted by a qualified biologist, as directed by MM-BIO-1. If potentially suitable breeding habitat (e.g., vernal pools, ephemeral basins, seasonal depressions that hold water) is identified, the following measures shall be conducted in accordance with Section 5.5.9.2 of the Draft Santee Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan:
At least six surveys, each survey consisting of both a daytime and nighttime component, must be conducted during the breeding season to ensure that spadefoot are not present within a site. If all
4.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.3-27
six surveys are negative for spadefoot, then no further surveys are required. Surveys for spadefoot shall begin within 48 hours of the first significant rain (greater than or equal to 0.25 inches), as early as October or November, with peak breeding season typically occurring February through April. Surveys shall be completed by a qualified biologist in accordance with the methods described in Section 5.5.9.2 of the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan.
If surveys determine presence of western spadefoot, then avoidance of pools occupied by western spadefoot shall occur to maximum extent practicable. If avoidance is not practicable, compensatory mitigation of unavoidable impacts must include:
▪ No net loss of breeding habitat.
▪ Vernal pools and/or seasonal basins with western spadefoot shall be treated as vernal pools under the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan, and the Vernal Pool Conservation Standards (see Section 5.5.7 of the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan) shall apply, including preparation of a vernal pool enhancement/mitigation plan to be reviewed and approved by the City of Santee and the Wildlife Agencies prior to any ground-disturbing activities. ▪ A 2:1 mitigation ratio for impacts to western spadefoot; creation and/or enhancement must offset at two times the total area of the pools, and upland habitat. ▪ A minimum 1:1 mitigation ratio for the number of pools supporting western spadefoot.
Mitigation shall be achieved through preservation of equivalent or higher-quality spadefoot habitat on site and/or within an approved off-site mitigation site containing occupied upland habitat within the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan Managed Preserve. Permanent protection of pools and their watersheds shall occur through a legal instrument (i.e., conservation easement).
MM-BIO-6 Pre-Construction Survey for Special-Status Reptiles and Avoidance: Prior to issuance of a grading permit on undeveloped areas within any future project site, a qualified biologist shall conduct a habitat assessment for special-status reptiles as directed by MM-BIO-1. If potentially suitable habitat is identified, then pre-construction clearance surveys for special-status reptiles shall be conducted by a qualified project biologist within 14 days of the initiation of ground disturbance or vegetation clearing within and adjacent to construction areas. The clearance surveys shall occur within suitable habitat for special-status reptiles (i.e., all undeveloped habitat with the exception of disturbed habitat). Surveys shall be appropriate for detecting potentially occurring species, such as special-status lizards and snakes. Surveys need not be conducted in all areas simultaneously, as long as they are conducted within 14 days of the initiation of ground disturbance or vegetation clearing in each area individually. If special-status reptile species are detected, appropriate buffers shall be established as necessary and as appropriate for the species, unless it is not feasible to avoid the species. If possible, nonlisted special-status wildlife species may be captured and relocated to suitable habitat nearby where they are safe from construction activities. Surveys and relocation of these species may only be conducted by the qualified project biologist.
▪ If nonlisted special-status reptiles or small mammals are detected, they shall be moved out of harm’s way.
▪ The project biologist shall remain available at all times after initiation of ground disturbance or vegetation clearing, in case special-status wildlife species enter the construction area. If
4.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.3-28
nonlisted special-status species are detected in the construction area after initiation of ground disturbance or vegetation clearing, the qualified project biologist shall take measures to move the species, or encourage it to move, to a safe place away from construction activities.
The applicant shall mitigate the loss of occupied habitat for special-status reptiles in accordance with the ratios described in Table 5-13 of the Draft Santee Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan and consistent with MM-BIO-15. Habitat mitigation shall occur through acquisition of an off-site undeveloped property and recordation of a conservation easement within the Upland Standards Areas or San Diego River Subunit, depending on the type of habitat being impacted, so that impacts will be mitigated in kind. Acquired property shall be included in the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan Managed Preserve and managed and monitored in perpetuity with funding for long-term management and monitoring.
MM-BIO-7 Burrowing Owl Survey and Mitigation. Prior to issuance of a grading permit on undeveloped areas within any future project sites, a habitat assessment for burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) suitable habitat to occur shall be conducted by a qualified biologist as directed by MM-BIO-1. If there is suitable habitat for burrowing owl and the applicant would like to demonstrate that burrowing owl is absent, then a focused survey, as described in the 2012 California Department of Fish and Game Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation and that complies with Section 5.5.9.5 of the Draft Santee Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan, shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. If presence of burrowing owl is known or assumed, the following measures shall be noted on the grading plan prior to grading permit issuance and required to be implemented by the applicant in suitable burrowing owl habitat.
Project activities shall be restricted within occupied burrowing owl habitat during the breeding season (generally February 1–August 31 but may vary with climatic conditions) until nesting is complete (i.e., the young have dispersed and are fledged, independently foraging, and no longer using the burrows or burrow complex; and/or adults are no longer nesting). If project activities cannot be avoided while burrowing owl are present on the project site at any time of year, nodisturbance buffers shall be implemented, as outlined below.
No more than 14 days prior to the initiation of project activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct at least two surveys at least 7 days apart, with the final survey conducted no more than 48 hours prior to the initiation of project activities. A report of the survey results, including mapping of any occupied burrows (including natural or human-made), burrowing owls, or burrowing owl sign observed, shall be submitted to the City of Santee (City) for their review and approval prior to initiation of project activities. Pre-construction surveys will be required year-round to address potential impacts during both overwintering and nesting seasons.
Some project activities may be conducted when burrowing owls are present if appropriate nodisturbance buffers are established around occupied burrows or burrow complexes, paired with daily monitoring by a qualified biologist. A no-disturbance buffer is the area around a burrow or burrow complex inside which project activities are prohibited. Buffers shall be established by a qualified biologist, consistent with guidance provided in the 2012 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation or the most recently CDFW-approved burrowing owl guidance document, if applicable. Appropriate buffer size will depend on the time of year, level of disturbance, and project-specific site conditions. Buffers around active nesting sites shall be a
4.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.3-29
minimum of 200 meters (656 feet) regardless of the time of year. Buffers around occupied overwintering burrows shall be a minimum of 50 meters (164 feet). The monitoring biologist shall have the authority to stop work if burrowing owl exhibit distress or abnormal behavior and shall consult with the plan coordinator to determine next steps (e.g., stop work or increase buffers).
Where impacts to burrowing owl are unavoidable, the following measures shall be required:
If suitable but unoccupied burrows cannot be avoided, burrow exclusion may be appropriate.
Burrow exclusion shall only be allowed after the burrow has been determined by a qualified biologist to be inactive. No exclusions shall be permitted during the nesting season when there is evidence of burrowing owl activity. Prior to the initiation of any burrow exclusions, a burrow exclusion plan shall be submitted to the City, CDFW, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for review and approval.
Mitigation for impacts to occupied habitat shall occur through the conservation of occupied burrowing owl habitat in the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan Managed Preserve, at a ratio of no less than 1:1 for the territory of the burrowing owl. If occupied burrowing owl habitat is not available for mitigation within the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan Managed Preserve, lands with potential to be occupied through appropriate restoration, management, and enhancement of burrowing owl nesting and foraging requirements may be considered. The land to be conserved shall be approved by the City and the Wildlife Agencies. The land to be conserved shall be secured by a legal instrument (e.g., conservation easement) to the satisfaction of the Wildlife Agencies to ensure the conservation of the property in perpetuity in advance of any aspects of the Covered Activity commencing. Perpetual funding shall also be required for the conserved property to ensure management and monitoring of the site for burrowing owl.
In certain circumstances, impacted individuals may be relocated out of the impact area to a location with suitable habitat by a qualified biologist using methodologies consistent with steps outlined by the 2012 CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation or the most recent CDFWapproved burrowing owl guidance document, if applicable. A burrowing owl translocation plan shall accompany any request to relocate burrowing owls. The plan shall thoroughly describe the schedule, the techniques to be used, the suitability of the receiver site, and the experience of the biologists that will be employed. The plan shall be submitted to the City, CDFW, and USFWS for review and approval prior to any relocation. All evictions and/or translocations must occur outside of the breeding season.
MM-BIO-8 Pre-Construction Nesting Bird Survey. Prior to issuance of a grading permit on undeveloped areas within any future project site, a qualified biologist shall conduct a habitat assessment for nesting bird habitat as directed by MM-BIO-1. If potential nesting bird resources occur within the project site, then the project shall comply with Section 5.5.9.5, Nesting Bird Conservation Standards, of the Draft Santee Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan, as outlined below.
Project activities within all potential nesting resource areas within the project site and areas within 500 feet of the project site containing suitable nesting resources should be avoided during the migratory bird nesting season (February 15–September 30) to avoid disturbance to most breeding birds or destruction of the nest or eggs.
4.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.3-30
If project activities (i.e., grading, tree removal, external construction involving heavy equipment generating noise in excess of 60 A-weighted decibels energy equivalent level [dBA Leq]) must occur during the bird nesting season, then a pre-project nesting bird survey shall occur within all potential nesting resource areas within the project site and areas containing suitable nesting resources within 500 feet of all impact areas. The avian nesting survey shall be performed within 14 days prior to the start of construction by a qualified wildlife biologist with experience conducting breeding bird surveys, and one more survey pass shall be conducted within 24 hours of initiation of construction activities in accordance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513. If construction activities are on hold for more than 30 days, then pre-construction surveys would need to be reinitiated.
If an active bird nest is found, the nest shall be flagged and mapped on the construction plans, along with an appropriate buffer established around the nest, which shall be determined by the biologist based on the species’ sensitivity to disturbance (typically 300 feet for passerines and 500 feet for raptors and special-status species), existing nearby conditions (e.g., natural habitat versus roads or existing noisy activities), existing buffering features (e.g., topography, tall and dense trees, buildings), legal status of species (i.e., listed versus nonlisted), general sensitivities of the species (e.g., disturbance tolerant or urban versus not disturbance tolerant), and other variables.
Reductions in the nest buffer may be possible depending on site-specific factors (e.g., topography, screening vegetation, ambient noise levels, etc.), in coordination with the City of Santee (City) and the Wildlife Agencies (i.e., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Wildlife). Construction noise levels shall not exceed 60 dBA Leq hourly within the 300-foot buffer zone unless authorized by the Wildlife Agencies. The nest area and buffer zone shall be avoided until the nest is vacated and the juveniles have fledged or the nest fails. The status of the nest shall be monitored by a qualified biologist. A report shall be submitted to the City and the Wildlife Agencies for review prior to discontinuing the noise limits and nest buffers. The nest buffer area shall be demarcated in the field with flagging and stakes or construction fencing. The project proponent personnel, including all contractors working on site, are required to be instructed on the sensitivity of the area. No project activities shall encroach into established buffers without the consent of a monitoring biologist. The buffer shall remain in place until it is determined that the nestlings have fledged and the nest is no longer active. The project applicant shall document the results of the recommended protective measures described above to demonstrate compliance with the City’s Habitat Loss and Incidental Take Permit, if approved.
MM-BIO-9 Coastal California Gnatcatcher Survey and Mitigation. Prior to issuance of a grading permit on undeveloped areas within any future project site, a qualified biologist shall conduct a habitat assessment for coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) as directed by MM- BIO-1. If there is suitable habitat for coastal California gnatcatcher present, a focused protocollevel survey shall be conducted by a permitted biologist (i.e., possessing a valid Endangered Species Act Section 10[a][1][a] Recovery Permit) using the most recent U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) protocol for the species, which is currently the 1997 Coastal California Gnatcatcher Presence/Absence Survey Guidelines. If presence of coastal California gnatcatcher is known or assumed to occur on the project site, the following measures shall be noted on the grading plan prior to grading permit issuance and required to be implemented by the applicant:
4.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.3-31
If habitat is occupied by coastal California gnatcatcher, no clearing, grubbing, grading, or other construction activities shall occur during the coastal California gnatcatcher breeding season (March 1–August 15), if feasible. If construction activities cannot be completed outside coastal California gnatcatcher breeding season, then a pre-construction survey shall be conducted in all areas of suitable habitat by a qualified biologist (possessing a valid Endangered Species Act Section 10[a][1][a] Recovery Permit). If coastal California gnatcatchers are found during preconstruction surveys, a 500-foot buffer shall be required around the nest site. Additionally, prior to issuance of a grading permit on undeveloped sites with confirmed presence of coastal California gnatcatcher, a take permit from the USFWS would be required, and measures may be refined with future input from USFWS until the adoption and permitting of the Draft Santee Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan, which would transfer the take permitting authority for Covered Species to the City of Santee.
If impacts are proposed within coastal California gnatcatcher–occupied areas, occupied habitat for the species must be mitigated in accordance with the mitigation ratios established for coastal sage scrub included in Table 5-13 of the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan and consistent with MM-BIO15. Habitat mitigation shall occur through acquisition of an off-site undeveloped property and recordation of a conservation easement within the Upland Standards Areas or San Diego River Subunit depending on the type of habitat being impacted so that impacts will be mitigated in kind.
Acquired property would be included in the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan Managed Preserve and managed and monitored in perpetuity with funding for long-term management and monitoring, MM-BIO-10 Least Bell’s Vireo Survey and Mitigation. Prior to issuance of a grading permit on undeveloped areas within any future project site, a qualified biologist shall conduct a habitat assessment for least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) as directed by MM-BIO-1. If the qualified biologist determines there is potentially suitable nesting or foraging habitat for least Bell’s vireo within a future project site, focused protocol surveys shall be completed for this species prior to initiation of constructionrelated activities to determine the presence/absence and any potential project effects to this species. Surveys for least Bell’s vireo shall be conducted according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2001 Least Bell’s Survey Guidelines or a currently accepted protocol. If potential habitat for least Bell’s vireo occurs within any future project site, then the project shall comply with Section 5.5.9.4, Least Bell’s Vireo Conservation Standards, of the Draft Santee Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan, as outlined below.
All vegetation clearing activities within or near (within a 300-foot buffer) to occupied habitat shall take place outside of the vireo breeding season (March 15–September 30). If proposed project activities (other than vegetation clearing) cannot occur completely outside the vireo breeding season, pre-construction surveys for occupied territory use areas shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 7 days prior to the initiation of construction. If occupied habitat is found, work may proceed provided that project activities would be located at least 300 feet from the closest edge of least Bell’s vireo territory use areas and project-related noise levels would not exceed 60 A-weighted decibels energy equivalent level (dBA Leq) hourly at the edge of the territory use area. However, the City of Santee (City) may reduce these buffer widths depending on projector site-specific conditions (e.g., relatively quiet proposed project activities involving hand tools) or the existing ambient level of noise at the edge of the territory use area. If project activities must take place within the recommended buffer widths above, the project applicant shall contact the
4.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.3-32
City to determine the appropriate buffer based on the requirement of no measurable projectcaused increase in effective noise over ambient levels within a territory use area (e.g., if existing ambient noise levels are 65 dBA Leq hourly within the portion of the territory use area closest to proposed project, then the project would be limited to maximum measured noise levels of 65 dBA Leq hourly at the territory use area edge closest to the project). Project activity noise levels shall be monitored, and monitoring reports shall be provided to the City. Proposed noise levels in excess of this threshold shall require written concurrence from the Wildlife Agencies (i.e., USFWS and California Department of Fish and Wildlife [CDFW]) and may require additional minimization/ mitigation measures. Noise attenuation measures or alternate construction operations may be used to reduce noise levels below 60 dBA Leq hourly within territory use areas. If noise levels still exceed 60 dBA Leq hourly within the territory use areas and/or a no-construction buffer cannot be maintained, construction shall be deferred in that area until after the completion of the nest cycle (i.e., nestlings have fledged, or if a nest has failed, there is no further indication of breeding activity).
If the surveys conclude that least Bell’s vireo are absent from the project site, unavoidable impacts to unoccupied suitable riparian habitat shall be compensated in accordance with the ratios described in Table 5-13 of the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan and consistent with MM-BIO-15.
Habitat mitigation shall occur through acquisition of an off-site undeveloped property and recordation of a conservation easement within the Upland Standards Areas or San Diego River Subunit, depending on the type of habitat being impacted so that impacts will be mitigated in kind.
Acquired property would be included in the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan Managed Preserve and managed and monitored in perpetuity with funding for long-term management and monitoring.
If 100% avoidance of occupied habitat is not feasible, and the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan has not been approved, consultation with USFWS and the CDFW shall be initiated prior to implementation of any activities that may impact occupied habitat, directly or indirectly.
Authorization for removal of occupied critical habitat shall be obtained from USFWS through the Endangered Species Act Incidental Take Permit (ITP) Section 7 or Section 10 process and from CDFW through California Endangered Species Act ITP Sections 2081(b) and (c) prior to initiating activities in occupied areas. Any conditions required by the ITP process may supersede mitigation measures provided in this document. Adoption of the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan would transfer the take permitting authority for Covered Species to the City, and ITPs from USFWS and CDFW would not be needed.
MM-BIO-11 Roosting Bat Avoidance and Mitigation. Prior issuance of a grading permit on undeveloped areas within any future project site, a qualified biologist shall conduct a habitat assessment for suitable bat roosting habitat as directed by MM-BIO-1. If potentially suitable roosting habitat is identified and if construction occurs during the native bat breeding season (April 1–August 31), then a pre-construction survey for bat roosts shall be conducted no earlier than 30 days prior to the commencement of construction activities. The pre-construction survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if active roosts of bats are present on or within 300 feet of the project disturbance boundaries. Should an active colonial maternity roost (does not include tree roosts expected to only be occupied by a single or few bats) be identified (in California, the breeding season of native bat species is generally from April 1–August 31), the colonial roost shall not be disturbed, and construction within 300 feet shall be postponed or halted until the roost is vacated
4.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.3-33
and juveniles have left. Surveys shall include rocky outcrops, caves, structures, and large trees (particularly trees 12 inches in diameter or greater at 4.5 feet above grade with cavities).
If nonbreeding bat hibernacula are found in areas scheduled to be removed within the grading footprint, the individuals shall be safely evicted, under the direction of a qualified bat biologist, by opening the roosting area to allow airflow through the cavity or other means determined appropriate by the bat biologist (e.g., installation of one-way doors). In situations requiring one-way doors, a minimum of 1 week shall pass after doors are installed and temperatures are sufficiently warm for bats to exit the roost, as bats do not typically leave their roost daily during winter months in Southern California. This action should allow all bats to leave during the course of 1 week. Roosts that need to be removed in situations where the use of one-way doors is not necessary in the judgment of the qualified bat biologist shall first be disturbed by various means, at the direction of the qualified bat biologist, at dusk to allow bats to escape during the darker hours, and the roost shall be removed or the grading shall occur the next day (i.e., there shall be no less or more than 1 night between initial disturbance and the grading or roost removal). These actions should allow bats to leave during nighttime hours, thus increasing their chance of finding new roosts, with a minimum of potential predation during daylight.
The applicant shall mitigate the loss of occupied bat roosting habitat (e.g., riparian trees) in accordance with the ratios described in Table 5-13 of the Draft Santee Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan and consistent with MM-BIO-15. Habitat mitigation shall occur through acquisition of an off-site undeveloped property and recordation of a conservation easement within the Upland Standards Areas or San Diego River Subunit, depending on the type of habitat being impacted, so that impacts will be mitigated in kind. Acquired property would be included in the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan Managed Preserve and managed and monitored in perpetuity with funding for long-term management and monitoring.
MM-BIO-12 Woodrat Nest Avoidance and Mitigation. Prior to issuance of a grading permit on undeveloped areas within any future project site, a qualified biologist shall conduct a habitat assessment for San Diego desert woodrat (Neotoma lepida intermedia) nests as directed by MM-BIO-1. If potentially suitable habitat is identified, then pre-construction surveys for San Diego desert woodrat nests that may be occupied by San Diego desert woodrat shall be flagged, and ground-disturbing activities shall be avoided within a minimum of 10 feet surrounding each active nest, unless otherwise authorized by the City of Santee (City). If avoidance is not possible, the proponent shall take the following sequential steps: (1) all understory vegetation shall be cleared in the area immediately surrounding active nests, excluding an escape route to nearby habitat, followed by a period of 1 night without further disturbance to allow woodrats to vacate the nest; (2) each occupied nest shall then be disturbed by a qualified wildlife biologist until all woodrats leave the nest and seek refuge off site; and (3) a majority of the nest sticks shall be removed from the project site and piled at the base of a nearby rock, downed tree, or shrub. Relocated nest material shall not be spaced closer than 100 feet apart, unless a qualified wildlife biologist has determined that a specific habitat can support a higher density of nests. The proponent shall document all woodrat nests moved in weekly monitoring reports and shall include a written summary in each annual report to the City. The resumes of the qualified biologists shall be provided to the City for concurrence.
The applicant shall mitigate the loss of occupied habitat for San Diego desert woodrat in accordance with the ratios described in Table 5-13 of the Draft Santee Multiple Species
4.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.3-34
Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan and consistent with MM-BIO-15. Habitat mitigation shall occur through acquisition of an off-site undeveloped property and recordation of a conservation easement within the Upland Standards Areas or San Diego River Subunit, depending on the type of habitat being impacted, so that impacts will be mitigated in kind. Acquired property would be included in the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan Managed Preserve and managed and monitored in perpetuity with funding for long-term management and monitoring.
MM-BIO-13 Crotch's Bumble Bee Survey and Mitigation. Prior to issuance of a grading permit on undeveloped areas within any future project site, a qualified biologist shall conduct a habitat assessment for Crotch’s bumble bee (Bombus crotchii) as directed by MM-BIO-1. If potential habitat for Crotch’s bumble bee occurs within any future project site, the project shall comply with Section 5.5.9.6, Crotch’s Bumble Bee Conservation Standards, of the Draft Santee Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan, as outlined below.
If potentially suitable habitat is identified during the reconnaissance survey required by MM-BIO-1, focused surveys for Crotch’s bumble bee shall be conducted by a qualified biologist with expertise in surveying for bumble bees. A proposed survey protocol based on the recommendations described in the Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act Candidate Bumble Bee Species, released by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) on June 6, 2023, or the most current version shall be submitted to the Wildlife Agencies for review and approval on a project- and site-specific basis. Survey results shall be provided to the Wildlife Agencies (i.e., U.S.
Fish and Wildlife and [CDFW]) for review and are valid for 1 year. If survey results are negative, then no additional measures are required if project activities commence within 1 year of the survey.
If survey results are positive (or focused surveys are not completed and Crotch’s bumble bee is assumed to be present based on the habitat assessment) and project impacts will occur during the colony active period (April 1–August 31), then pre-construction surveys for active bee nest colonies shall be required no more than 5 days prior to any ground-disturbing activities. If a Crotch’s bumble bee nest is detected, the project biologist shall establish, monitor, and maintain a no-work buffer around the nest. The size and configuration of the no-work buffer shall be based on best professional judgment of the project biologist in consultation with the Wildlife Agencies. The buffer shall provide at least 50 feet of clearance around nest entrances. Project activities shall not occur within the no-work buffer until the colony is no longer active. To determine that a nest is no longer active, the nest shall be observed for a minimum of 60 minutes each day across a minimum of 3 days during suitable flight weather (i.e., ambient air temperature between 60° and 90° degrees F, winds under 10 mph, and no precipitation higher than a drizzling rain). If no bees are seen flying in or out of the nest by the end of the observation period, it will be determined that the nest is no longer active. If project activities occur outside of the colony active period, then pre-construction surveys for active bee nest colonies are not required.
A written survey report shall be submitted to the City of Santee and CDFW within 30 days following completion of the focused surveys. The report shall include survey methods, weather conditions, and survey results, including a detailed habitat assessment, floral resources blooming and percent cover, bumble bee species observed, floral species bumble bees were observed visiting, nesting and overwintering habitat surveyed, and a figure showing the locations of any Crotch’s bumble bee nest sites or individuals observed. The survey report shall include the qualifications/resumes of the surveyor(s) and approved taxonomist(s) for identification of photo vouchers. If Crotch’s bumble bee
4.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.3-35
nests or individuals are observed, the location information shall be submitted to the California Natural Diversity Database at the time of, or prior to, submittal of the survey report. In addition, if avoidance of take is not feasible, the applicant shall consult with CDFW to determine if take authorization is required.
If required, mitigation for direct impacts to Crotch’s bumble bee shall be fulfilled through compensatory mitigation in accordance with the ratios described in Table 5-13 of the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan and consistent with MM-BIO-15. Habitat mitigation shall occur through acquisition of an off-site undeveloped property and recordation of a conservation easement within the Upland Standards Areas or San Diego River Subunit, depending on the type of habitat being impacted, so that impacts will be mitigated in kind. Acquired property would be included in the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan Managed Preserve and managed and monitored in perpetuity with funding for long-term management and monitoring. If required by the permitting process (i.e., Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan has not been approved), additional mitigation may be required through off-site conservation or through a CDFW-approved mitigation bank. Adoption of the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan would transfer the take permitting authority for Covered Species to the City of Santee, and Incidental Take Permits from USFWS and CDFW would not be needed.
MM-BIO-14 Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Survey and Mitigation. Prior to issuance of a grading permit on undeveloped areas within any future project site, a qualified biologist shall conduct a habitat assessment for Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino) as directed by MM-BIO-1. If potentially suitable habitat is identified, focused surveys for Quino checkerspot butterfly shall be conducted at the height of the flight season in all suitable habitat areas. Surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist holding a Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) recovery permit for this species.
The surveys shall follow the USFWS 2014 Quino Checkerspot Butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino) Survey Guidelines regarding timing, weather conditions, and survey coverage.
If the surveys conclude that Quino checkerspot butterfly are absent from the project site, unavoidable impacts to unoccupied suitable habitat shall be compensated in accordance with the ratios described in Table 5-13 of the Draft Santee Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan and consistent with MM-BIO-15. Habitat mitigation shall occur through acquisition of an off-site undeveloped property and recordation of a conservation easement within the Upland Standards Areas or San Diego River Subunit, depending on the type of habitat being impacted, so that impacts will be mitigated in kind. Acquired property would be included in the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan Managed Preserve and managed and monitored in perpetuity with funding for long-term management and monitoring.
If the results of the survey are positive, no clearing, grubbing, or grading within or near (within a 300- foot buffer) suitable occupied habitat shall be permitted during butterfly flight season (third week in February through second Saturday in May). Areas restricted from such activities shall be staked or fenced under the supervision of a qualified biologist. However, USFWS and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) may reduce these buffer widths depending on project or site-specific conditions (e.g., relatively quiet proposed project activities involving hand tools or suitable habitat adjacent to existing development) and may require additional minimization/mitigation measures.
If 100% avoidance of occupied habitat is not feasible, and the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan has not been approved, consultation with USFWS and CDFW shall be initiated prior to implementation of any activities that may impact occupied habitat, directly or indirectly.
4.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.3-36
Authorization for removal of occupied habitat shall be obtained from USFWS through the Endangered Species Act Incidental Take Permit (ITP) Section 7 or Section 10 process and from CDFW through California Endangered Species Act ITP Sections 2081(b) and (c) prior to initiating activities in occupied areas. Any conditions required by the ITP process may supersede mitigation measures provided in this document. Adoption of the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan would transfer the take permitting authority for Covered Species to the City of Santee, and ITPs from USFWS and CDFW would not be needed.
MM-BIO-15 Sensitive Vegetation Communities. Prior to issuance of a grading permit on undeveloped sites within the Project site, a qualified biologist shall conduct vegetation mapping within the proposed project site as directed by MM-BIO-1. The qualified biologist shall determine if there is a sensitive natural community present on site per the Draft Santee Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan. If there is a sensitive natural community on site, and the community cannot be avoided, the impact must be mitigated in accordance with the mitigation ratios in Table 5-13 of the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan. As directed by Section 5.5.2 of the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan, mitigation shall occur through acquisition of an off-site undeveloped property and recordation of a conservation easement within the Upland Standards Areas or San Diego River Subunit, depending on the type of habitat being impacted, so that impacts will be mitigated in kind.
Acquired property would be included in the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan Managed Preserve and managed and monitored in perpetuity with funding for long-term management and monitoring.
MM-BIO-16 Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources Avoidance and Mitigation. Prior to issuance of a grading permit on undeveloped land within the Project site, a qualified biologist shall assess the site to determine if there is potential for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE-), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW-), and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB-) jurisdictional aquatic resources of the United States/state on the project site, as directed by MM-BIO-1. If there is potential for these resources to occur, a formal delineation of these resources shall be conducted in accordance with each agency’s requirements, guidance, and standards prior to issuance of a grading permit. Project grading plans shall identify, and the applicant shall implement, the following jurisdictional aquatic resource measures prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Additionally, if jurisdictional aquatic resources occur within any future project site, the Project shall comply with Section 5.5.5, Aquatic Wetlands and Riparian Protection Standards, of the Draft Santee Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan, which would require review and approval of the mitigation program for impacts to jurisdictional aquatic resources.
If avoidance of impacts to jurisdictional aquatic resource areas is not practicable, the project applicant shall obtain the applicable permits to impact these resources, such as a 404 permit from USACE, a Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFW, or a 401 Water Quality Certification/Waste Discharge Requirement from RWQCB. Final mitigation requirements for the impact shall be established by these agencies, and a final wetlands/waters mitigation plan shall be prepared prior to issuance of a grading permit. However, at a minimum, the following requirements shall be met:
As directed by Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, there shall be no net loss of wetlands.
Therefore, mitigation for permanent impacts to jurisdictional aquatic resources shall occur at the mitigation ratios established for wetland vegetation communities included in Table 5-13 of the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan. A jurisdictional aquatic resource mitigation and monitoring plan shall be prepared, in coordination with USACE, CDFW, and RWQCB,
4.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.3-37
that outlines the compensatory mitigation. Mitigation shall include creation, enhancement, and/or restoration, and shall be completed either on site or off site through acquisition of an off-site undeveloped property and recordation of a conservation easement within the Upland Standards Areas or San Diego River Subunit, depending on the type of habitat being impacted, so that impacts will be mitigated in kind. Acquired property would be included in the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan Managed Preserve and managed and monitored in perpetuity with funding for long-term management and monitoring. The mitigation program shall be designed to replace the functions and values of the jurisdictional resources impacted, with requirements to achieve specific success criteria. The mitigation areas shall be designed to have vegetative characteristics (excluding exotic species) similar to those of the affected areas. If creation is provided, the site shall be designed to emulate the density and structure of the affected areas once the establishment areas have met the mitigation success criteria.
All temporary impacts to jurisdictional aquatic resources shall be restored in place to preproject conditions, or impacts shall be considered permanent and mitigated accordingly.
Mitigation for temporary impacts to jurisdictional aquatic resources shall occur in accordance with the mitigation ratios established for wetland vegetation communities included in Table 5-13 of the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan and consistent with MM- BIO-15. Habitat mitigation shall occur through acquisition of an off-site undeveloped property and recordation of a conservation easement within the Upland Standards Areas or San Diego River Subunit, depending on the type of habitat being impacted, so that impacts will be mitigated in kind. Acquired property would be included in the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan Managed Preserve and managed and monitored in perpetuity with funding for long-term management and monitoring.
Additionally, if a jurisdictional aquatic resource of the United States and/or state is avoided by the project, the grading and construction plans shall identify the resource, and the resource shall be fenced off prior to the issuance of a grading or construction permit. If onsite avoidance occurs, it shall be verified prior to the issuance of a construction permit that non-native plant species listed on the most recent California Invasive Plant Council inventory (https://www.cal-ipc.org/plants/inventory/) with a rating of moderate or high shall not be included in landscaping.
MM-BIO-17 Tree Replacement, Encroachment, and Preservation. Prior to approval of grading plans and issuance of a grading permit, construction plans, conditions of approval, and a future project landscape plan shall include the following to address tree removal, encroachment into the protected zone, and retained trees:
▪ Replacement: If a proposed site plan requires removal of City of Santee Urban Forestry Ordinance trees, tree replacement shall occur at a 1:1 mitigation ratio with 15-gallon trees and be included in the project’s landscape plan, which shall also include recommendations for longterm maintenance and care for regulated trees that will be retained on site. ▪ Encroachment into Protected Zone and Retained Trees: If a future project would encroach upon or preserve City of Santee Urban Forestry Ordinance trees, tree protection measures shall be provided in an arborist report designed to mitigate impacts from construction encroachment into the protected zone of the preserved and/or encroached upon trees. The tree protection
4.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.3-38
measures shall be consistent with best management practices for tree protection on construction sites and would help minimize impacts to preserved and encroached trees. These measures shall be implemented prior to, during, and following construction. This includes measures such as exclusion fencing and worker training to avoid direct impacts to trees and measures such as irrigation and monthly inspections by an ISA Certified Arborist to promote the long-term health of retained trees.
4.3.5 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Threshold 4.3-1 The Proposed Project would have the potential to 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.
Implementation of MM-BIO-1 through MM-BIO-15 and MM-BIO-17 would reduce the potential impact to less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Threshold 4.3-2 The Proposed Project would have the potential to have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Implementation of MM-BIO-1, MM-BIO-3, MM-BIO-4, and MM-BIO-15 would reduce the potential impact to less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Threshold 4.3-3 The Proposed Project would have the potential to 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.
Implementation of MM-BIO-1, MM-BIO-3, MM-BIO-4, MM-BIO-15, and MM-BIO-16 would reduce the potential impact to less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Threshold 4.3-4 The Proposed Project would have the potential to indirectly interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or to impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
Implementation of MM-BIO-3 and MM-BIO-4 would reduce the potential indirect impact to less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Threshold 4.3-5 The Proposed Project would have the potential to conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.
Implementation of MM-BIO-17 would reduce the potential impact to less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Threshold 4.3-6 The Proposed Project would have the potential to conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Implementation of MM-BIO-1 through MM-BIO-16 would ensure compliance with the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan, which would reduce impacts to less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Mi ssion Gorge Rd
Fanita Dr
Halberns
Blvd
Woodglen Vista Dr
Los
Ra
n
c
hit
o
s
R
d
Town Center Pkwy
Graves
Ave
N
M
a
g
n
olia
Av
e
N
Cuy
a
m
a
c
a
S
t
Olive Ln
N Woodside Ave
Mission Creek Dr
River Park Dr
Prospect Ave
Carlton
Hills
Blvd
El Nopal
Mast Blvd
C
u
y
amaca
St
Carlton Oaks Dr
Lake Canyon Rd
Fanita Pkwy
Ä67
Ä52
Ä125
Existing Protected Open Space
Hardline Conservation Lands
Proposed Land Use
Community Corridor Overlay
Community Hub Overlay
OS
R-14
0 1,100 2,200
n Feet Date: 2/13/2026 User: cbattle Path: Z:\Projects\j1710001\MAPDOC\PEIR\PEIR.aprx Map: Project Location Layout: Figure 4.3-1 Project Location Portrait Chula Vista
Solana
Beach
Encinitas
San Diego
San Diego
Lemon Grove
La Mesa
El Cajon
Santee
Poway
San Marcos Escondido
National
City
Del
Mar
Coronado
ÄÆ125
ÄÆ52
ÄÆ163
ÄÆ78
ÄÆ54
ÄÆ274
ÄÆ56
ÄÆ94
ÄÆ67
§¨¦15
§¨¦8
§¨¦5
§¨¦805
S a n D i e g o
C o u n t y
Project Site
SOURCE: Appendix D
City of Santee Land Use Element PEIR
Project Location
FIGURE 4.3-1
4.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.3-40
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Santee
Biological Core and Linkage Areas
Proposed Land Use
Community Corridor Overlay
Community Hub Overlay
OS
R-14
Date: 2/13/2026 User: cbattle Path: Z:\Projects\j1710001\MAPDOC\PEIR\PEIR.aprx Map: Wildlife Corridors and Habitat Linkages Layout: Figure 4.3-2 Wildlife Corridors and Habitat Linkages 0 1,000 2,000
n Feet
SOURCE:
City of Santee Land Use Element PEIR
Wildlife Corridors and Habitat Linkages
FIGURE 4.3-2
4.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.3-42
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Date: 2/13/2026 User: cbattle Path: Z:\Projects\j1710001\MAPDOC\PEIR\PEIR.aprx Map: Soils Layout: Figure 4.3-3 Soils 0 1,000 2,000
n Feet
Proposed Land Use
Community Corridor Overlay
Community Hub Overlay
OS
R-14
Soils
Cieneba very rocky coarse sandy loam, 30 to 75
percent slopes
Cieneba-Fallbrook rocky sandy loams, 30 to 65
percent s lopes, eroded
Diablo clay, 2 to 9 percent slopes
Diablo-Olivenhain complex, 9 to 30 percent slopes
Fallbrook sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes
Fallbrook sandy loam, 9 to 15 percent slopes,
eroded
Grangeville fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
Placentia sandy loam, thick surface, 2 to 9 percent
slo pes
Ramona sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes
Ramona sandy loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes
Ramona sandy loam, 9 to 15 percent slopes,
eroded
Redding gravelly loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes
Redding-Urban land complex, 2 to 9 percent slopes
Redding-Urban land complex, 9 to 30 percent
slopes
Riverwash
Salinas clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
Salinas clay loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes
Salinas clay, 0 to 2 percent slopes
Tujunga sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes
Visalia sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
Visalia sandy loam, 9 to 15 percent slopes
Vista coarse sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes
SOURCE:
City of Santee Land Use Element PEIR
Soils
FIGURE 4.3-3
4.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.3-44
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
SAN DIEGO -
Lower San
Diego - Santee
SAN DIEGO -
Lower San Diego
- El Cajon
S an Diego River
Woo d g
l
e
n
Vi
s
t
a
C
r
e
e
k
Fore ster Creek
Proposed Land Use
Community Corridor Overlay
Community Hub Overlay
OS
R-14
Hydrologic Unit - Area - Subarea
National Wetlands Inventory
Freshwater Emergent Wetland
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
Freshwater Pond
Riverine
Flowlines (NHD)
Stream/River
Artificial Path
Connector
Underground Conduit
Potential Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources
Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh
Disturbed Wetland
Non-Vegetated Floodplain or Channel
Southern Cottonwood-willow Riparian Forest
Southern Willow Scrub
Tamarisk Scrub
Date: 2/13/2026 User: cbattle Path: Z:\Projects\j1710001\MAPDOC\PEIR\PEIR.aprx Map: Hydrology Layout: Figure 4.3-4 Hydrology 0 1,050 2,100
n Feet
SOURCE:
City of Santee Land Use Element PEIR
Hydrology
FIGURE 4.3-4
4.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.3-46
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
0#
0#
0#
0#
0# 0#
0#
0#
#I#I#I#I
#I
!"!
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
0#
0# 0# 0#
0#
#!
.
")X/T
#
7#!C
Date: 2/13/2026 User: cbattle Path: Z:\Projects\j1710001\MAPDOC\PEIR\PEIR.aprx Map: Biological Resources Layout: Figure 4.3-5 Biological Resources 0 1,125 2,250
n Feet
Proposed Land Use
Community Corridor Overlay
Community Hub Overlay
OS
R-14
500-ft Buffer
Vegetation Communities and Land Covers
Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub
Disturbed Habitat
Disturbed Wetland
Eucalyptus Woodland
Extensive Agriculture - Field/Pasture, Row Crops
Non-Native Grassland
Non-Native Vegetation
Non-Vegetated Floodplain or Channel
Southern Cottonwood-willow Riparian Forest
Southern Willow Scrub
Tamarisk Scrub
Urban/Developed
Federal Critical Habitat
Coastal California gnatcatcher
Hermes copper butterfly
Least Bell's vireo
Willowy monardella
CNDDB Species Occurrence
#! California glossy snake (Arizona elegans occidentalis) . Southern California legless lizard (Anniella stebbinsi) ")X Swainson's hawk (Buteo swainsoni)
"/ pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus)
"T pocketed free-tailed bat (Nyctinomops femorosaccus)
# tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor)
!C western spadefoot (Spea hammondii)
7# yellow rail (Coturnicops noveboracensis)
!"! Nuttall's scrub oak (Quercus dumosa)
!. San Diego ambrosia (Ambrosia pumila)
0# San Diego goldenstar (Bloomeria clevelandii)
0# smooth tarplant (Centromadia pungens ssp. laevis)
USFWS Species Occurrence
0#
coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica
californica)
#I
least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus)
SOURCE:
City of Santee Land Use Element PEIR
Biological Resources
FIGURE 4.3-5
4.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.3-48
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
4.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.4-1
4.4 Cultural Resources
This section of the draft program environmental impact report (PEIR) describes the existing cultural resources conditions of the Plan Area, identifies associated regulatory requirements, evaluates potential impacts, and identifies mitigation measures related to implementation of the City of Santee (City) Land Use Element Update (Project or Proposed Project). This section is based on the Cultural Resources Technical Report, prepared by Dudek for this PEIR (Confidential Appendix E).
4.4.1 Existing Conditions
4.4.1.1 Environmental Setting
Prehistory Archaeology
Evidence for continuous human occupation in the San Diego County region spans the last 12,000 years. Various attempts to parse out variability in archaeological assemblages over this broad time frame have led to the development of several cultural chronologies; some of these are based on geologic time, most are based on temporal trends in archaeological assemblages, and others are interpretive reconstructions. Each of these reconstructions describes essentially similar trends in assemblage composition in more or less detail. This research employs a common set of generalized terms used to describe chronological trends in assemblage composition from an archaeological perspective: Paleoindian (pre-5500 BC), Archaic (8000 BC–AD 500), Late Prehistoric (AD 500– 1769), and Ethnohistoric (post-AD 1769). Native American aboriginal lifeways did not cease at European contact. “Protohistoric” refers to the chronological trend of continued Native American aboriginal lifeways at the cusp of the recorded historic period in the Americas. The tribal cultural context spans all of the archaeologically based chronologies further described below.
Tribal Cultural Context
The Kumeyaay have roots that extend thousands of years in what is now San Diego County, including the area of potential effect (APE). The pre-contact cultural sequences are locally characterized by the material culture recovered during archaeological investigations as early as the 1920s and through early accounts of Native American life in the San Diego County region, recorded as a means to salvage scientific knowledge of native lifeways. Visceral information of Native American lifeways, however, comes from the Kumeyaay themselves in the form of stories and songs passed down through the generations, in their own words. According to ethnographies based on interviews with local tribal elders, there are hundreds of words that describe a given landform, showing a close connection with nature. There are also stories associated with the land.
Paleoindian (Pre-5500 BC)
Evidence for Paleoindian occupation in coastal Southern California is tenuous, especially considering the fact that the oldest dated archaeological assemblages look nothing like the Paleoindian artifacts from the Great Basin. One of the earliest dated archaeological assemblages in coastal Southern California (excluding the Channel Islands) derives from P-37-004669 (CA-SDI-4669), in La Jolla. A human burial from P-37-004669 was radiocarbon dated to 9,590–9,920 years before present (approximately 95% probability) (Hector 2007). The burial is part of a larger site complex that contained more than 29 human burials associated with an assemblage that fits the Archaic profile (i.e., large amounts of ground stone, battered cobbles, and expedient flake tools). In contrast, typical Paleoindian
4.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.4-2
assemblages include large stemmed projectile points, high proportions of formal lithic tools, bifacial lithic reduction strategies, and relatively small proportions of ground stone tools. Prime examples of this pattern are sites that were studied by Emma Lou Davis (1978) on China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station near Ridgecrest, California. These sites contained fluted and unfluted stemmed points and large numbers of formal flake tools (e.g., shaped scrapers, blades). Other typical Paleoindian sites include the Komodo site (CA-MNO-679)—a multi-component fluted point site—and MNO-680—a single component Great Basin stemmed point site (Basgall et al. 2002). At CA-MNO-679 and MNO-680, ground stone tools were rare while finely made projectile points were common.
Turning back to coastal Southern California, the fact that some of the earliest dated assemblages are dominated by processing tools runs counter to traditional notions of mobile hunter–gatherers traversing the landscape for highly valued prey. Evidence for the latter—that is, typical Paleoindian assemblages—may have been located along the coastal margin at one time, prior to glacial desiccation and a rapid rise in sea level during the early Holocene (pre-7500 BP) that submerged as much as 1.8 kilometers of the San Diego coastline. If this were true, however, it would also be expected that such sites would be located on older landforms near the current coastline. Some sites, such as P-37-000210 (CA-SDI-210) along Agua Hedionda Lagoon, contained stemmed points similar in form to Silver Lake and Lake Mojave projectile points (pre-8000 BP) that are commonly found at sites in California’s high desert (Basgall and Hall 1990). P-37-000210 yielded one corrected radiocarbon date of 9520–8520 BP (Warren et al. 2004). However, sites of this nature are extremely rare and cannot be separated from large numbers of milling tools that intermingle with old projectile point forms.
Warren et al. (2004) claimed that a biface manufacturing tradition present at the Harris site complex P-37-000149 (CA-SDI-149) is representative of typical Paleoindian occupation in the San Diego County region that possibly dates between 10,365 and 8200 BC (Warren et al. 2004: 26). Termed San Dieguito (Rogers 1945), assemblages at the Harris site are qualitatively distinct from most others in the San Diego County region because the site has large numbers of finely made bifaces (including projectile points), formal flake tools, a biface reduction trajectory, and relatively small amounts of processing tools (Warren 1964, 1968). Despite the unique assemblage composition, the definition of San Dieguito as a separate cultural tradition is hotly debated. Gallegos (1987) suggested that the San Dieguito pattern is simply an inland manifestation of a broader economic pattern. Gallegos’ interpretation of San Dieguito has been widely accepted in recent years, in part because of the difficulty in distinguishing San Dieguito components from other assemblage constituents. In other words, it is easier to ignore San Dieguito as a distinct socioeconomic pattern than it is to draw it out of mixed assemblages.
The large number of finished bifaces (i.e., projectile points and non-projectile blades), along with large numbers of formal flake tools at the Harris site complex, is very different than nearly all other assemblages throughout the San Diego County region, regardless of age. Warren et al. (2004) made this point, tabulating basic assemblage constituents for key early Holocene sites. Producing finely made bifaces and formal flake tools implies that relatively large amounts of time were spent for tool manufacture. Such a strategy contrasts with the expedient flake-based tools and cobble-core reduction strategy that typifies non-San Dieguito Archaic sites. It can be inferred from the uniquely high degree of San Dieguito assemblage formality that the Harris site complex represents a distinct economic strategy from non-San Dieguito assemblages.
If San Dieguito truly represents a distinct socioeconomic strategy from the non-San Dieguito Archaic processing regime, its rarity implies that it was not only short-lived, but that it was not as economically successful as the Archaic strategy. Such a conclusion would fit with other trends in Southern California deserts, wherein hunting-related tools are replaced by processing tools during the early Holocene (Basgall and Hall 1993).
4.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.4-3
Archaic (8000 BC–AD 500)
The more than 1,500-year overlap between the presumed age of Paleoindian occupations and the Archaic Period highlights the difficulty in defining a cultural chronology in the San Diego County region. If San Dieguito is the only recognized Paleoindian component in the San Diego County region, then the dominance of hunting tools implies that it derives from Great Basin adaptive strategies and is not necessarily a local adaptation. Warren et al. (2004) admitted as much, citing strong desert connections with San Dieguito. Thus, the Archaic pattern is the earliest local socioeconomic adaptation in the San Diego County region (Hale 2001, 2009).
The Archaic pattern is relatively easy to define with assemblages that consist primarily of processing tools: milling stones, hand stones, battered cobbles, heavy crude scrapers, incipient flake-based tools, and cobble-core reduction. These assemblages occur in all environments across the San Diego County region, with little variability in tool composition. Low assemblage variability over time and space among Archaic sites has been equated with cultural conservatism (Byrd and Reddy 2002; Warren 1968; Warren et al. 2004). Despite enormous amounts of archaeological work at Archaic sites, little change in assemblage composition occurs until the bow and arrow is adopted at around AD 500, as well as ceramics at approximately the same time (Griset 1996; Hale 2009). Even then, assemblage formality remains low. After the bow is adopted, small arrow points appear in large quantities, and already low amounts of formal flake tools are replaced by increasing amounts of expedient flake tools. Similarly, shaped milling stones and hand stones decrease in proportion relative to expedient, unshaped ground stone tools (Hale 2009). Thus, the terminus of the Archaic Period is equally as hard to define as its beginning because basic assemblage constituents and patterns of manufacturing investment remain stable, complemented only by the addition of the bow and ceramics.
Late Prehistoric (AD 500–1769)
The period of time following the Archaic and prior to Ethnohistoric times (AD 1769) is commonly referred to as the Late Prehistoric (Rogers 1945; Wallace 1955; Warren et al. 2004). However, several other subdivisions continue to be used to describe various shifts in assemblage composition, including the addition of ceramics and cremation practices. In northern San Diego County, the post-AD 1450 period is called the San Luis Rey Complex (True 1980).
Rogers (1929) also subdivided the last 1,000 years into the Yuman II and III cultures, based on the distribution of ceramics. Despite these regional complexes, each is defined by the addition of arrow points and ceramics and the widespread use of bedrock mortars. Vagaries in the appearance of the bow and arrow and ceramics make the temporal resolution of the San Luis Rey Complex difficult. For this reason, the term Late Prehistoric is well suited to describe the last 1,500 years of prehistory in the San Diego region.
Temporal trends in socioeconomic adaptations during the Late Prehistoric Period are poorly understood. This is partly due to the fact that the fundamental Late Prehistoric assemblage is very similar to the Archaic pattern but includes arrow points and large quantities of fine debitage from producing arrow points, ceramics, and cremations.
The appearance of mortars and pestles is difficult to place in time because most mortars are on bedrock surfaces; bowl mortars are actually rare in the San Diego County region. Some argue that the Ethnohistoric intensive acorn economy extends as far back as AD 500 (Bean and Shipek 1978). However, there is no substantial evidence that reliance on acorns, and the accompanying use of mortars and pestles, occurred prior to AD 1400. True (1980) argued that acorn processing and ceramic use in the northern San Diego region did not occur until the San Luis Rey pattern emerged after approximately AD 1450.
4.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.4-4
Ethnohistoric (Post-AD 1769)
The history of the Native American communities prior to the mid-1700s has largely been reconstructed through later mission-period and early ethnographic accounts. The first records of the Native American inhabitants of the San Diego region come predominantly from European merchants, missionaries, military personnel, and explorers.
These brief, and generally peripheral, accounts were prepared with the intent of furthering respective colonial and economic aims and were combined with observations of the landscape. They were not intended to be unbiased accounts regarding the cultural structures and community practices of the newly encountered cultural groups. The establishment of the missions in the San Diego region brought more extensive documentation of Native American communities, though these groups did not become the focus of formal and in-depth ethnographic study until the early twentieth century (Boscana 1846; Fages 1937; Geiger and Meighan 1976; Harrington 1934; Laylander 2000). The principal intent of these researchers was to record the precontact, culturally specific practices, ideologies, and languages that had survived the destabilizing effects of missionization and colonialism. This research, often understood as “salvage ethnography,” was driven by the understanding that traditional knowledge was being lost due to the impacts of modernization and cultural assimilation. Alfred Kroeber applied his “memory culture” approach (Lightfoot 2005: 32) by recording languages and oral histories within the San Diego region.
Kroeber’s 1925 assessment of the impacts of Spanish missionization on local Native American populations supported Kumeyaay traditional cultural continuity (Kroeber 1925: 711):
San Diego was the first mission founded in upper California; but the geographical limits of its influence were the narrowest of any, and its effects on the natives comparatively light. There seem to be two reasons for this: first, the stubbornly resisting temper of the natives; and second, a failure of the rigorous concentration policy enforced elsewhere.
In some ways this interpretation led to the belief that many California Native American groups simply escaped the harmful effects of contact and colonization all together. This, of course, is untrue. Ethnographic research by Dubois, Kroeber, Harrington, Spier, and others during the early twentieth century seemed to indicate that traditional cultural practices and beliefs survived among local Native American communities. These accounts supported, and were supported by, previous governmental decisions that made San Diego County the location of more federally recognized tribes than anywhere else in the United States: 18 tribes on 18 reservations that cover more than 116,000 acres (CSP 2009).
The traditional cultural boundaries between the Luiseño and Kumeyaay Native American tribal groups have been well defined by anthropologist Florence C. Shipek (1993 summarized by the County of San Diego 2007: 6):
In 1769, the Kumeyaay national territory started at the coast about 100 miles south of the Mexican border (below Santo Tomas), thence north to the coast at the drainage divide south of the San Luis Rey River including its tributaries. Using the U.S. Geological Survey topographic maps, the boundary with the Luiseño then follows that divide inland. The boundary continues on the divide separating Valley Center from Escondido and then up along Bear Ridge to the 2240 contour line and then north across the divide between Valley Center and Woods Valley up to the 1880-foot peak, then curving around east along the divide above Woods Valley.
Based on ethnographic information, it is believed that at least 88 different languages were spoken from Baja California Sur to the southern Oregon state border at the time of Spanish contact (Johnson and Lorenz 2006: 34).
The distribution of recorded Native American languages has been dispersed as a geographic mosaic across California through six primary language families (Golla 2007: 71). The Native American inhabitants of the region
4.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.4-5
spoke using either the Ipai or Tipai language subgroups of the Yuman language group. Ipai and Tipai are spoken respectively by the northern and southern Kumeyaay communities, with the San Diego River acting as the boundary between the two. As Ipai and Tipai are mutually intelligible, they are often treated as dialects of a larger Kumeyaay tribal group rather than as distinctive languages, though this has been debated (Luomala 1978; Laylander 2010).
Victor Golla has contended that one can interpret the amount of variability within specific language groups as being associated with the relative “time depth” of the speaking populations (Golla 2007: 80). A large amount of variation within the language of a group represents a greater time depth than a group’s language with less internal diversity.
One method that Golla has employed is by drawing comparisons with historically documented changes in Germanic and Romantic language groups. Golla has observed that the “absolute chronology of the internal diversification within a language family” can be correlated with archaeological dates (2007: 71). This type of interpretation is modeled on concepts of genetic drift and gene flows that are associated with migration and population isolation in the biological sciences.
Golla suggested that there are two language families associated with Native American groups who traditionally lived throughout the San Diego County region. The northern San Diego tribes have traditionally spoken Takic languages that may be assigned to the larger Uto–Aztecan family (Golla 2007: 74). These groups include the Luiseño, Cupeño, and Cahuilla. Golla has interpreted the amount of internal diversity within these language-speaking communities to reflect a time depth of approximately 2,000 years. Other researchers have contended that Takic may have diverged from Uto–Aztecan circa 2600 BC–AD 1, which was later followed by the diversification within the Takic-speaking San Diego tribes, occurring approximately 1500 BC–AD 1000 (Laylander 2010). The majority of Native American tribal groups in the southern San Diego region have traditionally spoken Yuman languages, a subgroup of the Hokan Phylum. Golla has suggested that the time depth of Hokan is approximately 8,000 years (Golla 2007: 74). The Kumeyaay tribal communities share a common language group with the Cocopah, Quechan, Maricopa, Mojave, and others to east, and the Kiliwa to the south. The time depth for both the Ipai (north of the San Diego River, from Escondido to Lake Henshaw) and the Tipai (south of the San Diego River, from the Laguna Mountains through Ensenada) is approximated to be 2,000 years at the most. Laylander has contended that previous research indicates a divergence between Ipai and Tipai to have occurred approximately AD 600–1200 (Laylander 1985).
Despite the distinct linguistic differences between the Takic-speaking tribes to the north, the Ipai-speaking communities in central San Diego, and the Tipai southern Kumeyaay, attempts to illustrate the distinctions between these groups based solely on cultural material alone have had only limited success (Pigniolo 2004; True 1966).
The Kumeyaay generally lived in smaller family subgroups that would inhabit two or more locations over the course of the year. While less common, there is sufficient evidence that there were also permanently occupied villages and that some members may have remained at these locations throughout the year (Owen 1965; Shipek 1982, 1985; Spier 1923). Each autonomous triblet was internally socially stratified, commonly including higherstatus individuals such as a tribal head (Kwaaypay), shaman (Kuseyaay), and general members with various responsibilities and skills (Shipek 1982). Higher-status individuals tended to have greater rights to land resources, and owned more goods, such as shell money and beads, decorative items, and clothing. To some degree, titles were passed along family lines; however, tangible goods were generally ceremonially burned or destroyed following the deaths of their owners (Luomala 1978). Remains were cremated over a pyre and then relocated to a cremation ceramic vessel that was placed in a removed or hidden location. A broken metate was commonly placed at the location of the cremated remains, with the intent of providing aid and further use after death. At maturity, tribal members often left to other bands in order to find a partner. The families formed networks of communication and exchange around such partnerships.
4.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.4-6
Areas or regions, identified by known physical landmarks, could be recognized as band-specific territories that might be violently defended against use by other members of the Kumeyaay. Other areas or resources, such as water sources and other locations that were rich in natural resources, were generally understood as communal land to be shared amongst all the Kumeyaay (Loumala 1978). The coastal Kumeyaay exchanged a number of local goods, such as seafood, coastal plants, and various types of shell for items including acorns, agave, mesquite beans, gourds, and other more interior plants of use (Luomala 1978). Shellfish would have been procured from three primary environments, including the sandy open coast, bay and lagoon, and rocky open coast. The availability of these marine resources changed with the rising sea levels, siltation of lagoon and bay environments, changing climatic conditions, and intensity of use by humans and animals (Gallegos and Kyle 1988; Pigniolo 2005; Warren and Pavesic 1963). Shellfish from sandy environments included Donax, Saxidomus, Tivela, and others. Rocky coast shellfish dietary contributions consisted of Pseudochama, Megastraea, Saxidomus, Protothaca, Megathura, and others. Lastly, the bay environment would have provided Argopecten, Chione, Ostrea, Neverita, Macoma, Tagelus, and others. While marine resources were obviously consumed, terrestrial animals and other resources likely provided a large portion of sustenance. Game animals consisted of rabbits, hares (Leporidae), birds, ground squirrels, woodrats (Neotoma), deer, bears, mountain lions (Puma concolor), bobcats (Lynx rufus), coyotes (Canus latrans), and others. In lesser numbers, reptiles and amphibians may have been consumed.
A number of local plants were used for food and medicine. These were exploited seasonally and were both traded between regional groups and gathered as a single triblet moved between habitation areas. Some of the more common of these that might have been procured locally or as higher elevation varieties would have included California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), Agave, Yucca, lemonade berry (Rhus integrifolia), sugar brush (Rhus ovata), California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), yerba santa (Eriodictyon), sage (Salvia), Ephedra, prickly pear (Opuntia), mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia), chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum), elderberry (Sambucus nigra), oak (Quercus), willow (Salix), and Juncus grass among many others (Wilken 2012).
Historic Period (post-AD 1542)
Francisco Ulloa, exploring the Pacific coast under orders from Hernán Cortes, is reported to have stopped at the San Luis Rey River in 1540, marking the first contact between Europeans and the Luiseño, although the accuracy of his exploration is disputed (Garrahy and Weber 1971). Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo, who is widely considered the first European to explore Alta California, sailed the coast through Luiseño territory in 1542 but is not reported to have landed. Epidemic diseases may also have been introduced into the region at an early date, either by direct contacts with the infrequent European visitors or through waves of diffusion emanating from native peoples farther to the east or south (Preston 2002). It is possible, but as yet unproven, that the precipitous demographic decline of native peoples had already begun prior to the arrival of Gaspar de Portolá and Junípero Serra in 1769.
In 1798, Mission San Luis Rey, named for the King of France, was established 4 miles up along the San Luis Rey River. At its height, San Luis Rey became one of the most populous and successful of the missions. In 1824, it had a Native American neophyte population of 3,000, and the extensive mission lands supported 1,500 horses, 2,800 sheep, and 22,000 cattle (Pourade 1961: 139). Under Spanish control, the missions set out to convert local populations to Christianity and to expand the influence of the Spanish empire. To support intensified missionization, asistencias (sub-missions) and ranchos were established throughout the territory in the vicinity of Native American villages. Eighteen years after the establishment of Mission San Luis Rey, the mission asistencia of Pala was established 20 miles upriver.
Throughout this period, the Spanish established multiple missions and allowed only baptized Native Americans to legally own property. These disturbances to Native American communities only increased through Mexican Independence in 1821 and the succeeding secularization of the missions. Following the establishment of the
4.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.4-7
Mexican republic, the government seized many of the lands belonging to Native Americans, providing them as parts of larger Land Grants to affluent Mexican citizens and rancheros. In 1835, the missions took on the role of parish churches (Carrico 2008: 41). While some rancherias and pueblos such as Las Flores (Uchme), San Pasqual, and San Dieguito remained under the control of their native inhabitants following secularization, over the succeeding four and a half decades, these were eventually lost to Mexican and Anglo-American owners as well.
Mexico’s separation from the Spanish empire in 1821 and the secularization of the California missions in the 1830s caused further disruptions to native populations. The 1833 Secularization Act passed by the Mexican Congress ordered half of all mission lands to be transferred to the Native Americans and the other half to remain in trust and managed by an appointed administrator. These orders were never implemented due to several factors that conspired to prevent the Native Americans from regaining their patrimony. By 1835, the missions, including Mission San Luis Rey, were secularized. Mission San Luis Rey lands were parceled into six ranchos: Santa Margarita, Las Flores, Buena Vista, Agua Hedionda, Monserrate, and Guajome. The remaining lands of San Luis Rey were sold in 1846 to José Cota and José A. Pico by Pío Pico, Governor of California, and the Luiseño converts who had lived around the mission were removed to nearby Pala. Some former mission neophytes were absorbed into the work forces on the ranchos, while others drifted toward the urban centers at San Diego and Los Angeles or moved to the eastern portions of the county where they were able to join still largely autonomous native communities. United States conquest and annexation, together with the gold rush in Northern California, brought many additional outsiders into the region. Development during the following decades was fitful, undergoing cycles of boom and bust.
With rising populations in the nineteenth century throughout the Southern California region, there were increased demands for important commodities, including agricultural goods. Land grants issued within the Valley Center area (1841–1848) included the ranchos of Pauma, Rincon del Diablo, Cuca or El Potrero, and Guejito. Other land grants in the surrounding area included Bernardo, San Marcos, Buena Vista, and Monserrate. Of these, Rancho Guejito is the last to remain intact.
In 1851, a group of Cahuilla and Cupeño Native Americans attacked American settlers in Warner’s Hot Spring, hoping to unite tribes and drive out the Americans (Bibb 1991). Led by Pablo Apis, the Luiseño of Temecula went to Mission San Luis Rey and remained out of the conflict (Bibb 1991). In 1852, the Treaty of Temecula (Treaty of Peace and Friendship) was signed, providing certain lands, horses, cattle, and other supplies to the Luiseño, Cahuilla, and Serrano in exchange for government control of the rest of their lands (Bibb 1991; Van Horn 1974).
This treaty, and 17 others in California, was rejected by the U.S. Senate later that year.
California was officially ceded to the United States in 1848, which led to the continued appropriation of Native American lands by ranchers, prospectors, and an increasing number of settlers. The U.S. government did little to dissuade these trespasses. From 1850, with the passage of California’s Indian Act, until legislative reforms in the late 1880s, state laws promoted conditions that amounted to indentured servitude for much of the Native American population in San Diego (Carrico 2008: 56). These laws supported overt racism and inequitable treatment.
Historic Context: City of Santee (1877–Present)
In 1877, George A. Cowles purchased 4,000 acres of land in rural San Diego to farm raisins. The area became known as Cowleston, in honor of Cowles, who was known as the Raisin King of America. The area’s climate was ideal for growing grapes. To help speed up development of the area and transport his raisins, Cowles brought the San Diego Cuyamaca and Eastern Railway (SD&E) to the area, which was part of the larger National City and Otay Railway system (Brown 1958). In 1888, Stowe School was organized to educate children from the Fanita Ranch, a cattle ranch owned by the Scripps family. Cowles later donated land for a school, and the Stowe School was demolished. The Cowles School opened in 1891 and was part of the Cowles School District (SSD 2025). Cowles
4.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.4-8
died in 1887, at the age 51, and his widow Jennie married Milton Santee, a real estate agent and councilman from Los Angeles. In June 1893, Santee persuaded local voters to change the town’s name from Cowleston to Santee.
The Cowles School was changed to the Santee School and Cowles Avenue was changed to Mission Gorge Road.
Only the 1,590-foot-tall Cowles Mountain retained the Cowles name (Harpster 1993: 14; SSD 2025).
According to historic topographic maps, the central core of Santee was developed with only three properties into 1900.
The San Diego River ran east to west along the town’s northern border with the developing town of El Cajon to the south. By the 1910s, additional roads were laid out with a slight increase in residential and commercial development along these roads (NETR 2025a). In 1926, the Santee School was expanded to a two-room schoolhouse surrounded by the SD&E railroad, a dairy farm named Edgemoor County Farm, a granite quarry, and the Santee Post Office (SSD 2025). Development remained sparce into the 1930s and early 1940s, and the town’s population was fewer than 1,000 people (NETR 2025a; Harpster 1993: 14). The SD&E railroad was acquired by the San Diego and Arizona Eastern Railway and continued to run north to south through the town’s center (NETR 2025a).
During World War II, 2,300 acres of the Scripps family’s Fanita Ranch, west of Santee, was acquired by the federal government to be used as a military training ground (City of Santee 2025). Residential development in Santee increased to accommodate the rising post–World War II population (NETR 2025b). In 1942, the United States Marine Corps developed a 688-acre site just south of Santee for a parachute training facility called Camp Gillespie, which would later become the Gillespie Field Airport (County of San Diego 2025). Camp Gillespie attracted more people to Santee and development continued to increase into the 1970s. In 1958, another 4,300 acres of Fanita Ranch were purchased by the Carlton Company (later the Santee–Carlton Company), a development company (City of Santee 2025). Between 1957 and 1973, nine schools within the Santee School District opened (SSD 2025). The area’s population increased from “less than 2,000 residents in 1950 to 25,750 in 1970” (City of Santee 2025).
Due to Santee’s rapidly changing landscape from primarily rural agricultural land to suburban tract developments, residents became increasingly concerned about the character of the community. New developments included the Carlton Hills neighborhood, Cameron’s Mobile Estates, Mission Del Magnolia, and residential tract developments north, west, and south of Mission Gorge Road (NETR 2025b). The San Diego County Santee Citizen’s Planning Committee, a volunteer land-use and planning advisory group, was officially recognized by the Board of Supervisors in 1968. In 1974, the group prepared the Santee Community Plan, which acted as the community’s General Plan until the current Santee General Plan was adopted in 1984. After failing in 1976, residents voted for incorporation in 1980, making Santee an independent city with a Mayor, Vice Mayor, and City Council. Since 1980, residential, commercial, and industrial development increased with the majority of Santee’s open land being infilled, and by 2020 the population rose to 60,037 (City of Santee 2025).
Archaeology Records Search Summary
An examination of existing cultural resource maps, records, and reports was conducted by Dudek to determine the cultural sensitivity of the APE. Dudek conducted a records search at the South Coastal Information Center (SCIC) at San Diego State University on October 8, 2025. The search encompassed the entire APE and a 0.25-mile buffer (Confidential Appendix E). The 2025 search of the SCIC records identified 4 resources intersecting the APE and an additional 19 resources within 0.25 miles of the APE (Table 4.4-1, Previously Recorded Cultural Resources Within 0.25 Miles of the APE). The prehistoric sites intersecting the APE include bedrock milling stations (P-37- 026520 and P-37-026521), a quarry and artifact scatter (CA-SDI-005030), and a multicomponent site consisting of bedrock milling and remnants of a historic period school (CA-SDI-22955). Site CA-SDI-22955 intersecting the APE has been previously evaluated and recommended not eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) or National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or as significant under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the remaining resources within the APE have not been evaluated.
4.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.4-9
The records search also identified 36 previous cultural resources studies as intersecting the APE, and an additional 63 cultural resources studies have been conducted within 0.25 miles of the APE. The 36 previous cultural resources studies cover approximately 90% of the APE, though not all studies include pedestrian survey.
Table 4.4-1. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources Within 0.25 Miles of the APE Primary No. Trinomial No. Description
Evaluation
Results
Resources intersecting the APE
P-37-005030 CA-SDI-005030 Prehistoric quarry and artifact scatter NE P-37-026520 N/A Prehistoric bedrock milling NE
P-37-026521 N/A Prehistoric bedrock milling NE
P-37-039090 CA-SDI-22955 Multicomponent bedrock milling and remnants of a school
NS
Resources within 0.25 miles of the APE
P-37-000140 CA-SDI-000140 Unknown NE
P-37-000141 CA-SDI-000141 Unknown NE
P-37-005050 CA-SDI-005050 Prehistoric habitation site, lithic scatter, ceramic scatter, bedrock milling
NE
P-37-005669 CA-SDI-005669 Prehistoric habitation site, lithic scatter NE P-37-007603 CA-SDI-007603 Prehistoric lithic scatter NS P-37-009245 CA-SDI-009245 Historic period refuse deposit NE P-37-010148 CA-SDI-010148 Prehistoric habitation site, lithic scatter, ceramic scatter NS P-37-012244 CA-SDI-012244 Prehistoric bedrock milling NE P-37-012245 CA-SDI-012245 Prehistoric bedrock milling NE P-37-012246 CA-SDI-012246 Prehistoric bedrock milling NE P-37-020175 N/A Historic single-family residence NS
P-37-025303 N/A Prehistoric isolate NS
P-37-028990 N/A Historic period single-family residence NS P-37-029009 N/A Historic period single-family residence NS P-37-029011 N/A Historic period church buildings NS
P-37-032655 CA-SDI-020693 Historic refuse deposit NS
P-37-032878 CA-SDI-020778 Multicomponent habitation debris, possible human remains, refuse deposit
NS
P-37-035815 CA-SDI-021860 Prehistoric lithic scatter NE P-37-037786 CA-SDI-22504 Historic period remnants of Fanita Rancho NS Notes: APE = area of potential effect; N/A = not applicable.
Evaluation results: NE = not evaluated; NS = not significant.
Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File Search Dudek requested a Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) search of their Sacred Lands File on July 7, 2025, for the APE. The Sacred Lands File consists of a database of known Native American resources. These resources may not be included in the SCIC database. The NAHC responded on July 22, 2025, stating resources are listed in the Sacred Lands File for this area, but did not provide details on what the resource(s) are or where they are located in relation to the APE (Confidential Appendix E).
4.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.4-10
The NAHC additionally provided a list of Native American tribes and individuals/organizations with traditional geographic associations that might have knowledge of cultural resources in this area. Outreach letters were sent on December 23, 2025, to all tribes included on the NAHC contact list, notifying them of the Project and inquiring whether the tribal representatives have any knowledge of cultural resources or places that may be impacted by the Project (Confidential Appendix E).
Clint Linton of the Kumeyaay Cultural Repatriation Committee was contacted via phone call on December 25, 2025.
Mr. Linton stated that, besides known resources in the vicinity, due to the changing course of the San Diego River throughout antiquity, there is an increased likelihood for Native American resource deposits throughout the Proposed Project area. As such, Mr. Linton recommended tribal and archaeological monitoring should projects extend below/beyond previous disturbance areas to help mitigate the potential to impact previously unidentified human remains.
Archaeological Resource Sensitivity
The potential to impact cultural resources within the APE is dependent upon the future development within the APE and on the cultural resource sensitivity within the APE. Archaeological sensitivity varies throughout the APE based on previous development, known cultural resource locations, and topography. Tribal cultural resources sensitivity varies throughout the APE and requires input from culturally affiliated tribal representatives to determine.
Dudek has reviewed the cultural sensitivity of the APE to identify areas with increased potential to impact cultural resources during future project implementation. Previously developed portions of Santee have undergone development or other ground disturbances in the past that preclude the existence of intact cultural deposits. This is particularly true where natural terrain has been greatly modified by extensive earthmoving activities.
If future development involves ground disturbance within artificial fill or engineered matrix, then these developments would have a low potential to impact cultural resources. In summary, since much of the APE has undergone extensive earthmoving and consists of largely artificial fill or engineered earth, much of the APE is considered to have a Low Archaeological Sensitivity (Confidential Figure 3 in Confidential Appendix B to PEIR Appendix E). Future developments located within Low Archaeological Sensitivity areas will have a low potential to impact archaeological resources.
It is within areas that have a Moderate Archaeological Sensitivity where future projects have the potential to impact buried cultural resources (Confidential Figure 3 in Confidential Appendix B to PEIR Appendix E). Ground-disturbing activities within or adjacent to previously identified cultural resources have a heightened potential of impacting cultural resources. Though an area has been disturbed by development since the recordation of these resources, cultural resources that have been previously identified under now existing development without associated mass grading and/or without extensive subterranean utilities may not have required extensive earthmoving and may have only disturbed the immediate ground surface. Intact buried cultural deposits may exist immediately below the existing development. Similarly, lightly developed areas of the APE have a heightened potential for undisturbed cultural resources, especially near water sources (i.e., San Diego River). As such, future projects within these Moderate Archaeological Sensitivity areas may impact buried significant cultural resources.
Historic Built Environment Resources
Historical resources are physical features, both natural and constructed, that reflect past human existence and are of historical, archaeological, scientific, educational, cultural, architectural, aesthetic, or traditional significance.
These resources may include buildings, groups of buildings, structures, districts, street furniture, signs, cultural
4.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.4-11
properties, and landscapes. Built environment properties that were documented prior to this study and found to be eligible for or listed in the NRHP or the CRHR and/or locally designated or identified in a historic resources survey are considered known historical resources. Built environment historical resources most commonly consist of individual buildings or districts (residential, agricultural, industrial, and commercial) but can also include resources such as water management structures (levees, canals, dams, and ditches) or other linear resources (railroad alignments, roads, and bridges).
Known Historic Built Environment Resources
The following repositories and documents were consulted to identify previously recorded historic built environment resources.
City of Santee General Plan
According to the City’s General Plan Conservation Element, the City has one property that is listed on the NRHP, the Edgemoor Farm Dairy Barn, or Polo Barn. The Edgemoor Farm Dairy Barn is located on the Edgemoor Hospital Grounds on Magnolia Avenue, outside the Project parcels. The City has one officially registered Local Historic Landmark, the James Love House, or Granite House. The Granite House is located on the City’s maintenance yard property on Hazeldon Drive, just south of Forester Creek. The property was likely moved (location unknown), but it is located outside the Project parcels.
South Coastal Information Center Records Search
The SCIC search did not identify any previously recorded built environment properties within the Project parcels.
Built Environment Resource Directory
The Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD) database provides information, organized by county, regarding non-archaeological resources in the Office of Historic Preservation’s inventory. The BERD contains information only for built environment resources that have been processed through the Office of Historic Preservation through federal and state regulatory processes and resources nominated under federal and state registration programs.
The BERD replaces the former Historic Properties Directory that previously provided evaluation status information for those resources processed through the Office of Historic Preservation.
A search of the BERD for San Diego County was conducted on October 16, 2025, and identified 121 properties in Santee. Of these 121 properties, 111 have the California Historical Resource Status Code 6Y, indicating they were determined ineligible for the NRHP by consensus through the Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106) process but were not evaluated for the CRHR or local listing. One property has a California Historical Resource Status Code 7R, meaning it was identified in a reconnaissance-level survey or in an APE but was not evaluated for its potential significance. The remaining nine properties on the BERD have California Historical Resource Status Codes 1S (individually listed on the NRHP and listed on the CRHR) and 2D2 (contributor to a multicomponent resource determined eligible for the NRHP by consensus through the Section 106 process and listed on the CRHR). None of the nine properties overlap the Project parcels.
4.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.4-12
Other Repositories
In addition to conducting the abovementioned research, Dudek reviewed the following databases for previously recorded historical resources in Santee:
▪ NRHP NPGallery Database
▪ California Historic Landmark Registry and California Points of Historical Interest These repositories or databases did not include any historical resources that are located within the Project parcels.
Historic-Age Properties Within the Project Area
Dudek reviewed the Project parcels on historic aerial photographs via Nationwide Environmental Title Research LLC for properties within the Project parcels that were constructed prior to 1980 and therefore are over 45 years of age.
Generally, properties eligible for listing in the NRHP and CRHR are at least 50 years old. The 45-year criteria recognizes that there is commonly a 5-year lag between resource identification and the date that planning decisions are made. Table 4.4-2 lists all historic-age (over 45 years of age) properties within the Project parcels (see Figure 4.4-1, Historic-Age Properties in Santee).
Table 4.4-2. Historic-Age Properties Within the Project Parcels Address Primary No. APN(s) Description
Date of
Construction
9251 Carlton Hills
Boulevard
None listed 383-450-01-00 Commercial ca. 1970
9225 Carlton Hills
Boulevard
None listed 383-450-02-00,
383-450-05-00,
383-450-04-00, and
383-450-03-00
Commercial – Strip
Mall
1979
8917-8967 Carlton Hills
Boulevard
None listed 383-156-01-00,
383-156-02-00, and
383-156-03-00
Commercial – Strip
Mall
ca. 1958
8915 Carlton Hills
Boulevard
None listed 383-156-04-00 Commercial –
Restaurant
ca. 1958
9035 Mission Gorge Road None listed 383-121-49-00 Commercial – Gas Station
ca. 1958
8868 and 8844 Fanita
Drive
None listed 383-121-63-00 Commercial – Car
Wash and Residential
1967 and ca.
1958
9111 Mission Gorge Road None listed 383-124-10-00 Commercial – Gas Station
ca. 1975
9121 Mission Gorge Road None listed 383-124-12-00 Commercial – Restaurant
ca. 1958
9143 Mission Gorge Road None listed 383-124-13-00 Commercial – Automotive
ca. 1958
9155 Mission Gorge Road None listed 383-124-50-00 Commercial ca. 1975 9181 Mission Gorge Road None listed 383-124-47-00 Commercial ca. 1958 9207 and 9185 Mission
Gorge Road
None listed 383-124-52-00 Commercial –
Automotive and
ca. 1958 and
ca. 1945
4.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.4-13
Table 4.4-2. Historic-Age Properties Within the Project Parcels Address Primary No. APN(s) Description
Date of
Construction
Residential – Single
family
9525 Mission Gorge Road None listed 384-330-19-00 Residential – Multifamily
ca. 1976
9535 Mission Gorge Road None listed 384-330-28-00 Commercial 1980 8876 Olive Lane None listed 384-330-06-00 Residential – Multifamily
ca. 1976
9575 Mission Gorge Road None listed 384-330-05-00 Commercial ca. 1976 8858 Olive Lane None listed 384-330-29-00 Residential – Multifamily
ca. 1976
9635 Mission Gorge Road None listed 384-330-22-00 Commercial ca. 1976 9655 Mission Gorge Road None listed 384-330-35-00 Commercial ca. 1976 9711 Mission Gorge Road None listed 384-340-22-00 Commercial ca. 1976 9713-9733 Mission Gorge
Road
None listed 384-340-36-00 Commercial – Strip
Mall
ca. 1976
9745-9763 Mission Gorge
Road
None listed 384-340-36-00,
384-340-37-00,
384-340-33-00, and
384-340-29-00
Commercial – Strip
Mall
ca. 1976
9771 Mission Gorge Road None listed 384-340-26-00 Commercial ca. 1976 8828 Cuyamaca Street None listed 384-350-30-00 Commercial ca. 1976 8781 Cuyamaca Street
and 98 Buena Vista
Avenue
None listed 384-041-54-00,
384-041-07-00, and
384-041-53-00
Commercial – Strip
Mall
ca. 1976 and
1979
8795 Cuyamaca Street None listed 384-041-49-00 Commercial ca. 1976 8811 Cuyamaca Street None listed 384-041-48-00 Government ca. 1970 8865 Cuyamaca Street None listed 384-041-55-00 Commercial ca. 1976 9811 Mission Gorge Road None listed 384-041-01-00 Commercial – Gas Station
ca. 1970
10115 Mission Gorge
Road
None listed 384-080-67-00 and
384-080-74-00
Commercial ca. 1976
10147 Mission Gorge
Road
None listed 384-080-51-00 Commercial 1979
10151 Mission Gorge
Road
None listed 384-080-52-00 Religious ca. 1976
10159 Mission Gorge
Road
None listed 384-081-14-00 Commercial ca. 1976
10201 Mission Gorge
Road
None listed 384-081-15-00 Commercial 1979
10233 Mission Gorge
Road
None listed 384-081-01-00 Residential –
Multifamily
ca. 1970
8866 Donna Jean Lane None listed 384-091-70-00 Residential – Multifamily
ca. 1958
4.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.4-14
Table 4.4-2. Historic-Age Properties Within the Project Parcels Address Primary No. APN(s) Description
Date of
Construction
8867-8875 Donna Jean
Lane
None listed 384-091-66-00 Residential – Single
family
ca. 1945
8852 Railroad Avenue None listed 384-091-67-00 Residential – Single family
ca. 1958
8840 Railroad Avenue None listed 384-091-12-00 Residential – Single family
ca. 1945
10529 Mission Gorge
Road
None listed 384-091-08-00 Commercial ca. 1958
10320 Mission Gorge
Road
None listed 384-109-19-00 Commercial –
Restaurant
ca. 1958
10330 Mission Gorge
Road
None listed 384-109-22-00 Commercial ca. 1958
10350 Mission Gorge
Road
None listed 384-108-33-00 Commercial ca. 1976
10366 Mission Gorge
Road
None listed 384-108-34-00 Commercial ca. 1976
10410 Mission Gorge
Road
None listed 384-107-29-00 Commercial ca. 1970
10426 Mission Gorge
Road
None listed 384-107-14-00 Commercial ca. 1945
8919 Edgemoor Drive None listed 384-106-15-00 and
384-106-14-00
Commercial ca. 1945
10460 Mission Gorge
Road
None listed 384-106-13-00 and
384-106-12-00
Commercial ca. 1958
8931 Magnolia Avenue None listed 384-112-29-00 Commercial – Automotive
ca. 1976
10710 Woodside Avenue None listed 384-112-43-00 Commercial ca. 1976 10718 Woodside Avenue None listed 384-112-48-00 Commercial ca. 1976 8861 Magnolia Avenue None listed 384-120-48-00 Commercial ca. 1945 10731, 10735, and
10741 Woodside Avenue
None listed 384-120-02-00 Commercial 1979
10757, 10759, and
10763 Woodside Avenue
None listed 384-470-34-04 Commercial ca. 1976 and
1979
10767 Woodside Avenue None listed 384-470-13-00 Commercial – Restaurant
ca. 1976
10769 Woodside Avenue None listed 384-470-14-00 Commercial 1979 9740 Cuyamaca Street None listed 381-190-20-00 Commercial – Strip Mall
1979
9730 Cuyamaca Street None listed 381-190-21-00 Commercial – Strip Mall
1979
9720 Cuyamaca Street None listed 381-190-22-00 Religious 1979 10219 Mast Boulevard None listed 381-032-18-00 Commercial ca. 1970 10223 Mast Boulevard None listed 381-032-17-00 Commercial ca. 1976 10251 Mast Boulevard None listed 381-032-28-00 Commercial ca. 1976
4.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.4-15
Table 4.4-2. Historic-Age Properties Within the Project Parcels Address Primary No. APN(s) Description
Date of
Construction
10333 Mast Boulevard None listed 381-032-14-00 Religious ca. 1968 10330 Mast Boulevard None listed 381-031-62-00 Commercial 1979 9822 Magnolia Avenue None listed 381-031-60-00 Commercial 1979 9828 Magnolia Avenue None listed 381-031-63-00 and
381-031-64-00
Commercial – Strip
Mall
ca. 1976
9864-9874 Magnolia
Avenue
None listed 381-031-59-00 Commercial – Strip
Mall
ca. 1976
Note: APN = Assessor’s Parcel Number; ca. = circa.
Summary for Findings for Historic Built Environment Resources Research did not result in the identification of any historical resources located within the Project parcels.
Figure 4.4-1 shows the location of the 68 historic-age (aged 45 years or older) properties located within the Project Parcels. These 68 properties would require inventory and evaluation to determine if they are historical resources under CEQA.
4.4.2 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances
Federal
Secretary of Interior Standards
The Secretary of Interior Standards are guidelines for the treatment of historic properties, and although compliance is not mandatory, they are intended to promote responsible preservation practices intended to protect cultural resources.
There are four treatment approaches, which include preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction.
National Historic Preservation Act
The National Historic Preservation Act established the NRHP and the President’s Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and provided that states may establish State Historic Preservation Officers to carry out some of the functions of the National Historic Preservation Act.
The President’s Advisory Council on Historic Preservation provides methodological and conceptual guidance for identifying historic properties.
National Register of Historic Places
The NRHP is the nation’s master inventory of known historic resources and includes listings of buildings, structures, sites, objects, and districts that possess historic, architectural, engineering, archaeological, or cultural significance at the national, state, or local level. A property must have both historical significance and integrity to be eligible for listing in the NRHP.
4.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.4-16
Properties are nominated to the NRHP by the State Historic Preservation Officer of the state in which the property is located, by the Federal Historic Preservation Officer for properties under federal ownership or control, or by the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer if on tribal lands. Listing in the NRHP provides formal recognition of a property’s historic, architectural, or archaeological significance based on national standards used by every state.
Documentation of a property’s historic significance helps encourage preservation of the resource.
State
California Register of Historical Resources
In California, the term “historical resource” includes but is not limited to “any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which is historically or archaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California” (PRC Section 5020.1[j]). In 1992, the California legislature established the CRHR “to be used by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify the state’s historical resources and to indicate what properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change” (PRC Section 5024.1[a]). The criteria for listing resources in the CRHR were expressly developed to be in accordance with previously established criteria developed for listing in the NRHP and are enumerated below. According to California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5024.1(c)(1–4), a resource is considered historically significant if it (i) retains “substantial integrity,” and (ii) meets at least one of the following criteria:
(1) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage.
(2) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past. (3) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values. (4) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
Per the California Code of Regulations (CCR), “to understand the historic importance of a resource, sufficient time must have passed to obtain a scholarly perspective on the events or individuals associated with the resource. A resource less than fifty (50) years old may be considered for listing in the [CRHR] if it can be demonstrated that sufficient time has passed to understand its historical importance” (14 CCR 4852[d][2]).
The CRHR protects cultural resources by requiring evaluations of the significance of prehistoric and historic resources. Properties listed or formally designated as eligible for listing in the NRHP are automatically listed in the CRHR, as are some state landmarks and points of historical interest. The CRHR also includes properties designated under local ordinances or identified through local historical resource surveys.
California Health and Safety Code
California law protects Native American burials, skeletal remains, and associated grave goods, regardless of their antiquity, and provides for the sensitive treatment and disposition of those remains. California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that if human remains are discovered in any place other than a dedicated cemetery, no further disturbance or excavation of the site or nearby area reasonably suspected to contain human remains shall occur until the county coroner has examined the remains. If the coroner determines or has reason to believe the remains are those of a Native American, the coroner must contact the NAHC within 24 hours. The NAHC will
4.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.4-17
notify the Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner, the MLD may inspect the site of discovery. Within 48 hours of being granted access to the site, the MLD may recommend means of treating or disposition, with appropriate dignity, of the human remains and associated grave goods.
California Public Resources Code
PRC Section 5097.94 establishes the powers and duties bestowed on the NAHC. As they relate to those powers and duties that apply to human remains, this code states that the NAHC has the responsibility to “identify and catalog places of special religious or social significance to Native Americans, and known graves and cemeteries of Native Americans on private lands”; “make recommendations relative to Native American sacred places that are located on private lands”; “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”; “provide protection to Native American human burials and skeletal remains from vandalism and inadvertent destruction”; and “assist interested landowners in developing agreements with appropriate Native American groups for treating or disposing, with appropriate dignity, of the human remains and any items associated with Native American burials”.
PRC Section 5097.98 outlines the protocols to be followed in the case of a discovery of Native American human remains, including the roles and responsibilities of the coroner, the NAHC, the individual identified by the NAHC as the MLD from the deceased Native American, and the landowner on whose land the discovery was made. The code defines the manner of “conferral” or “discuss and confer” as “the meaningful and timely discussion and careful consideration of the views of each party, in a manner that is cognizant of all parties’ cultural values, and where feasible, seeking agreement” and states that all parties involved “shall recognize the other’s needs and concerns for confidentiality of information provided to the other.” PRC Section 5097.99 is intended to protect by prohibiting obtaining or possessing Native American artifacts or human remains taken from grave or cairn on or after January 1, 1984, and states that “any person who removes, without authority of law, any Native American artifacts or human remains from a Native American grave or cairn with an intent to sell or dissect or with malice or wantonness is guilty of a felony which is punishable by imprisonment” in the state prison.
PRC Section 5097.991 establishes the policy of the state that “Native American remains and associated grave artifacts shall be repatriated.”
California Environmental Quality Act
As described further below, the following CEQA statutes and CEQA Guidelines are of relevance to the analysis of archaeological and cultural resources:
▪ PRC Section 21083.2(g) defines “unique archaeological resource.” ▪ PRC Section 21084.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a) define cultural resources. In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b) defines the phrase “substantial adverse change” in the significance of a cultural resource. It also defines the circumstances when a project would materially impair the significance of a cultural resource.
▪ PRC Section 21074(a) defines “tribal cultural resources” and Section 21074(b): defines a “cultural landscape.”
4.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.4-18
▪ PRC Section 5097.98 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e) set forth standards and steps to be employed following the accidental discovery of human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery.
▪ PRC Sections 21083.2(b)–21083.2(c) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 provide information regarding the mitigation framework for archaeological and historic resources, including options of preservation-in-place mitigation measures, and identify preservation in place as the preferred manner of mitigating impacts to significant archaeological sites. ▪ CEQA Section 15064.5 outlines the protocols to be followed in the case of a discovery of Native American human remains including the roles and responsibilities of the coroner, the NAHC, the individual identified by the NAHC as the MLD from the deceased Native American, and the landowner on whose land the discovery was made.
Historical Resources. Under CEQA, a project may have a significant effect on the environment if it may cause “a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource” (PRC Section 21084.1; 14 CCR 15064.5[b]).
If a site is either listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR, or if it is included in a local register of historic resources or identified as significant in a historical resources survey (meeting the requirements of PRC Section 5024.1[q]), it is a “historical resource” and is presumed to be historically or culturally significant for purposes of CEQA (PRC Section 21084.1; 14 CCR 15064.5[a]). The lead agency is not precluded from determining that a resource is a historical resource even if it does not fall within this presumption (PRC Section 21084.1; 14 CCR 15064.5[a]).
A “substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource” reflecting a significant effect under CEQA means “physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired” (14 CCR 15064.5[b][1]; PRC Section 5020.1[q]). In turn, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(2) states the following:
The significance of an historical resource is materially impaired when a project:
Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources; or Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources pursuant to section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or its identification in an historical resources survey meeting the requirements of section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, unless the public agency reviewing the effects of the project establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the resource is not historically or culturally significant; or Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources as determined by a lead agency for purposes of CEQA.
Pursuant to these sections, the CEQA inquiry begins with evaluating whether a project site contains any historical resources, then evaluates whether a project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource such that the resource’s historical significance would be materially impaired.
4.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.4-19
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Where a project has been determined to conform with the Secretary of the Interior (SOI) Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings, that project’s impact on historical resources would be considered mitigated to below a level of significance and, thus, not significant (14 CCR 15126.4[b][1]). In most cases, a project that demonstrates conformance with the SOI’s Standards is categorically exempt from CEQA (14 CCR 15331), as described in the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15126.4[b][1]):
Where maintenance, repair, stabilization, rehabilitation, restoration, preservation, conservation, or reconstruction of the historical resource will be conducted in a manner consistent with the SOI’s Standards and Guidelines(Weeks and Grimmer 1995), a project’s impact on the historical resource shall generally be considered mitigated below a level of significance and thus is not significant.
The SOI’s Standards are a series of concepts focused on maintaining, repairing, and replacing historic materials, as well as designing new additions or making alterations. They function as common-sense historic preservation principles that promote historic preservation best practices. There are four distinct approaches that may be applied to the treatment of historical resources (Weeks and Grimmer 1995):
▪ Preservation focuses on the maintenance and repair of existing historic materials and retention of a property’s form as it has evolved over time.
▪ Rehabilitation acknowledges the need to alter or add to a historic property to meet continuing or changing uses while retaining the property’s historic character. ▪ Restoration depicts a property at a particular period of time in its history, while removing evidence of other periods.
▪ Reconstruction recreates vanished or non-surviving portions of a property for interpretive purposes.
The choice of treatment depends on a variety of factors, including the property’s historical significance, physical condition, proposed use, and intended interpretation. The Guidelines provide general design and technical recommendations to assist in applying the SOI’s Standards to a specific property. Together, the Standards and Guidelines provide a framework that guides important decisions concerning proposed changes to a historic property.
The following 10 Standards for Rehabilitation are used to determine if a project is in conformance with the Standards for a rehabilitation. To be in conformance, a project must be consistent with the historic character of the structure(s) and, where applicable, the district in which it is located. The following Standards are to be applied to specific rehabilitation projects in a reasonable manner, taking into consideration economic and technical feasibility (Weeks and Grimmer 1995):
A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment.
The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided.
Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken.
Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved.
4.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.4-20
Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved.
Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence.
Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible.
Significant archaeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken.
New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.
New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.
Unique Archaeological Resources. If it can be demonstrated that a project would cause damage to a unique archaeological resource, the lead agency may require that reasonable efforts be made to permit any or all of these resources to be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state. To the extent that they cannot be left undisturbed, mitigation measures are required (PRC Sections 21083.2[a], [b], and [c]).
PRC Section 21083.2(g), defines a “unique archaeological resource” as follows:
[A]n archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria:
(1) Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information.
(2) Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type.
(3) Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.
Impacts to non-unique archaeological resources are generally not considered a significant environmental impact (PRC Section 21083.2[a]; 14 CCR 15064.5[c][4]). However, if a non-unique archaeological resource qualifies as a tribal cultural resource (PRC Sections 21074[c] and 21083.2[h]), further consideration of significant impacts is required. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 assigns special importance to human remains and specifies procedures to be used when Native American remains are discovered. These procedures are detailed in PRC Section 5097.98.
4.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.4-21
Local
City of Santee Code of Ordinances
The following sections from the City’s Municipal Code provide regulations relating to cultural resources.
Title 11 Buildings and Construction, Chapter 11.48 Historical Landmarks Section 11.48.010 Purpose
The City Council declares that recognizing, preserving, enhancing, perpetuating, and using structures, natural features, sites and areas within the City that have historic, architectural, archaeological, cultural or aesthetic significance is in the interest of the health, economic prosperity, cultural enrichment and general welfare of the people. The purposes of this chapter are to:
Safeguard the heritage of the City by providing for the protection of landmarks representing significant elements of its history;
Enhance the visual character of the City by encouraging and regulating the compatibility of architectural styles within landmark districts reflecting unique and established architectural traditions;
Foster public appreciation of and civic pride in the beauty of the City and the accomplishments of its past;
Strengthen the economy of the City by protecting and enhancing the City's attractions to residents, tourists and visitors;
Promote the private and public use of landmarks and landmark districts for the education, prosperity and general welfare of the people;
Stabilize and improve property values within the City.
(Ord. 564 § 3, 2019)
Section 11.48.030 Criteria for Designation of Landmarks In considering a proposal to recommend to the City Council any structure, natural feature, site or area for designation as a landmark, the committee must evaluate the following criteria:
Its character, interest or value as a significant part of the heritage of the City, the State, or the nation;
Its location as a site of a significant historic event; Its identification with a person or persons who significantly contributed to the culture and development of the City, the State, or the nation;
Its exemplification of a particular architectural style or way of life important to the City, the State, or the nation;
Its exemplification of the best remaining architectural type in a neighborhood;
4.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.4-22
Its identification as the creation, design or work of a person or persons whose effort has significantly influenced the heritage of the City, the State, or the nation; Its embodiment of elements demonstrating outstanding attention to architectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship;
Its relationship to any other landmark if its preservation is essential to the integrity of that landmark;
Its unique location or singular physical characteristic representing an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood;
Its potential of yielding significant information of archaeological interest; Its integrity as a natural environment that strongly contributes to the well-being of the people of the City, the State, or the nation.
(Ord. 564 § 3, 2019)
Section 11.48.040 Procedure for Designation of Landmark The procedure for designation of any landmark is as follows:
Upon its own initiative or upon the application of any person or entity, the committee may recommend to the City Council the designation as a landmark of any structure, natural feature, site or area having historic, architectural, archaeological, cultural or aesthetic significance.
The City Council may adopt a resolution of intention to consider recommendation of the property for designation as a landmark.
Thereafter, any environmental assessment required by any applicable Federal, State, or local laws or regulations must be completed.
No later than 35 days after the date of such resolution or completion of environmental assessment, whichever is later, the City Council must conduct a public hearing on the proposal, and provide a reasonable opportunity for any interested party to be heard.
The City Council must adopt a resolution to recommend designation of the property as a landmark, or to deny such recommendation, no later than the next regularly scheduled meeting following the public hearing. The resolution must be reduced to writing and contain specific findings by the City Council.
Upon designation of a landmark, the City Clerk must cause such designation to be recorded in the office of the Recorder of the County.
(Ord. 564 § 3, 2019)
4.4.3 Environmental Impacts
4.4.3.1 Methodology
The Proposed Project is a policy document that does not include or propose any site-specific development that could directly result in construction or operational impacts to the environment. Rather, implementation of the Proposed Project would result in changes to land use designations, which would allow for additional future
4.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.4-23
development/redevelopment to occur. Therefore, this Draft PEIR does not assess the site-specific construction and operation details of each future development within the Project parcels. Instead, it assesses the impacts associated with changes to existing land uses and the associated overall effects of buildout of the Proposed Land Use Element through 2045, where reasonably foreseeable physical changes to the environment could occur.
4.4.3.2 Thresholds of Significance
The significance criteria used to evaluate the Project’s impacts to cultural resources are based on CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. For the purposes of this Project, a potentially significant impact to cultural resources would occur if the Proposed Project would:
1. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5.
2. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5.
3. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries.
4.4.3.3 Proposed Land Use Element Update Relevant Goals None of the proposed draft goals, policies, and implementation actions from the Proposed Project are relevant to cultural resources.
4.4.3.4 Impacts Analysis
Threshold 4.4-1: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
The Proposed Project would include updates to existing land use designations, the land use map, goals, policies, and actions and will add two new overlay zones, the Community Corridor Overlay and the Community Hub Overlay.
The Proposed Project would also change one parcel in the northern portion of Santee from Neighborhood Commercial to Medium-High Residential (R-14). The updates are aimed at fulfilling the guiding principles included in the Proposed Project by promoting infill and improving land use efficiency in established neighborhoods and districts. Upon adoption, the Proposed Project would guide development in the City over a 20-year planning period, with a horizon year of 2045. It identifies the permitted intensity, location, and type of development across Santee, such as living options, business and employment, parks and recreation, and public facilities. No construction or specific development would be facilitated by the Proposed Project that would directly impact historical resources.
There are no previously documented properties that would qualify as historical resources under CEQA within the Project parcels, or those parcels proposed for land use changes under the Community Corridor Overlay, the Community Hub Overlay, or the proposed Medium-High Residential (R-14) parcel. There are 68 historic-age (aged 45 years or older) properties, as well as numerous properties within the Project parcels that will become 45 years of age in the future, that have not been identified or evaluated under applicable historic significance criteria. As such, their status as CEQA historical resources is currently unknown. These potential resources require consideration in future planning. Implementation of the Proposed Project would result in changes to land use designations, and it is reasonable to assume that these changes would result in facilitating future development and construction within the Project parcels. Consequently, there is a potential to impact currently unknown historical resources through future subsequent projects that may result in property demolition, alteration, and/or expansion that may occur on existing buildings and properties in the Project parcels. Any future activities that would substantially adversely change the
4.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.4-24
significance of a historical resource would be considered a significant impact under CEQA. However, as detailed in Section 4.4.2, Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances, there are existing federal, state, and local policies and regulations in place to identify, assess impacts to, and protect historical resources.
Within the two new overlay zones, the Community Hub Overlay and the Community Corridor Overlay, and the land use designation change of parcel APN 378-160-25-00, there are currently no known historical resources. The new land use designations encourage the growth of mixed-use development along multimodal corridors that have the potential to impact unknown historical resources. Because of the lack of information regarding the specific nature, location and project-level impacts associated with potential future development that could move forward under the Proposed Project, it cannot be determined whether the Proposed Project goals and policies, as well as implementation of the City’s Conservation Element, would reduce impacts to a level that is less than significant as there is a potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of unknown historical resources through the reasonably foreseeable future property development. Mitigation Measure (MM) CUL-1 would require future project-specific developments that involve demolition or alterations to existing building(s)/structure(s) over 45 years old to assess the historical significance of those resources to see if they qualify as CEQA historical resources and require an assessment of potential project-level impacts. A parcel search on the County of San Diego geographic information system and/or records search with SCIC would then be conducted to determine if any identified resource is listed in the NRHP or CRHR as a historic resource. If the identified resource is not listed on the state or local register, the environmental assessment would examine the age, architectural style, and integrity of the resource and conduct additional investigation if it is unclear whether the identified resource is a historical resource. This would generally require the identified resource to be evaluated by a professionally qualified architectural historian and/or preparation of a Phase I and/or Phase II Historic Resources Assessment report to evaluate the properties in accordance with professional standards and in conformance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 to determine if it is a historical resource. If a future project involves alterations or modifications to historical resources and the proposed work conforms to the SOI’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, specifically the Standards for Rehabilitation, impacts to historical resources would be considered less than significant, and no additional review would be required.
If a future project involves material impairment or demolition of historical resource(s) that cannot be avoided or mitigated through project design review and Standards for Rehabilitation compliance, that project applicant must incorporate design changes or other measures to reduce or avoid impacts, even though it may not reduce impacts below a level of significance. Although documentation, interpretive displays, and salvage are common mitigation measures for projects in which there are impacts to historical resources, these measures do not ensure that all impacts from future development projects would be mitigated to a level of less than significant. Future non-discretionary projects that would be implemented under the Proposed Project would be subject to the federal, state, and local regulations mentioned above; however, these non-discretionary projects would not necessarily be subject to CEQA review, additional environmental assessments, or mitigation measures. Nevertheless, future projects would be subject to the City’s General Plan Conservation Element, which would ensure that proposed developments are reviewed for consistency with historic preservation standards and protect designated historic resources.
As such, implementation of MM-CUL-1 for all future discretionary development projects within the Proposed Project parcels would ensure that potential CEQA historical resources will be identified, project-specific impacts will be evaluated, and feasible mitigation measures will be required, as appropriate, to mitigate impacts to historical resources. However, mitigation may not always reduce impacts to below a level of significance, due to the nature of historic resources. Therefore, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
4.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.4-25
Threshold 4.4-2: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
The Project involves updates to existing land use designations, land use maps, and goals and policies, which would facilitate potential future development. The proposed updates to the existing land use designations would include the Community Corridor Overlay, the Community Hub Overlay, and the proposed Medium-High Residential parcel, and the following analysis applies to all proposed land use designations changes.
The change in land use by adding the proposed overlay zones to the land use map and Zoning Code would not directly impact cultural resources within the APE. Similarly, the change in the existing land use designation from Neighborhood Commercial to Medium-High Residential (R-14) would not directly impact cultural resources within the APE.
However, the potential to impact cultural resources within the APE is dependent upon the future development within the APE and on the cultural resource sensitivity within the APE. Archaeological sensitivity varies throughout the APE based on previous development, known cultural resource locations, and topography. Tribal cultural resource sensitivity varies throughout the APE and requires input from culturally affiliated tribal representatives to determine.
Based on review of cultural sensitivity of the APE, previously developed portions of Santee have undergone development or other ground disturbances in the past that preclude the existence of intact cultural deposits. This is particularly true where natural terrain has been greatly modified by extensive earthmoving activities. If future development facilitated by the Proposed Project involves ground disturbance within areas that are documented as consisting entirely of artificial fill or engineered matrix, then these developments would have a low potential to impact cultural resources. However, much of the APE, which is identified as Low Archaeological Sensitivity due to significant development and ground disturbance, may still have some potential for the accidental encounter of archaeological resources. As such, even future ground-disturbing activities in Low Archaeological Sensitivity areas may have the potential to impact archaeological resources.
Within areas that have a Moderate Archaeological Sensitivity, future development projects implemented under the Proposed Project have the potential to impact buried cultural resources (Confidential Figure 3 in Confidential Appendix B to PEIR Appendix E). Ground-disturbing activities within or adjacent to previously identified cultural resources have a heightened potential of impacting cultural resources. Though an area has been disturbed by development since the recordation of these resources, cultural resources that have been previously identified under now existing development without associated mass grading and/or without extensive subterranean utilities may not have required extensive earthmoving and may have only disturbed the immediate ground surface. Intact buried cultural deposits may exist immediately below the existing development. Similarly, lightly developed areas of the APE have a heightened potential for undisturbed cultural resources, especially near water sources (i.e., San Diego River). As such, future projects within these Moderate Archaeological Sensitivity areas may impact buried significant cultural resources, which would result in a potentially significant impact.
To reduce the potential impact to a less-than-significant impact to cultural resources, MM-CUL-2 would be required for all future development projects that involve ground-disturbing activities facilitated by the Proposed Project.
MM- CUL-2 would require cultural resource inventories prior to implementation of future projects within the Project APE, which would include a qualified archaeologist’s review of the Cultural Sensitivity Map (Confidential Figure 3 in Confidential Appendix B to PEIR Appendix E). In addition to project-specific measures to mitigate potential impacts to cultural resources, MM-CUL-2 includes cultural resources monitoring of any proposed project involving excavations within the Proposed Project APE (i.e., the Project parcels where land use changes are proposed).
4.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.4-26
MM- CUL-2 would require that known archaeological resources be appropriately considered prior to implementation of any future project-specific activities. If known archaeological resources are identified or unknown archaeological resources are inadvertently discovered during ground-disturbing activities, MM-CUL-2 would require that the archaeological resources be evaluated and treated, and if the discovered resource constitutes a historical resource or a unique archaeological resource under CEQA, avoidance and preservation in place would be the preferred mitigation; however, if preservation in place is determined to be infeasible, then a Cultural Resources Treatment Plan shall be prepared and implemented.
As detailed in Section 4.4.2, there are existing federal, state, and local policies and regulations in place to identify, assess impacts to, and protect archaeological resources. Additionally, all future discretionary projects within the Plan Area would be subject to CEQA review, including site-specific environmental assessments, as applicable. The project-level environmental review process would include an evaluation of a project’s potential impacts to archaeological resources.
Future non-discretionary projects that would be implemented under the Proposed Project would be subject to the federal, state, and local regulations mentioned above. As such, with implementation of existing regulations, applicable goals and policies, and MM-CUL-2, potential impacts relative to archaeological resources would be less than significant.
Threshold 4.4-3: Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
Although no direct development is proposed as part of the Proposed Project, the implementation of proposed land use changes would accommodate future development (and redevelopment of currently developed areas). Human remains have been previously identified at cultural resource sites within 0.25 miles of the APE, and there may exist yet unknown/unidentified burials within subsurface soils. Some of the future projects that would be facilitated by the Proposed Project would involve the earthwork to demolish, renovate, and construct on properties within the Project parcels. Such activities could require grading and/or construction in native soils, such as earthwork for ground preparation, construction of foundations and driveways, and trenching for utilities and landscaping. It is not expected that all of these activities would occur in engineered fill and/or previously disturbed soils, and this analysis anticipates that native/undisturbed soils would be impacted by future development activities. Therefore, there is a potential to impact human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, through the reasonably foreseeable future property development that may occur on existing properties in the Project parcels.
As detailed in Section 4.4.2, there are existing state and local regulations in place to identify, assess impacts to, and protect burials/human remains. All future development projects would be subject to state regulations related to the discovery of human remains during ground-disturbing activities, such as the California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, PRC Section 5097.98, and 14 CCR 15064.5(e), which outlines the procedures that must be followed when human remains are discovered. Specifically, all construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery must cease, necessary steps must be taken to ensure the integrity of the immediate area, and the county coroner must be notified immediately. The coroner must determine whether the remains are Native American and if yes, the coroner must notify the NAHC of the human remains within 24 hours, who will, in turn, notify the person the NAHC identifies as the MLD. Within 48 hours of being granted access to the site, the MLD may recommend means of treatment or disposition, with appropriate dignity, of the human remains and associated grave goods. Compliance with these regulations would ensure that all future development projects within the Project parcels, both discretionary and ministerial, will halt construction and protect any human remains that are encountered during construction to allow the proper documentation, evaluation, protection, and disposition of the discovery. Therefore, impacts to human remains would be less than significant.
4.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.4-27
4.4.4 Mitigation Measures
MM-CUL-1 Historic Architectural Resources. During subsequent project-level plan set or environmental review, the City of Santee (City) Planning and Building Department shall determine if any potential historical building, structure, or district is present; conduct records search from applicable data repositories; conduct site inspections, as appropriate; and consider all relevant information available for the property to determine its historical significance.
If necessary, the City Planning and Building Department shall require applicants of new projects to submit a Phase I and/or Phase II Historic Resources Assessment (HRA) report to evaluate the significance of resources greater than 45 years of age. The report shall be prepared by an architectural historian meeting the Professional Qualification Standards of the Secretary of the Interior (SOI), in accordance with SOI standards and guidelines. The HRA shall include background, archival, and historic research; site surveys; detailed physical description of identified resources; photographs; a historical significance evaluation in consideration of City, California Register of Historical Resources, and National Register of Historic Places designation criteria and integrity requirements; an assessment of project impacts to historical resources; recommendations of mitigative treatment; and the preparation/recordation of the appropriate California Department of Parks and Recreation 523 forms, as applicable.
If project impacts to historic architectural resources are potentially significant, the City Planning and Building Department shall require the project to incorporate appropriate measures to avoid or minimize those impacts. Additional measures may include, but are not limited to, the following:
▪ If a future project involves alterations or modifications to historic architectural resources, the project design and proposed work shall conform to SOI Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to reduce or avoid impacts to historic resources. The project applicant shall retain a qualified architectural historian to advise on the final project design, recommend mitigative actions, specify performance standards, and oversee the construction activities related to the historical resources to ensure the project is constructed in compliance with specified mitigation performance standards and SOI Standards.
▪ If a future project involves the demolition or material impairment of a historical resource that cannot be mitigated through SOI Standards compliance, the project applicant shall submit archival Historic American Building Survey (HABS), Historic American Engineering Record (HAER), or Historic American Landscape Survey (HALS) documentation, as appropriate, to the City Planning Division for review and approval prior to the issuance of any grading permit. The HABS/HAER/HALS documentation shall be prepared by a qualified architectural historian and may include an architectural and historical narrative; archival drawings and/or measured drawings; and large-format photography. All reports resulting from implementation of this mitigation measure shall be submitted to City Planning and Building Department and filed with the South Coastal Information Center.
MM-CUL-2 Archaeological Resources. During subsequent project-level plan set or environmental review, the City of Santee (City) Planning and Building Department shall consider all relevant information available for the property to determine potential project impacts to archaeological resources. If necessary, the City Planning and Building Department shall require applicants for new projects to
4.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.4-28
submit an Archaeological Resources Inventory Report to identify and evaluate archaeological resources that may be impacted by the project. The report must be prepared by a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior (SOI) Professional Qualification Standards. The report shall include an archival search of historic records; a records search of applicable data repositories, including the California Historical Resources Information System database; pedestrian surveys; identification of archaeological resources within or near the project site; assessment of potential project impacts to archaeological resources; recommendations for archaeological monitoring, if appropriate; and completion/recordation of the California Department of Parks and Recreation 523 forms for all identified archaeological resources, as applicable. An archaeological report for testing and evaluation may be required based on the results and recommendations of the Archaeological Resources Inventory Report.
If project impacts to archaeological resources are determined to be potentially significant, the City Planning and Building Department shall require the project to incorporate appropriate measures to avoid or minimize impacts to archaeological resources. Additional measures may include, but are not limited to, the following:
Archaeological Resources Monitoring. If project-level earthwork (i.e., soil disturbance) is proposed to be conducted within Moderate Archaeological Sensitivity areas as delineated in Confidential Figure 3, Archaeological Sensitivity Map (Confidential Appendix B in Appendix E of the City’s Land Use Element Update Program Environmental Impact Report), during initial ground-disturbing activities, a qualified archaeologist, or an archaeological monitor (working under the direct supervision of the qualified archaeologist), and a Native American monitor, shall observe all initial ground-disturbing activities, including, but not limited to, brush clearance, vegetation removal, grubbing, grading, and excavation. The qualified archaeologist, in coordination with the applicant, the City, and the Native American monitor, may reduce or discontinue monitoring if it is determined by the qualified archaeologist that the possibility of encountering buried archaeological deposits is low based on observations of soil stratigraphy or other factors. Archaeological monitoring shall be conducted by an archaeologist familiar with the types of archaeological resources that could be encountered within the project site. The archaeological monitor and Native American monitor shall be empowered to halt or redirect ground-disturbing activities away from the vicinity of a discovery until the qualified archaeologist has evaluated the discovery and determined appropriate treatment. The archaeological monitor shall keep daily logs detailing the types of activities and soils observed and any discoveries. After monitoring has been completed, the qualified archaeologist shall prepare a monitoring report that details the results of monitoring. The report shall be submitted to the City and any Native American groups who request a copy. A copy of the final report shall be filed at the South Coastal Information Center.
Archaeological Resources Discoveries. In the event of the unanticipated discovery of archaeological materials, all work shall immediately cease in the area (within 100 feet) of the discovery until it can be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist in consultation with the Native American monitor.
Construction shall not resume until the qualified archaeologist has conferred with the applicant, the City, and the Native American monitor on the significance of the resource. If it is determined that the discovered archaeological resource constitutes a historical resource or a unique archaeological resource under CEQA, avoidance and preservation in place is the preferred manner of mitigation.
Preservation in place may be accomplished by, but is not limited to, avoidance, incorporating the
4.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.4-29
resource into open space, capping, or deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. In the event that preservation in place is demonstrated to be infeasible and data recovery through excavation is the only feasible mitigation available, a Cultural Resources Treatment Plan shall be prepared and implemented by the qualified archaeologist in consultation with the applicant and the City, providing for the adequate recovery of the scientifically consequential information contained in the archaeological resource. The qualified archaeologist and the City shall consult with appropriate Native American representatives in determining treatment for prehistoric or Native American resources to ensure cultural values ascribed to the resources, beyond those which are scientifically important, are considered.
4.4.5 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Threshold 4.4-1: Compliance with the Proposed Project policies to protect and preserve historic resources and those set forth in City’s General Plan Conservation Element, in conjunction with implementation of MM-CUL-1, would reduce the significance of impacts to historic resources. However, because there is no feasible mitigation available to guarantee that demolition, damage, or destruction of a historically significant resource would not occur from future developments that may be conceptualized and implemented as a result of the approval of the Proposed Project, the impact remains significant and unavoidable and cumulatively considerable.
Threshold 4.4-2: Future non-discretionary projects that would be implemented under the Proposed Project would be subject to the federal, state, and local regulations mentioned above. All applicantproposed projects requiring a grading permit, including non-discretionary projects that would not require additional CEQA analysis, are required to include archaeological and Native American monitoring during ground-disturbing activities as a condition of approval of the grading permit. Required archaeological and Native American monitoring would ensure the avoidance and preservation of resources, data recovery, and repatriation or curation of artifacts. As such, with implementation of existing regulations and MM-CUL-2, potential impacts related to archaeological resources would be less than significant.
Threshold 4.4-3: Compliance with current regulations would ensure that all future development projects within the Plan Area, both discretionary and ministerial, will halt construction and protect any human remains that are encountered during construction to allow the proper documentation, evaluation, protection, and disposition of the discovery. Therefore, impacts to human remains would be less than significant.
4.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.4-30
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Historic Age Property (over 45 years of age)
Parcel Boundaries
Proposed Land Use
Community Corridor Overlay
Community Hub Overlay
R-14
Date: 2/13/2026 User: cbattle Path: Z:\Projects\j1710001\MAPDOC\PEIR\PEIR.aprx Map: Historic-Age Properties in Santee Layout: Figure 4.4-1 Historic-Age Properties in Santee 0 1,000 2,000
n Feet
SOURCE: Appendix E
City of Santee Land Use Element PEIR
Historic-Age Properties in Santee
FIGURE 4.4-1
4.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.4-32
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
4.5 – ENERGY
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.5-1
4.5 Energy
This section of the draft program environmental impact report (PEIR) describes the existing energy conditions of the Plan Area, identifies associated regulatory requirements, and evaluates potential impacts related to implementation of the City of Santee (City) Land Use Element Update (Project or Proposed Project).
4.5.1 Existing Conditions
The existing conditions for the Proposed Project’s energy impacts include an overview of electricity, natural gas, and petroleum resources within the Plan Area. This discussion addresses current energy infrastructure, associated service providers, supply sources, and estimated consumption. The following sections describe how these resources are produced, delivered, and utilized, providing context for evaluating potential Project-related impacts.
Electricity
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), California used approximately 239,480 gigawatt hours of electricity in 2023 (EIA 2025a). Electricity usage in California for different land uses varies substantially by the types of uses in a building, type of construction materials used in a building, and the efficiency of all electricityconsuming devices within a building. In 2023, California was the fourth-largest electricity producer in the nation, but the state was also the nation’s third-largest consumer of electricity (EIA 2025a). However, due to the state’s numerous energy efficiency building standards and efficiency and conservation programs, California’s electricity use per capita in the residential sector is lower than any other state in the nation, except for Hawai‘i (EIA 2025a).
Electricity is provided to the City by the San Diego Gas and Electric Company (SDG&E), which is a regulated subsidiary of Sempra Energy Utility. SDG&E distributes energy service to 3.7 million consumers in San Diego and southern Orange counties. SDG&E supplies customers with electricity generated both locally and outside of the utility’s service territory. According to the California Energy Commission (CEC), within the County, annual nonresidential electricity use in 2024 was approximately 11,997 gigawatt hours (GWh) per year, while residential electricity use is approximately 7,114 GWh per year (CEC 2025a).
To maintain consistency with State laws and regulations, SDG&E is growing its Smart Grid, which connects different sources of renewable energy and engages new technologies to enable customers to shift energy as pricing changes.
According to the 2024 SCE Power Content Label, eligible renewable energy accounts for 41% of SDG&E’s overall energy resources (SDG&E 2025). Table 4.5-1, SDG&E Power Mix 2024, lists SDG&E’s energy sources and the most recent available data of the power mix of those energy sources. Note that the renewable percentage shown in Table 4.5-1 does not reflect Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) compliance, which is determined using a different methodology.
4.5 – ENERGY
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.5-2
Table 4.5-1. SDG&E Power Mix 2024
Energy Resources 2024 SDG&E Power Mix (Percentage)
Eligible Renewable1 41%
Biomass & Biogas 1%
Geothermal 0%
Eligible Hydroelectric 0%
Solar 24%
Wind 16%
Coal 0%
Large Hydroelectric 0%
Natural Gas 59%
Nuclear 0%
Other 0%
Unspecified Power (primarily fossil fuels)2 0%
Total 100%
Source: SDG&E 2025
Notes:
1 The eligible renewable percentage above does not reflect RPS compliance, which is determined using a different methodology. 2 Unspecified power is electricity that has been purchased from a genericized pool on the open market.
Countywide electricity consumption data are provided by the CEC. Based on these data, SDG&E supplied the County with approximately 16,786 GWh of electricity in 2024 across all sectors (CEC 2025a).
Natural Gas
Natural gas is a combustible mixture of simple hydrocarbon compounds (primarily methane) that is used as a fuel source. Natural gas consumed in California is obtained from naturally occurring reservoirs, mainly located outside the State, and delivered through high-pressure transmission pipelines. The natural gas transportation system is a nationwide network, and therefore, resource availability is typically not an issue. Natural gas provides almost onethird of the state’s total energy requirements and is used in electricity generation, space heating, cooking, water heating, industrial processes, and as a transportation fuel. Natural gas is measured in terms of cubic feet.
According to the EIA, California used approximately 2,087 billion cubic feet of natural gas in 2023 (EIA 2025b). The majority (by number) of California’s natural gas customers are residential and small commercial customers (core customers). According to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), these customers account for approximately 35% of the natural gas delivered by California utilities (CPUC 2025). Large consumers, such as electric generators and industrial customers (noncore customers), account for approximately 65% of the natural gas delivered by California utilities (CPUC 2025). CPUC regulates California natural gas rates and natural gas services, including in-state transportation over transmission and distribution pipeline systems, storage, procurement, metering, and billing. Most of the natural gas used in California comes from out-of-state natural gas basins. Biogas (e.g., from wastewater treatment facilities or dairy farms) is just beginning to be delivered into the gas utility pipeline systems (CPUC 2025).
SDG&E provides the City with natural gas, which is distributed throughout the City by underground lines, typically located within public rights-of-way (ROWs), functioning as a backbone system to service individual parcels. Within the County, annual natural gas use in 2024 was approximately 522 million therms (50 billion cubic feet) (CEC 2025b).
4.5 – ENERGY
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.5-3
Petroleum
According to the EIA, California used approximately 648 million barrels of petroleum in 2023, with the majority (555 million barrels) used for the transportation sector (EIA 2025c). There are 42 U.S. gallons in a barrel, so this equates to a total daily use of approximately 15 million barrels of petroleum among all sectors and 13 million gallons for the transportation sector. Petroleum usage in the state includes petroleum products such as motor gasoline, distillate fuel, liquefied petroleum gases, and jet fuel. At the federal and state levels, various policies, rules, and regulations have been enacted to improve vehicle fuel efficiency, promote the development and use of alternative fuels, reduce transportation-source air pollutants and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and reduce vehicle miles traveled.
Section 4.5.2, Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances, discusses in more detail both federal and state regulations that would help increase fuel efficiency of motor vehicles. Market forces have driven the price of petroleum products steadily upward over time, and technological advances have made use of other energy resources or alternative transportation modes increasingly feasible.
4.5.2 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances
Federal
Federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act
In 1975, Congress enacted the Federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act, which established the first fuel economy standards for on-road motor vehicles in the United States. Pursuant to the act, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for establishing additional vehicle standards. In 2012, new fuel economy standards for passenger cars and light trucks were approved for model years 2017 through 2021 (77 FR 62624–63200). Fuel economy is determined based on each manufacturer’s average fuel economy for the fleet of vehicles available for sale in the United States.
Energy Policy Act of 2005
In January 2005, the Energy Policy Act was signed into law. It addresses energy production in the United States, including energy efficiency, renewable energy, oil and gas, coal, Tribal energy, nuclear matters and security, vehicles and motor fuels, including ethanol, hydrogen, electricity, energy tax incentives, hydropower and geothermal energy, and climate change technology. The Energy Policy Act provides loan guarantees for entities that develop or use innovative technologies that avoid the by-production of GHGs. Another provision of the Energy Policy Act is the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), which increases the amount of biofuel that must be mixed with gasoline sold in the United States.
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
On December 19, 2007, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) was signed into law. In addition to setting increased corporate average fuel economy standards for motor vehicles, the EISA includes the following other provisions related to energy efficiency:
▪ Renewable fuel standard (RFS) (Section 202)
▪ Appliance and lighting efficiency standards (Sections 301–325) ▪ Building energy efficiency (Sections 411–441)
4.5 – ENERGY
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.5-4
This federal legislation (the RFS) requires ever-increasing levels of renewable fuels to replace petroleum (EPA 2025).
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for developing and implementing regulations to ensure that transportation fuel sold in the United States contains a minimum volume of renewable fuel. The RFS program regulations were developed in collaboration with refiners, renewable fuel producers, and many other stakeholders.
The RFS program was created under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and established the first renewable fuel volume mandate in the United States. As required under the act, the original RFS program (RFS1) required 7.5 billion gallons of renewable fuel to be blended into gasoline by 2012. Under the EISA, the RFS program was expanded in several key ways that laid the foundation for achieving significant reductions of GHG emissions through the use of renewable fuels, for reducing imported petroleum, and for encouraging the development and expansion of our nation’s renewable fuels sector. The updated program (“RFS2”) includes the following:
▪ EISA expanded the RFS program to include diesel, in addition to gasoline. ▪ EISA increased the volume of renewable fuel required to be blended into transportation fuel from 9 billion gallons in 2008 to 36 billion gallons by 2022.
▪ EISA established new categories of renewable fuel and set separate volume requirements for each one. ▪ EISA required the EPA to apply lifecycle GHG performance threshold standards to ensure that each category of renewable fuel emits fewer GHGs than the petroleum fuel it replaces.
Additional provisions of the EISA address energy savings in government and public institutions, promoting research for alternative energy, additional research in carbon capture, international energy programs, and the creation of “green jobs.”
State
The discussion below focuses primarily on those policies, regulations, and laws that directly pertain to energy-related resources. Refer to Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of this PEIR, which addresses various policies, regulations, and laws targeted to the reduction of GHG emissions that are expected to achieve co-benefits in the form of reduced demand for energy-related resources and enhanced efficiencies in the consumption of energy-related resources.
Warren-Alquist Act
The California Legislature passed the Warren–Alquist Act in 1974, which created the CEC. The legislation also incorporated the following three key provisions designed to address the demand side of the energy equation:
▪ It directed the CEC to formulate and adopt the nation’s first energy conservation standards for both buildings constructed and appliances sold in California. ▪ The act removed the responsibility of electricity demand forecasting from the utilities, which had a financial interest in high-demand projections, and transferred it to a more impartial CEC. ▪ The CEC was directed to embark on an ambitious research and development program, with a particular focus on fostering what were characterized as non-conventional energy sources.
California Building Standards
Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations was established in 1978 and serves to enhance and regulate California’s building standards. Part 6 of Title 24 specifically establishes Building Energy Efficiency Standards that are designed to ensure new and existing buildings in California achieve energy efficiency and preserve outdoor and
4.5 – ENERGY
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.5-5
indoor environmental quality. These energy efficiency standards are reviewed every few years by the Building Standards Commission and the CEC (and revised if necessary) (California Public Resources Code, Section 25402[b][1]). These standards are updated to consider and incorporate new energy efficient technologies and construction methods. As a result, these standards save energy, increase electricity supply reliability, increase indoor comfort, avoid the need to construct new power plants, and help preserve the environment.
The CEC formally adopted the 2025 Title 24 Energy Code on September 11, 2024, which was then approved by the California Building Standards Commission (CBSC) on December 17, 2024, making its effective date January 1, 2026. Buildings whose permit applications are applied for on or after January 1, 2026, must comply with the 2025 Energy Code. The 2025 Energy Code updates for residential and nonresidential buildings introduce several key changes aimed at improving energy efficiency and supporting the state’s climate goals.
These include enhanced mechanical system standards, such as updated requirements for heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) and heat pump water heaters, and stronger building envelope performance to reduce energy loss. Electrical systems now require more advanced lighting controls and expanded testing protocols. The code also adds readiness provisions for solar and battery storage installations and includes laboratories under its scope for energy-intensive processes. Compliance tools and manuals have been revised to reflect new modeling rules. The 2025 standards expand requirements for PV and battery storage infrastructure compared to previous standards, including requiring readiness for connection with battery energy storage system (BESS) infrastructure in certain single-family homes.
The 2025 amendments include measures that will further reduce energy use in single-family, multi-family, and nonresidential buildings through the following strategies:
▪ For homes, use heat pumps for both space heating and water heating, expanding on the single heat pump baselines in the 2022 update.
▪ For nonresidential building types, expanding on the single zone heat pump baselines in the 2022 update. ▪ For low-rise multifamily buildings with individual water heaters in dwelling units, use heat pump water heater baselines, expanding on the space heating heat pump baselines in the 2022 update. ▪ Encouraging electric-ready buildings to set up owners to use cleaner electric water heating and cooking when they are ready to invest in those technologies. ▪ Updating photovoltaic and BESS standards for high-rise multifamily and nonresidential buildings to achieve cost effective installations in consideration of revised net billing and virtual net billing rules. ▪ Updating space conditioning system control standards for nonresidential buildings. ▪ Updating ventilation requirements in multifamily buildings to improve indoor air quality.
In addition to the CEC’s efforts, in 2008, the CBSC adopted the nation’s first green building standards. The California Green Building Standards Code (24 CCR 11) is commonly referred to as CALGreen and establishes minimum mandatory standards and voluntary standards pertaining to the planning and design of sustainable site development, energy efficiency (in excess of the California Energy Code requirements), water conservation, material conservation, and interior air quality. The CALGreen standards took effect in January 2011 and instituted mandatory minimum environmental performance standards for all ground-up, new construction of commercial, low-rise residential, and state-owned buildings, schools, and hospitals.
Senate Bill 1078
4.5 – ENERGY
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.5-6
SB 1078 established the RPS Program and required that a retail seller of electricity purchase a specified minimum percentage of electricity generated by eligible renewable energy resources as defined in any given year, culminating in a 20% standard by December 31, 2017. These retail sellers include electrical corporations, community choice aggregators, and electric service providers. The bill relatedly required the CEC to certify eligible renewable energy resources, design and implement an accounting system to verify compliance with the RPS by retail sellers, and allocate and award supplemental energy payments to cover above-market costs of renewable energy.
Assembly Bill 1007
AB 1007 (2005) required the CEC to prepare a statewide plan to increase the use of alternative fuels in California (State Alternative Fuels Plan). The CEC prepared the plan in partnership with the CARB and in consultation with other state agencies, plus federal and local agencies. The State Alternative Fuels Plan assessed various alternative fuels and developed fuel portfolios to meet California’s goals to reduce petroleum consumption, increase alternative fuels use, reduce GHG emissions, and increase in-state production of biofuels without causing a significant degradation of public health and environmental quality.
Senate Bill 1368
On September 29, 2006, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law SB 1368 (Perata, Chapter 598, Statutes of 2006). The law limits long-term investments in baseload generation (minimum level of demand on an electrical grid over a span of time) by the state’s utilities to those power plants that meet an emissions performance standard jointly established by the CEC and the CPUC.
The CEC has designed regulations that:
▪ Establish a standard for baseload generation owned by, or under long-term contract to publicly owned utilities, of 1,100 pounds carbon dioxide (CO2) per megawatt-hour. This would encourage the development of power plants that meet California’s growing energy needs while minimizing their emissions of GHGs; ▪ Require posting of notices of public deliberations by publicly owned utilities on long-term investments on the CEC website. This would facilitate public awareness of utility efforts to meet customer needs for energy over the long-term while meeting the state’s standards for environmental impact; and ▪ Establish a public process for determining the compliance of proposed investments with the emissions performance standard (EPS) (Perata, Chapter 598, Statutes of 2006).
Senate Bills 107 (2006), X1-2 (2011), 350 (2015), 100 (2018), and 1020 (2022) SB 107 (2006) accelerated the RPS established by SB 1078 by requiring that 20% of electricity retail sales be served by renewable energy resources by 2010 (not 2017). Additionally, SB X1-2 (2011) requires all California utilities to generate 33% of their electricity from eligible renewable energy resources by 2020. Specifically, SB X1-2 sets a three-stage compliance period: by December 31, 2013, 20% had to come from renewables; by December 31, 2016, 25% had to come from renewables; and by December 31, 2020, 33% will come from renewables.
SB 350 (2015) expanded the RPS because it requires retail seller and publicly owned utilities to procure 50% of their electricity from eligible renewable energy resources by 2030, with interim goals of 40% by 2024 and 45% by 2027.
SB 100 (2018) accelerated and expanded the standards set forth in SB 350 by establishing that 44% of the total electricity sold to retail customers in California per year by December 31, 2024, 52% by December 31, 2027, and
4.5 – ENERGY
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.5-7
60% by December 31, 2030 be secured from qualifying renewable energy sources. SB 100 also states that it is the policy of the state that eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources supply 100% of the retail sales of electricity to California. This bill requires that the achievement of 100% zero-carbon electricity resources does not increase the carbon emissions elsewhere in the western grid and that the achievement not be achieved through resource shuffling.
SB 1020 (September 2022) revises the standards from SB 100, requiring the following percentage of retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers to come from eligible renewable energy resources and zerocarbon resources:
▪ 90% by December 31, 2035
▪ 95% by December 31, 2040
▪ 100% by December 31, 2045
Other Energy Reduction Regulations
The following state executive orders, statutes, and regulations achieve energy reduction co-benefits and are described in Section 4.7: AB 32, SB 32, and AB 1279; California Building Standards (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 20 and Title 24, Parts 6 and 11); AB 1493 (“Pavley” regulations); Executive Order (EO) S-1-07; SB 375; CARB Truck and Bus Regulation; CARB On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles (In-Use) Regulation; CARB Advanced Clean Car and Trucks Program; EO B-16-12; SB 350; and SB 100. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 4.7.2, Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances, for additional relevant information.
Regional and Local
SDG&E Individual Integrated Resource Plan
SDG&E’s 2022 Integrated Resource Plan shows the utility is well ahead of renewable compliance targets, expecting 56% renewable energy during 2021–2024, far above the 38.4% requirement. Nearly all procurement is under longterm contracts, and SDG&E continues to avoid coal while aggressively adopting energy storage. Two Conforming Portfolios—30 million metric tons (MMT) and 25 MMT scenarios—require 1,546 megawatts (MW) of new solar, storage, and wind capacity by 2035. While SDG&E will meet resource-specific mandates, it does not anticipate additional RPS-driven procurement until after 2030 (SDG&E 2022).
City of Santee General Plan
The General Plan, adopted by the City as a long-term policy guide for physical, economic, and environmental growth, contains relevant energy policy in the Safety and Environmental Justice Element. Policy 14.2 states the City’s goal to increase renewable energy and promote energy efficiency through the implementation of the Sustainable Santee Plan.
Sustainable Santee Plan
The City adopted its Sustainable Santee Plan: The City’s Roadmap to Greenhouse Gas Reductions in December 2019. The Plan, in addition to establishing goals and policies for the City to incorporate to reduce its GHG emissions, also emphasizes the City’s commitment to using energy more efficiently. The Plan contains ways in which the City
4.5 – ENERGY
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.5-8
can increase energy efficiency to lower community GHG emissions, including improving energy technologies, reducing energy use, and using alternative sustainable sources of energy.
4.5.3 Environmental Impacts
4.5.3.1 Methodology
The Proposed Land Use Element Update is a policy document that does not include or propose any site-specific development. Rather, implementation of the Project would result in changes to land use designations, which would allow for additional future development/redevelopment to occur. Therefore, this PEIR does not assess the sitespecific construction and operation details of each future development within the Plan Area. Instead, it assesses the impacts associated with changes to existing land uses and the associated overall effects of buildout of the Proposed Project through 2045, where reasonably foreseeable physical changes to the environment could occur.
Build-out of the Proposed Project would result in a change in emissions relative to existing conditions (“Existing Scenario”). The Proposed Project would allow for a total of 5,687 dwelling units and 3,476,755 square feet of nonresidential uses. Compared to the Existing Scenario, the Proposed Project would potentially result in an increase of 4,596 residential units and 1,740,453 square feet of nonresidential uses.
Construction
Implementation of the Project would result in the consumption of energy from a variety of sources during construction activities, primarily petroleum-based fuels associated with the use of off-road construction equipment and construction workers, delivery trucks, and haul trucks traveling to and from the sites. Compared to existing conditions, implementation of the Project could result in an increase in residential land uses by 4,596 dwelling units and an increase in nonresidential land uses by 1,740,453 square feet of commercial space within the City.
Sources of energy consumption during construction would include mobile and stationary construction equipment exhaust, employee and haul truck vehicle exhaust, land clearing and material movement, paving, and application of architectural coatings. However, the specific size, location, and construction techniques and scheduling that would be used for each individual development project occurring in the City from implementation of the Project is not currently known.
Development of the various land uses associated with the Project would occur over an extended period, up to the horizon year 2045, and would depend on factors such as local economic conditions, market demand, and other financing considerations. As such, without specific project-level details, it is not possible to develop refined construction schedules and equipment fleet details for specific projects. As such, the determination of construction energy impacts for individual development projects, or a combination of overlapping projects, would require speculation and would result in speculative construction energy impacts.
Therefore, in the absence of the necessary project-specific construction information required to provide an representative and meaningful analysis, the evaluation of potential construction-related impacts resulting from implementation of the Proposed Project is conducted qualitatively. The analysis discusses the potential for future individual developments in the City to consume energy, where necessary, would apply mitigation measures to reduce energy consumption.
4.5 – ENERGY
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.5-9
Operation
Future development under the Project would consume energy resources for building electricity, water demand, wastewater treatment, and vehicle travel. Because this Draft PEIR supports a Land Use Element Update, the assessment of potential impacts follows a programmatic approach, supported by qualitative analyses as well as data for operational sources of energy consumption, such as fuel estimates for on road vehicles and building energy consumption. Potential Project operational energy consumption is based on the operational GHG emission calculations estimated in The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) and found in Appendix C, CalEEMod Outputs and Estimated Emissions.
Electricity
Electricity usage (including electricity usage for water) is based on the estimated total annual building load summaries from CalEEMod. The electricity use from residential land uses is calculated in CalEEMod based on the Residential Appliance Saturation Study. For nonresidential buildings, CalEEMod energy intensity value (electricity or natural gas usage per square foot per year) assumptions were based on the California Commercial End-Use Survey database.
Natural Gas
Project natural gas consumption is based on the estimated total annual building load summaries from CalEEMod.
The energy use from nonresidential land uses (natural gas usage per square foot per year) is calculated in CalEEMod based on the California Commercial End-Use Survey database.
Petroleum
Petroleum would be consumed by vehicles accessing the development allowed under the Proposed Project, which is a function of total vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and estimated vehicle fuel economies for the vehicles. Fuel consumption was estimated by converting the total CO₂ emissions from mobile sources to gallons using the conversion factors for CO₂ to gallons of gasoline or diesel. Specifically, conversion factors of 8.78 kg CO₂ per gallon for gasoline and 10.21 kg CO₂ per gallon for diesel were applied to reflect the carbon intensity of each fuel type (The Climate Registry 2025).
4.5.3.2 Thresholds of Significance
The significance criteria used to evaluate the Project’s impacts to energy are based on CEQA Guidelines Appendix G.
For the purposes of this Project, a potentially significant impact to energy would occur if the Proposed Project would:
1. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation.
2. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
The City does not have established thresholds for determining the significance of energy impacts.
4.5 – ENERGY
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.5-10
4.5.3.3 Land Use Element Update Relevant Goals and Policies The following draft goals, policies and implementation actions from the City of Santee Land Use Element are relevant to energy:
Goal LU-1. A vibrant city with a mix of land uses and building types that offer a wide range of choices to live, work, shop, and play.
Policy LU-1.2. Encourage growth near the city’s core, along major roadways, and near existing amenities, such as transit and recreational facilities.
Policy LU-1.4. Implement the Community Hub Overlay and Community Corridor Overlay, which encourage a mix of uses, a variety of housing options, active frontages, efficient parking strategies, and enhanced walking and biking paths to increase connectivity along high-resource areas and multimodal corridors.
Goal LU-2. A safe and affordable range of housing types at varying locations to meet diverse living needs.
Policy LU-2.2. Encourage the development of higher density residential communities in areas close to the multimodal transit station and along major road corridors where transit and other convenience services are available.
Goal LU-2 Implementation
Action Lead Agency Timeframe
Develop informational and promotional materials to expand awareness of state and local incentive programs for affordable and transit-oriented housing development.
Planning and
Building
Department
Ongoing
Goal LU-6. A cohesive development pattern that ensures connectivity for pedestrians, bicyclists, and people with disabilities within and between sites.
Policy LU-6.1. Check each development for consistency with the Mobility Element and the Active Santee Plan for pedestrian and bicycle accessibility before approval.
Policy LU-6.2. Require bicycle parking at sites located adjacent to bike lanes identified in the Planned Bicycle Network Map, in accordance with the Bicycle Parking Design Guidelines.
Policy LU-6.3. Require new developments to consider micromobility concepts and provide direct pedestrian and bicycle connections to nearby sidewalks, trails, and transit stops.
Policy LU-6.4. Increase shade trees along pedestrian and bicycle pathways located on private property, particularly where such paths serve as connections to the public active transportation network.
4.5 – ENERGY
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.5-11
Goal LU-6 Implementation
Action Lead Agency Timeframe
Update the Active Santee Plan every 5 years to reflect current trends in micromobility technology, respond to emerging mobility issues and needs, and continue to build a robust mobility network.
Engineering
Department
Ongoing
Revise Landscape and Irrigation Regulations (Santee Municipal Code Title 13, Section 13.36) to include provisions requiring shade trees along pedestrian and bicycle pathways on new development or redevelopment projects.
Planning and
Building
Department
Short-term (1–
2 years)
During development review, ensure neighborhood-serving commercial centers incorporate common access points, pedestrian facilities, and ingress/egress points that provide access to/from residential areas.
Planning and
Building
Department
Ongoing
Goal LU-9. Neighborhoods and corridors that prioritize infill development to create livable communities with public spaces, greenspace, and recreation amenities.
Policy LU-9.2. Identify additional opportunities for mixed-use development in strategic locations that provide access to key services and amenities, such as grocery stores, parks and trails, transit stations, schools, and childcare facilities.
Goal LU-9 Implementation
Action Lead Agency Timeframe
Create an infill opportunity map identifying strategic sites for mixed-use development near parks, schools, transit, and childcare.
Planning and Building
Department
Short-term
(1–2 years)
Integrate requirements from the Community Enhancement,
Recreation, Conservation, and Trails Elements into the
development review checklist to ensure consistent
implementation across all infill projects.
Planning and Building
Department
Immediate
(within 1
year)
Develop a parking overlay district for higher-density or intensity areas, such as the Community Hub and Community Corridor Overlay areas and the Town Center. Explore
concepts such as a shared parking allowance based on the specific land uses and “park once” strategies.
Engineering Department
with Planning and Building
Department
Mid-term (3–
5 years)
4.5.4 Impacts Analysis
Threshold 4.5-1: Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Construction
Construction activities associated with potential future development under the land use changes proposed in the Land Use Element Update would result in short-term, temporary increases in energy demand. During construction, asnecessary lighting, the conveyance of water used to control fugitive dust, and electronic equipment, such as computers inside temporary construction trailers, would require electricity to be provided by SDG&E. Construction activities
4.5 – ENERGY
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.5-12
typically do not involve the consumption of natural gas. The Project would consume petroleum during construction associated with use of offroad equipment and vehicles (worker vehicles, delivery trucks, and haul trucks).
Although precise quantities of energy demand are not available at this programmatic stage, energy use from construction is expected to be typical of similar development projects and subject to existing and future regulatory requirements that limit wasteful or inefficient consumption. For example, construction projects would be subject to CARB’s In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation that applies to certain off-road diesel engines, vehicles, or equipment greater than 25 horsepower. The regulation (1) imposes limits on idling, requires a written idling policy, and requires a disclosure when selling vehicles; (2) requires all vehicles to be reported to CARB (using the Diesel Off-Road Online Reporting System) and labeled; (3) restricts the adding of older vehicles into fleets starting on January 1, 2014; and (4) requires fleets to reduce their emissions by retiring, replacing, or repowering older engines or installing Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies (i.e., exhaust retrofits). The fleet must either show that its fleet average index was less than or equal to the calculated fleet average target rate, or that the fleet has met the Best Achievable Control Technology requirements.
Given the short-term and intermittent nature of individual construction projects, and the fact that such projects would be required to comply with applicable energy-related regulations at the time of construction, construction activities under the Project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of energy for construction.
Impacts would be less than significant.
Operation
Electricity
Operation of development allowed under the Project would require electricity for multiple purposes including, but not limited to, building heating and cooling, lighting, appliances, and electronics. Additionally, the supply, conveyance, treatment, and distribution of water and solid waste treatment would indirectly result in electricity usage. Default electricity generation consumption in CalEEMod was based on default values for the land uses identified in CalEEMod to represent Project buildout and the Existing Scenario.
Modeling for operation of the Proposed Project assumed that representative development complies with 2019 Title 24 Standards, consistent with CalEEMod version 2022.1.1.37 default assumptions. 1 According to these
estimations, development allowed under the Project would consume approximately 51.5 million kWh per year during operation. Compared to the estimated electricity consumption from existing development (19.4 million kWh), the Project would generate a net increase of 32.1 million kWh per year.
The Project proposes conventional residential and mixed uses reflecting contemporary energy efficient/energy conserving designs and operational programs. Future development projects allowed under the Project would not be inherently energy intensive, and the future development electricity demands for each land use at buildout would be comparable to other projects of similar scale and configuration. The developments facilitated by Project would be required to comply with the applicable Title 24 standards, which would ensure that electricity demand would not be inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary.
1 Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations serves to enhance and regulate California’s building standards. Therefore, assuming 2019 Title 24 standards for energy use associated with operation of the potential land uses is considered conservative since future land uses will be required to comply with the then-current (i.e., higher efficiency) standards.
4.5 – ENERGY
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.5-13
Natural Gas
Operation of development allowed under the Project would require natural gas for various purposes, including, but not limited to, space heating, water heating, cooking, and other building-related energy needs. Default natural gas consumption in CalEEMod was based on default values for the land uses identified in CalEEMod to represent Project buildout and the Existing Scenario.
Development allowed under the Project would consume approximately 61.8 million kBTU (59.6 million cubic feet) per year during operation. Compared to the estimated natural gas demand from existing development under the existing scenario (20.6 million kBTU [19.8 million cubic feet] per year), the Project would generate an increase of
41.2 million kBTU (39.8 million cubic feet) per year.
According to CEC data available at the County level, as detailed above in Section 4.5.1, Existing Conditions, the County’s 2024 natural gas demand was approximately 50.3 billion cubic feet (CEC 2025b). Compared to the existing conditions, the net increase in natural gas demand would account for approximately 0.1% of the County’s 2024 demand.
The Project proposes conventional residential and mixed uses reflecting contemporary energy efficient/energy conserving designs and operational programs. Future development projects allowed under the Project would not be inherently energy intensive, and the future development natural gas demands for each land use at buildout would be comparable to other projects of similar scale and configuration. The developments facilitated by Project would be required to comply with the applicable Title 24 standards, which would ensure that natural gas demand would not be inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary.
Petroleum
During operations, fuel consumption resulting from the potential future development facilitated by the Project would involve the use of motor vehicles traveling to and from and within the Project Area. As described in the methodology above, petroleum demand was estimated by converting total CO₂ emissions from mobile sources to gallons of fuel using conversion factors for gasoline and diesel. Based on this approach, petroleum consumption would increase from approximately 84 million gallons per year under the existing scenario to approximately 170 million gallons per year under the Project. This increase correlates with the increase in VMT compared to the existing scenario.
Over time, the fuel efficiency of the vehicles being used from developments allowed under the Project is expected to increase. As such, the amount of gasoline consumed as a result of vehicular trips during operation would decrease over time. As discussed under Section 4.5.2 and in Section 4.7, there are numerous regulations in place that require and encourage increased fuel efficiency. As such, associated development with the Project is expected to use decreasing amounts of petroleum over time, due to advances in fuel economy. Furthermore, the use of transit and alternative fuel vehicles (e.g., electricity, natural gas, biofuels, hydrogen cells) is anticipated to increase over time, as local and regional plans and policies facilitating increased use and development of transit and alternative fuel vehicle transportation modes are implemented.
As described in the Land Use Element Update Goals and Policies, the Project would implement policies that would improve transportation, circulation, and would promote mixed use communities that would reduce fuel demand in the long term (see Section 4.5.3.1, Methodology).
4.5 – ENERGY
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.5-14
The geographic context for impacts on petroleum is statewide, and therefore, petroleum-based fuel usage caused by the Project would not likely have a significant effect on local and regional energy supplies or require additional capacity.
Additionally, enhanced fuel economies realized pursuant to federal and state regulatory actions, and related transition of vehicles to alternative energy sources would likely decrease future gasoline fuel demands per VMT.
Trip generation and VMT generated by the Project are consistent with land use element updates of similar scale and configuration. That is, the Project does not propose uses or operations that would inherently result in excessive and wasteful vehicle trips and VMT, nor associated excess and wasteful vehicle energy consumption. As supported by the preceding discussions, Project transportation energy consumption would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary.
Therefore, the impact of energy consumption associated with operational activities under the Project would be less than significant.
Renewable Energy Potential
The Project is a policy document that does not propose specific development; instead, it changes land use designations to allow for future development or redevelopment. As a result, this Draft PEIR does not evaluate individual Project details but focuses on the broader impacts of potential buildout through 2045 where foreseeable environmental changes could occur. Given the location of the proposed land use designation updates and the nature of the Plan Area, there are anticipated considerable site constraints at a parcel level including potential limited land availability, incompatibility with on-site and surrounding land uses for large scale power generation facilities, and no known water or geothermal resources to harness, that would eliminate the potential for biomass, geothermal, wind, and hydroelectric renewable energy to be installed within the Plan Area. The potential future development facilitated by Project would be required to comply with the applicable Title 24 standards. Newly constructed multifamily residential buildings greater than 4 stories are required to install rooftop solar PV systems, and battery storage is prescriptively required. Newly constructed multifamily residential buildings less than 4 stories are required to include solar PV systems and battery-ready infrastructure. Newly constructed commercial and nonresidential buildings are required to install solar PV systems, and battery storage is mandatorily required where PV is installed.
Threshold 4.5-2: Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Construction
The Project is a policy document that does not propose specific development; instead, it changes land use designations to allow for future development or redevelopment. Construction of future projects allowed under the Proposed Project would be required to demonstrate compliance with applicable regulations, including federal and state requirements for construction equipment. For example, with respect to construction truck fleet operators, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration have adopted fuelefficiency standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks that have been phased in over time. The Phase 1 heavyduty truck standards apply to combination tractors, heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans, and vocational vehicles for model years 2014 through 2018, and result in a reduction in fuel consumption from 6% to 23% over the 2010 baseline, depending on the vehicle type (76 FR 57106–57513). The Phase 2 heavy-duty truck standards, which cover model years 2021 through 2027, require the phase-in of a 5% to 25% reduction in fuel consumption over the 2017 baseline, depending on the compliance year and vehicle type (76 FR 57106–57513). These regulations would have an overall beneficial effect on reducing fuel consumption from trucks over time as older trucks are replaced with newer models that meet the standards.
4.5 – ENERGY
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.5-15
In addition, construction equipment and trucks are required to comply with CARB regulations regarding idling limits of 5 minutes per occurrence. Off-road emissions standards would also increase equipment efficiencies as they are phased in over time and as less efficient equipment is phased out of construction fleets. These regulatory standards achieve energy savings in the form of reduced fuel consumption from more fuel-efficient engines. Although these requirements are intended to reduce criteria pollutant emissions, compliance with the anti-idling and emissions regulations would also result in the efficient use of construction-related energy. Thus, based on the information above, construction resulting from the Proposed Project would comply with state and local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
The Proposed Project’s construction equipment would be consistent with the energy standards applicable to construction equipment, including limiting idling fuel consumption and using contractors that comply with applicable CARB regulatory standards that affect energy efficiency. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency during Project construction, and impacts would be less than significant.
Operation
Future development allowed under the Project would be subject to and would comply with, at a minimum, the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (24 CCR Part 6). Part 6 of Title 24 establishes energy efficiency standards for residential buildings and nonresidential buildings constructed in California in order to reduce energy demand and consumption. As such, development facilitated by the Project would comply with the California Code of Regulations requirements for energy efficiency.
Part 11 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations sets forth voluntary and mandatory energy measures that are applicable to the Project under CALGreen. CALGreen institutes mandatory minimum environmental performance standards for all ground-up, new construction of commercial buildings, low-rise residential buildings, and mid-rise residential buildings, which would apply to the Project. As the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen are updated, the Project would continue to meet applicable requirements that would further reduce energy-related consumption.
California’s RPS program outlines the pathway for the state’s electricity grid to transition to renewable energy; however, statewide RPS requirements do not apply to individual development projects like the Project. Nonetheless, as SDG&E meets the RPS milestones, the development facilitated by the Project would benefit from cleaner electricity provided by SDG&E.
Future development allowed under the Project would be subject to the Sustainable Santee Plan measures related to energy. On this basis, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. This impact would be less than significant.
4.5.5 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required as impacts would be less than significant.
4.5 – ENERGY
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.5-16
4.5.6 Significance of Impact After Mitigation
Threshold 4.5-1: The project would not result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation. Impacts are less than significant without mitigation.
Threshold 4.5-2: The project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency Impacts are less than significant without mitigation.
4.6 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.6-1
4.6 Geology and Soils
This section of the draft program environmental impact report (PEIR) describes the existing geological conditions of the Plan Area, identifies associated regulatory requirements, evaluates potential impacts, and identifies mitigation measures related to implementation of the City of Santee (City) Land Use Element Update (Project or Proposed Project).
4.6.1 Existing Conditions
Regional Geology
The City’s General Plan Safety and Environmental Justic Element describes the regional geology of Santee as follows (City of Santee 2025):
Santee lies near the junction of the coastal plain and the Peninsular Ranges geologic provinces of southwestern California. The eastern portion of the coastal plain is in the west, south, and north portions of Santee and consist of a series of Tertiary-age formational sedimentary rocks that are deeply incised by canyons and tributaries, including the San Diego River and Sycamore Creek. The San Diego River generally bisects Santee from east to west. The drainage area of the San Diego River upstream of West Hills Parkway on the western edge of Santee is approximately 368 square miles. Downstream, the San Diego River flows through Mission Trails and Mission Valley in the City of San Diego and drains into the Pacific Ocean. Much of Santee is within the gentle gradient of the San Diego River Valley. Sycamore Creek is along the western boundary of the City and flows southward into Santee Lakes and the San Diego River. In the southeastern and eastern portions of Santee, the sedimentary rocks and alluvial valley province end abruptly in the foothills of the Peninsular Ranges exposing granitic rock. The formational units are covered by surficial soils.
Soils
The City’s General Plan Safety and Environmental Justic Element describes the geologic stratigraphy of Santee as follows (City of Santee 2025):
The geologic stratigraphy of Santee consists of several surficial soil types and formational units.
The surficial soil deposits consist of human-made soil (undocumented fill and previously placed fill) and naturally occurring soil (topsoil, colluvium, young alluvium/debris flows, landslide deposits, and old alluvial floodplain deposits). In general, naturally occurring surficial soils are found in drainage areas such as the San Diego River Valley and Sycamore Creek and generally overlying undisturbed formational materials.
Formational materials in Santee include sedimentary rock units of the Eocene-age Pomerado Conglomerate, Stadium Conglomerate and Friars Formation, and the hard rock units of the Mesozoic-age (Cretaceous and Jurassic) granitic and volcanic rocks associated with the Peninsular Ranges. The claystone portions of the Friars Formation are typically weak, fractured, and prone to landsliding.
4.6 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.6-2
4.6.2 Geologic Hazards
Faulting and Seismicity
There are no active or potentially active faults within or adjacent to the City. The Rose Canyon Fault Zone, approximately 10 miles west of Santee, is the closest known active fault; however, Santee is located in a seismically active region in Southern California and therefore is “subject to periodic seismic shaking due to the earthquakes along remote or regional active faults” (City of Santee 2025) (Figure 4.6-1, Active Faults and Alquist Priolo Fault Zones, and Figure 4.6-2, Shaking Potential). The seismic risk within Santee is not considered significantly greater than that of the surrounding municipalities and the San Diego County area in general. Since no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones exist within Santee, there are no restrictions on development related to the Alquist-Priolo requirements (City of Santee 2025).
Liquefaction
Liquefaction typically occurs within areas with seismic activity where on-site soils are cohesionless, groundwater is encountered within 50 feet of the surface, and soil relative density is less than approximately 70%. The potential for liquefaction during a strong earthquake is limited to those soils that are in a relatively loose, unconsolidated condition and located below the water table. Within Santee, “the soil deposits that may be susceptible to liquefaction are the young alluvial soils found in the San Diego River and its deeper tributary channels” (City of Santee 2025).
Landslides and Debris Flow Deposits
The City’s General Plan Safety and Environmental Justice Element describes landslides as follows (City of Santee 2025):
“A landslide is defined as a mass movement of earth occurring below the limits of the soil mantle caused by shear failure along one or several surfaces. Ancient landslides have been dated by radiocarbon methods as being 8 to 30 thousand years old in the Southern California area by Stout (1969) and others. They are believed to have occurred primarily as a response of weak claystones exposed to intense rainfall causing high water table conditions in slopes during late Pleistocene and early Holocene times. Landslides occur throughout the area underlain by the Friars Formation.
Although the California Department of Conservation has not evaluated the Santee area for landslides, assessing slope gradient can help identify areas that may be susceptible to landslide risk. Areas with slopes that exceed 15 percent are highly susceptible to erosion and gully formation caused by running water. Without plant cover, these areas pose a risk for landslides.
Groundwater/Seepage
The City’s General Plan Safety and Environmental Justice Element notes that perched groundwater occurs in Santee (City of Santee 2025):
Perched groundwater or seepage has been encountered in alluvial drainages, hillside areas, and landslide zones during previous investigations in Santee. The groundwater/seepage in drainage courses is presumed to be associated with surface runoff of rainwater along the natural watershed.
4.6 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.6-3
Subdrain systems are often necessary in areas of proposed development to intercept and convey seepage migrating along impervious strata. In particular, the main drainages, stability/buttress fill areas, and possibly where impervious layers daylight near the ultimate graded surface typically require subdrains. Specific subdrain locations and design details should be provided with the detailed grading plans for the site. Seepage conditions also occur in bedrock materials and at the base of landslide areas perched on relatively impervious strata in the Friars Formation and ancient landslide deposits. Additionally, relatively minor natural surface seeps were observed in the northern portion of Santee at the Friars Formation/Stadium Conglomerate contact. The existing perched groundwater levels in alluvial areas can be expected to fluctuate seasonally and may affect remedial grading.
Paleontological Resources
Dudek prepared a Paleontological Resources Assessment for the Proposed Project, which is included as Appendix F to this PEIR. Paleontological resources are the remains of indications of ancient non-human organisms. They are scarce, non-renewable natural resources. Fossil remains such as bones, teeth, shells, and leaves are found in geologic deposits (rock formations) where they were originally buried. As a result, the potential for fossils in each area can be predicted based on known relationships between geologic formations and fossil occurrences.
In a general geological overview, the Eocene-age Stadium Conglomerate and Friars Formation underlie Santee. Friars Formation (Tf) deposits are found overlying the granitic rocks in the southern and north-central parts of Santee, while the Stadium Conglomerate (Tst) occurs throughout the southwestern and northern parts of Santee underlying the high terrace and overlying both the granitic rocks and the Friars Formation. As shown in Figure 4.6-3, Paleontological Sensitivity Map Overview, 31 Project parcel clusters were reviewed for paleontological sensitivity. The Project parcels were grouped into clusters based on location to provide a programmatic analysis for the Proposed Project. According to geological mapping by Todd et al. (2004) and Kennedy and Tan (2008) at a 1:100,000 scale and the geological time scale of Cohen et al. (2024), these Project areas are underlain by Holocene (less than 11,700 years ago) young alluvium (map unit Qya); Holocene and Pleistocene (less than 11,700 years ago to 2.58 million years ago [mya]) alluvium and colluvium, undivided (map unit Qu); late to middle Pleistocene (11,700 years ago to 774,000 years ago) older alluvium (map unit Qoa); the Eocene (33.9 mya to 56 mya) Friars Formation (map unit Tfr); and early Cretaceous (approximately 121 mya to 143 mya) granitoid rocks (map unit Kgr).
Holocene young alluvium has low paleontological resource sensitivity that potentially increases with depth below the surface, where it can become old enough to preserve fossils or be underlain by geological units with moderate to high paleontological sensitivity or potential. The Holocene and Pleistocene alluvium and colluvium, undivided, also has low paleontological resources sensitivity or potential that increases to moderate or high paleontological sensitivity or potential with depth. The late to middle Pleistocene older alluvium has moderate paleontological sensitivity or potential. The Friars Formation has high paleontological resource sensitivity or potential, and the Cretaceous granitoid rocks have no paleontological resource sensitivity or potential (County of San Diego 2009; Deméré and Walsh 2011; Appendix F) (Figure 4.6-3). Another geological unit with high paleontological sensitivity that does not underlie the 31 areas proposed for zoning changes is the Stadium Conglomerate (County of San Diego 2009; Deméré and Walsh 2011).
The records search results from the San Diego Natural History Museum, received on October 9, 2025, showed no fossil localities that lie directly within any of the parcels identified for land use changes (Community Hub Overlay, Community Corridor Overlay, and the parcel designated as Assessor’s Parcel Number [APN] 378-160-25-00). The closest localities were approximately 0.5 to 0.6 miles north of the parcels at the intersection of Mast Boulevard and
4.6 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.6-4
Cuyamaca Street that are proposed for the Community Hub Overlay, where four Friars Formation fossil localities produced freshwater invertebrates (e.g., snails), freshwater vertebrates (e.g., amphibians, crocodiles), and terrestrial vertebrates (e.g., rodents, insectivores, artiodactyls, primates, and creodonts) (Appendix F).
4.6.3 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances
Federal
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act
The Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act was enacted in 1997 to “reduce the risks of life and property from future earthquakes in the United States through the establishment and maintenance of an effective earthquake hazards and reduction program” (P.L. 95-124; 42 USC 7701 et seq.). To accomplish this, the Act established the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP). This program was significantly amended in November 1990 and refined the description of agency responsibilities, program goals, and objectives.
NEHRP’s mission includes improved understanding, characterization, and prediction of hazards and vulnerabilities; improvement of building codes and land use practices; risk reduction through post-earthquake investigations and education; development and improvement of design and construction techniques; improvement of mitigation capacity; and accelerated application of research results. NEHRP designates the Federal Emergency Management Agency as the lead agency of the program and assigns it several planning, coordinating, and reporting responsibilities. Programs under NEHRP help inform and guide planning and building code requirements, such as emergency evacuation responsibilities and seismic code standards such as those to which the Proposed Project would be required to adhere.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Excavation and trenching are among the most hazardous construction activities. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Excavation and Trenching Standard (29 CFR, Part 1926[P] et seq.) covers requirements for excavation and trenching operations. OSHA requires that all excavations in which employees could potentially be exposed to cave-ins be protected by sloping or benching the sides of the excavation, supporting the sides of the excavation, or placing a shield between the side of the excavation and the work area.
Paleontological Resources Protection Act of 2009
The Paleontological Resources Protection Act (PRPA) of 2009 directs the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to manage and protect paleontological resources on federal land using “scientific principles and expertise” (16 USC 470aaa-1). The PRPA incorporates most of the recommendations of the Secretary of the Interior’s report titled Assessment of Fossil Management on Federal and Indian Lands (DOI 2000) in order to formulate a consistent paleontological resources management framework. In passing the PRPA, Congress officially recognized the scientific importance of paleontological resources on some federal lands by declaring that fossils from these lands are federal property that must be preserved and protected. The PRPA codifies existing policies of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Reclamation, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and provides the following:
Criminal and civil penalties for illegal sale, transport, theft, and vandalism of fossils from federal lands
4.6 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.6-5
Minimum requirements for paleontological resource-use permit issuance (terms, conditions, and qualifications of applicants)
Definitions for “paleontological resources” and “casual collecting” Requirements for curation of federal fossils in approved repositories The PRPA requires the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to manage and protect paleontological resources on federal land. The PRPA furthers the protection of fossils on federal lands by criminalizing the unauthorized removal of fossils.
The Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976
The Federal Land Policy Management Act (P.L. 94-579; 90 Statute 2743, USC 1701-1782) requires that public lands be managed such that the quality of their scientific values is protected. The act recognizes significant paleontological resources as scientific resources and requires federal agencies to manage public lands in a manner that protects scientific resource quality.
State
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The primary purpose of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act is to prevent the construction of buildings used for human occupancy on the surface trace of active faults. The act addresses only the hazard of surface fault rupture and is not directed toward other earthquake hazards. The law requires the State Geologist to establish regulatory zones (known as Earthquake Fault Zones or Alquist-Priolo Zones) around the surface traces of active faults and issue locational maps to all affected cities, counties, and state agencies for their use in safe construction.
Before a project may be permitted, a geologic investigation is required to demonstrate that proposed buildings would not be constructed across active faults. A licensed geologist must prepare an evaluation and written report of a specific site. If an active fault is found, then a structure for human occupancy cannot be placed over the trace of the fault and must be set back from the fault (generally 50 feet) (CGS and USGS 2013).
California Building Code
State regulations protecting structures from geo-seismic hazards are contained in the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2 (California Building Code [CBC]), which is updated on a triennial basis. These regulations apply to public and private buildings in California and are based on the International Building Code. The 2025 CBC, effective January 1, 2026, is based on the 2024 International Building Code and enhances the sections dealing with existing structures. Seismic-resistant construction design is required to meet more stringent technical standards than those set by previous versions of the CBC. The CBC contains general building design and construction requirements relating to fire and life safety, structural safety, and access compliance. CBC provisions provide minimum standards to safeguard life or limb, health, property, and public welfare by regulating and controlling the design, construction, quality of materials, use and occupancy, location, and maintenance of all buildings and structures and certain equipment (ICC 2025).
California Environmental Quality Act of 1970
Paleontological resources are afforded consideration under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.) includes the following as one of the questions to be answered in the Environmental Checklist (Section VII, Part f): “Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a
4.6 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.6-6
unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?” California Public Resources Code Section 5097.5 specifies that any unauthorized removal of paleontological remains is a misdemeanor. Further, California Penal Code Section 622.5 sets the penalties for damage to or removal of paleontological resources.
California state laws and regulations under California Public Resources Code Section 5097.5 apply to paleontological resources and projects that have the potential to impact those resources.
California Public Resources Code Sections 5097–5097.6 – Archaeological, Paleontological, and Historical Sites
PRC Sections 5097–5097.6 outline the requirements for cultural resource analysis prior to the commencement of any construction project on state lands. This section identifies that the unauthorized disturbance or removal of archaeological, historical, or paleontological resources located on public lands is a misdemeanor. It prohibits the knowing destruction of objects of antiquity without a permit (expressed permission) on public lands and provides for criminal sanctions. These sections were amended in 1987 to require consultation with the California Native American Heritage Commission whenever Native American graves are found. Violations for the taking or possessing remains or artifacts are felonies.
Local
City of Santee General Plan
The City’s General Plan Safety and Environmental Justice Element and Conservation Element include various goals, objectives, and policies relating to geological conditions, the application of which would help to avoid geological hazards, including those described below (City of Santee 2003).
Safety and Environmental Justice Element
Objective 2.0: Increase awareness of geotechnical and seismic hazards to avoid or minimize the effects of hazards during the planning process for new development or redevelopment and to mitigate the risks for existing development.
Policy 2.1: Utilize existing and evolving geologic, geophysical, and engineering knowledge to distinguish and delineate those areas that are particularly susceptible to damage from landslides and slope instability, liquefaction, and dam inundation.
Policy 2.2: For projects proposed in areas identified in the geologic hazard category area, the geologic/ geotechnical consultant shall establish either that the unfavorable conditions do not exist in the specific area in question or that they can be mitigated though proper design and construction.
Policy 2.3: As shown in Table A-1, Determination of Geotechnical Studies Required, of the Geotechnical/Seismic Hazard Study Group I, II, III, and IV facilities require a Geotechnical Investigation, a Geologic Investigation, and a Seismic Hazard Study specific to the project.
Additionally, the State of California requires reports for public schools, hospitals, and other critical structures to be reviewed by the State Architect.
Conservation Element
Objective 4.0: Reduce the amount of erosion of soil in the City.
4.6 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.6-7
Policy 4.1: The City shall require that appropriate soils and geologic surveys be completed for all proposed development, consistent with the policies and implementation measures found in the Safety Element.
Policy 4.2: The City shall require appropriate grading, erosion control measures and replanting to minimize erosion and prevent slippage of man-made slopes.
Municipal Code
Title 11 – Grading Ordinance
The Grading Ordinance “establishes minimum requirements for grading, excavating and filling of land” (Municipal Code Section 11.40.020[A]) to “ensure that future development of land occurs in the manner most compatible with surrounding natural areas to have the least adverse effect upon other persons, land, or the general public” (Municipal Code Section 11.40.030[A]).
All grading consistent with the Grading Ordinance is required to prepare preliminary soil engineering and geology reports. Any recommendations contained in the approved reports become part of and are incorporated into the grading plans and specifications and become conditions of the grading permit (Municipal Code Section 11.40.300[A]).
The Grading Ordinance requires preliminary geological investigations and reports “for all land development projects designated as [Group I or Group II], except those [Group II] projects located in Zone ‘A’ as per the Seismic Hazards and Study Areas Map (for which a geological reconnaissance will be required), as outlined in Table 8.1 of the City General Plan” (City of Santee 2025; Municipal Code Section 11.40.130[(D])).
Additionally, “[a] seismicity study and report is required for all land development projects designated as [Group I] and for those designated as [Group II] and located in [Zone ‘C’] as per the Seismic Hazards and Study Areas Map of the City General Plan. The report must be prepared by an engineering geologist or a soil engineer with expertise in earthquake technology and its application to buildings and other civil engineering works. The seismic report may be combined with the soil and geologic investigation reports” (City of Santee 2025; Municipal Code Section 11.40.130[F]).
4.6.4 Environmental Impacts
4.6.4.1 Methodology
The Project is a policy document that does not include or propose any site-specific development that could directly result in physical impacts to the environment from construction or operation. Adoption of the Land Use Element Update would not in itself result in physical impacts to the environment. Rather, implementation of the Project would result in changes to land use designations, which would allow for future development/redevelopment to occur at higher density/intensity than under current conditions. Therefore, this PEIR does not assess the site-specific construction and operation details of potential future development within the Plan Area. Instead, it assesses the impacts associated with the changes to existing land uses and the associated overall effects of the buildout of the Project through 2045, where reasonably foreseeable physical changes to the environment could occur.
4.6 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.6-8
4.6.4.2 Thresholds of Significance
The significance criteria used to evaluate the Project’s impacts to geology and soils are based on CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. For the purposes of this Project, a potentially significant impact to geology and soils would occur if the Proposed Project would:
Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault. Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking.
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. iv. Landslides.
Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.
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.
Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property.
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.
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.
4.6.4.3 Land Use Element Update Relevant Goals and Policies None of the proposed draft goals, policies, and implementation actions from the Land Use Element Update are relevant to geology and soils.
4.6.4.4 Impacts Analysis
Threshold 4.6-1(i): Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent AlquistPriolo 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.
There are no Holocene-active faults within or immediately adjacent to Santee as listed under the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (DOC 2025). The closest Holocene-active fault is the Rose Canyon Fault, located offshore approximately 15 miles to the west of Santee (Figure 4.6-1). Santee, like all other areas in California, is within a seismically active region of Southern California and would be subject to periodic seismic shaking due to earthquakes along remote or regional active faults. The Project is a policy document that does not propose any new development. Therefore, the Project would not directly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving the rupture of a known earthquake fault.
4.6 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.6-9
The Project would facilitate development or redevelopment within the Plan Area; specifically, the Project would place the Community Hub Overlay along the main transit corridor of Mast Boulevard and on designated parcels along Cuyamaca Street and Carlton Hills Boulevard. In addition, the Community Corridors Overlay would be placed along the main transit corridor of Misson Gorge Road. Additionally, potential future development or redevelopment could occur at a specific parcel (APN 378-160-25-00), where the Project proposes to redesignate the parcel from Neighborhood Commercial to Medium-High Density Residential (R-14). This analysis addresses the potential for impacts associated with the reasonably foreseeable development or redevelopment of these specific areas that would undergo land use designation change. The Project would not result in direct adverse effects related to the rupture of a known earthquake fault because reasonably foreseeable future development would not be located within proximity to a fault with risk of rupture, and future development would not cause or exacerbate potential rupture of nearby faults. It is possible the Project could result in indirect adverse effects, due to the potential for seismic ground shaking in the areas for future development, which is discussed further under Threshold 4.6-1(ii) below. There is a framework of state and local regulation that guides development of structures, particularly those meant for inhabitance, that are within areas prone to seismic ground shaking from earthquake rupture. Potential future development or redevelopment would be subject to the CBC, Title 24, Part 2. Chapters 16 and 16A include requirements for the design of seismically resistant construction. Potential future development or redevelopment facilitated by the Project would be required to comply with the policies identified in the City’s General Plan Safety and Environmental Justice Element, including Policies 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3, as detailed in Section 4.6.3, Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances. The above policies are implemented through Section 11.40.130 of the City’s Municipal Code, which specifies that “a seismicity study and report is required for all land development projects designated as Group IV and those designated as Group III and located in Zones ‘C’ and ‘D’ as per the Seismic Hazards and Study Areas Map of the City General Plan.” Project-level design review and environmental review at the time of an individual project’s application would include an evaluation of site-specific geologic hazards present on each individual project site. Further, project-level environmental review would assess a project’s potential for substantial adverse effects involving rupture of a known earthquake fault; however, due to the absence of Holocene-active faults within the Plan Area, surface rupture is not anticipated. Therefore, potential future development facilitated by the Project would comply with existing policies and regulations, and impacts would be less than significant.
Threshold 4.6-1(ii) : Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking? Southern California is considered one of the most seismically active regions in the United States, with numerous Holocene-active faults. As discussed in Threshold 4.6-1(i), there are no Holocene-active faults that intersect the City’s jurisdictional limits. The nearest Holocene-active fault is the Rose Canyon Fault, located offshore approximately 15 miles to the west of Santee. Seismic activity from the Rose Canyon Fault or other regional Holocene active faults could result in substantive ground shaking. The Project is a policy document that does not propose new development but, as described previously, would result in the reasonably foreseeable future construction of new buildings. Strong seismically induced ground shaking can be expected to affect future development.
As stated above in Threshold 4.6-1(i), the Project would facilitate development or redevelopment within the main transit corridors of Mission Gorge Road and Mast Boulevard and on certain parcels along Carlton Hills Boulevard and at APN 378-160-25-00. As shown in Figure 4.6-2, potential future development facilitated by the Project would mostly occur in areas that are identified as “Low Shaking Potential” (City of Santee 2025). Conformance with current CBC design requirements would reduce impacts to new development associated with strong seismically induced ground shaking in accordance with stringent seismic design criteria. The CBC sets forth
4.6 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.6-10
structural design parameters for buildings to withstand seismic shaking without substantial structural damage.
CBC Section 1803 requires preparation of a site-specific geotechnical investigation to assess the degree of potential seismic hazards and recommend appropriate design/mitigation measures. Conformance with the CBC, as required by state law, would minimize the potential for damage to new structures and their foundations. The continuation of design review and code enforcement to meet current seismic standards is the primary strategy to avoid or reduce damage from an earthquake.
Potential future development or redevelopment would not cause or exacerbate the potential for seismically related ground shaking to occur. Additionally, potential future development or redevelopments facilitated by the Project would be subject to further, project-specific design review, as well as CEQA analysis. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking. Impacts would be less than significant.
Threshold 4.6-1(iii): Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Secondary effects, including liquefaction and lateral spreading, can also occur from seismic events that can cause substantive damage and injury in structures that are not designed or built according to current seismic regulations. According to the City’s Safety and Environmental Justice Element, the California Department of Conservation does not identify liquefaction potential in Santee; however, “the soil deposits that may be susceptible to liquefaction are the young alluvial soils found in the San Diego River and its deeper tributary channels, such as Sycamore Creek, due to the level of groundwater and soil densities in these areas” (City of Santee 2025). As discussed above, the Project does not propose any new development, but strong seismically induced ground shaking and related secondary effects could adversely affect potential development within the Plan Area wherever liquefiable soils are present.
Reasonably foreseeable development facilitated by the Project includes mixed-use residential and commercial development and Medium-High Density Residential (R-14) development. Given the nature of these land uses, future development would not cause or exacerbate the potential for seismically related ground failure to occur.
Conformance with CBC requirements would reduce impacts associated with seismically related ground failure within these potential development areas of the Plan Area, which includes requirements for evaluation of sitespecific soils for liquefaction potential. Standard geotechnical procedures, soil testing, and proper design can identify and mitigate liquefiable soils through site preparations (e.g., removal of liquefiable soils and replacement with engineered fills) and/or foundation design standards. Potential damage related to liquefaction and lateral spreading, including differential settlement, would be minimized such that less-than-significant impacts would occur. These engineering practices could include densification of soils, soil reinforcement, and drainage/dewatering to reduce pore water pressure within the soil.
Potential future developments or redevelopments facilitated by the Project would be subject to further projectspecific CEQA analysis. As such, with compliance with existing City requirements, future developments facilitated by the Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure. Impacts would be less than significant.
4.6 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.6-11
Threshold 4.6-1(iv): Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides? The California Department of Conservation has not evaluated the Santee area for landslides; however, the City provides an assessment in the Safety and Environmental Justice Element of the slope gradient and identified areas within the Plan Area that have a slope gradient greater than 15%. Assessing slope “can help identify areas that may be susceptible to landslide risk. Areas with slopes that exceed 15 percent are highly susceptible to erosion and gully formation caused by running water. Without plant cover, these areas pose a risk for landslides” (City of Santee 2025). As shown in Figure 4.3, Slope Gradient Greater than 15 Percent, of the City’s Safety and Environmental Justice Element, the Project parcels occur primarily outside of the areas identified to have a slope greater than 15%. The City’s Safety and Environmental Justice Element states that “[s]eismically induced landslide and rock fall studies should be performed in accordance with current and applicable design standards, such as the CGS 2008 Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California” (City of Santee 2025).
The Proposed Project is a policy document that does not propose any new development but would result in the reasonably foreseeable future development or redevelopment of buildings. Reasonably foreseeable development facilitated by the Project includes implementation of the Community Hub Overlay, the Community Corridors Overlay, and Residential (R-14) development (Figure 3-2, Proposed Land Use Changes). Future development would be subject to further project-specific CEQA analysis. Additionally, future development would be required to comply with policies outlined in the City’s Safety and Environmental Justice Element, including Policies 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 (which discourage development in areas of known slope instability and/or high landslide risk and implement measures to reduce the likelihood of inundation from mudflows in susceptible areas). Additionally, with respect to future development within the Plan Area on gently sloping topography, compliance with the CBC and the City Development Code related to grading, including completion of a standard geotechnical investigation, would minimize the potential for slope instability to occur such that impacts would be less than significant.
Threshold 4.6-2: Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? The Project is a policy document that does not propose any new development; however, as stated above in Threshold 4.6-1(i), the Project would facilitate development or redevelopment within the main transit corridors of Mission Gorge Road and Mast Boulevard, on certain parcels along Carlton Hills Boulevard and Cuyamaca Street, and at APN 378-160-25-00. Soil-disturbing activities required for potential future development would be assessed on a project-by-project basis. However, compliance with drainage and erosion control requirements for construction and post-construction would also be effective in reducing the potential for erosion and loss of topsoil.
Although the Plan Area consists primarily of developed urban land uses, potential future construction activities associated with development or redevelopment consistent with the Project may include excavation, grading, and other soil-disturbing activities that could result in soil erosion or loss of topsoil during rain or high-wind events. For projects disturbing more than 1 acre of ground surface, the Construction General Permit requires proof of coverage prior to the start of construction and the preparation and implementation of a stormwater pollution prevention plan that would include erosion control and sediment control best management practices, such as sandbags, straw wattles, and covering of soil stockpiles, which would ensure that soil erosion and loss of topsoil on the construction site would be minimized. Compliance with the Construction General Permit and municipal separate storm sewer system permit requirements would minimize impacts related to erosion and loss of topsoil during construction of potential future development in the Plan Area, resulting in less-than-significant impacts.
4.6 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.6-12
With respect to operations, the Plan Area is predominantly developed with few pervious (undeveloped) surfaces. As such, new development and redevelopment projects would generate little increase in runoff relative to the existing drainage system. Therefore, the chance of soil erosion and topsoil loss occurring during operation of new developments is low. As a result, future development of the Project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil, and impacts would be less than significant.
Threshold 4.6-3: Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
The Proposed Project is a policy document that does not propose any new development but would result in the reasonably foreseeable future development or redevelopment of buildings. As stated above in Threshold 4.6-1(i), the Project would facilitate development or redevelopment within the main transit corridors of Mission Gorge Road and Mast Boulevard, on certain parcels along Carlton Hills Boulevard Cuyamaca Street, and at APN 378-160-25-
00. Soil stability would be assessed on a project-by-project basis. However, compliance with current building code requirements and Safety and Environmental Justice Element Policy 2.2, which requires mitigation through proper design and construction, and Safety and Environmental Justice Element Policy 2.3, which enforces geotechnical investigations for applicable projects, would reduce effects of potential future developments.
Future development would be required to comply with the City’s Municipal Code requirements related to geotechnical hazards. In addition, conformance to building construction standards for seismic safety within the CBC would ensure that new structures would be able to withstand seismic events within Santee. Therefore, adherence to Safety and Environmental Justice Element policies, the Municipal Code, and the CBC would ensure that future development within the Plan Area would not cause substantial adverse effects associated with on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse, and impacts would be less than significant.
Threshold 4.6-4: Would the project 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? Five soil types occur within the areas with proposed land use designation updates: clay, loam, sand, sandy loam, and river wash. Expansive soils are characterized by significant volume changes (shrink or swell) due to variations in moisture content. Expansion of the soil may result in unacceptable settlement or heave of structures or concrete slabs supported on grade. Changes in soil moisture content can result from precipitation, landscape irrigation, utility leakage, roof drainage, perched groundwater, drought, or other factors. Soils with relatively high fine content (clays dominantly) are generally considered expansive or potentially expansive.
Future development facilitated by the Project would be required to adhere to Municipal Code requirements for project-specific geotechnical reports that would ensure site-specific measures are implemented to ensure safe building construction in areas with expansive soils. These reports would provide guidance for the inclusion of proper site planning, design, and construction measures to avoid unfavorable conditions. Adherence to Municipal Code requirements would ensure that future development would not create substantial direct or indirect risks associated with expansive soils, and impacts would be less than significant.
4.6 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.6-13
Threshold 4.6-5: Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? The Project proposes land use designation updates within urban areas of Santee. Therefore, there is no expectation that septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would be part of any future development proposal.
Potential future development or redevelopment would be served by Padre Dam Municipal Water District for wastewater service, and no impact would occur.
Threshold 4.6-6: Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
The Proposed Project is a policy document that does not propose any site-specific development but would result in the reasonably foreseeable future development or redevelopment of buildings. Development or redevelopment would involve demolition and construction activities that could cause ground disturbance, which would result in an impact to paleontological resources. As a result of the San Diego Natural History Museum records search and desktop review, no known paleontological resources were identified within the Project parcels; however, numerous fossil localities were reported from the Friars Formation throughout Santee.
As detailed in Appendix F and shown in Figure 4.6-3, the Project parcels are underlain by Holocene young alluvium (low to moderate or high sensitivity at depth), Holocene and Pleistocene alluvium and colluvium (low sensitivity to moderate or high sensitivity at depth), Holocene and Pleistocene older alluvium (moderate sensitivity), Friars Formation (high sensitivity), and Early Cretaceous (no sensitivity). Based on the records search results and map and literature review, detailed in Appendix F, the Proposed Project areas underlain by the Friars Formation have high potential to produce paleontological resources during construction activities that occur below the level of fill and previously disturbed sediments. The alluvium and colluvium, undivided, and late to middle Pleistocene older alluvium have moderate potential to yield paleontological resources below a level of 3 feet below ground surface.
The Holocene young alluvium has low potential to produce paleontological resources above a depth of 5 feet below ground surface, potentially increasing to moderate or high below a depth of 5 feet below ground surface. These areas would include all the parcels identified for the Community Hub Overlay and almost all of the Community Corridor Overlay, except for a handful of parcels at and west of the intersection of Mission Gorge Road and Carlton Hills Boulevard (Figure 4.6-3). The early Cretaceous granitoid rocks have no potential to yield paleontological resources. Given the potential sensitivity for paleontological resources that exists for the geologic material underlying the Project parcels, there is potential for future development projects that involve ground disturbance to encounter paleontological resources. In the event that previously unknown, intact paleontological resources are discovered in the Project parcels, ground-disturbing activities associated with reasonably foreseeable future development facilitated by the Proposed Project, such as grading and large diameter (2 feet or greater) drilling during site preparation and trenching for utilities, have the potential to destroy a unique paleontological resource or site. Therefore, construction activities related to reasonably foreseeable future development or redevelopment would result in a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure (MM) GEO-1, presented below, would reduce potentially significant impacts to a less-than-significant level by requiring preparation and implementation of a Paleontological Resources Mitigation and Monitoring Program, which would involve pre-construction worker awareness training as well as paleontological monitoring and discovery protocol, treatment, reporting, and collection management. Therefore, with implementation of MM-GEO-1, impacts would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
4.6 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.6-14
4.6.5 Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures would be implemented as part of the Proposed Project.
MM-GEO-1 Prior to commencement of any grading activity on site, the project applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist per the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) 2010 Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources to prepare a Paleontological Resources Mitigation and Monitoring Program (PRMMP) for the project. The PRMMP shall be consistent with the SVP (2010) guidelines and outline requirements for preconstruction meeting attendance and worker environmental awareness training; where paleontological monitoring is required within the project site based on construction plans and/or geotechnical reports; and procedures for adequate paleontological monitoring and discoveries treatment, including paleontological methods (including sediment sampling for microinvertebrate and microvertebrate fossils), reporting, and collections management. The PRMMP shall also include a statement that any fossil lab or curation costs (if necessary due to fossil recovery) are the responsibility of the project applicant.
In addition, a qualified paleontological monitor shall be on site during all ground-disturbing activities (including augering) below a depth of 5 feet in areas underlain by undisturbed Holocene young alluvium; below a depth of 3 feet in areas underlain by undisturbed alluvium and colluvium, undivided, and older alluvium; and below the depth of fill or disturbed sediments in Eocene units (Friars Formation or others encountered at depth). No paleontological monitoring is necessary during ground disturbance within artificial fill or previously disturbed sediments, if determined to be present, or in areas underlain by early Cretaceous granitoid rocks. In the event that paleontological resources (e.g., fossils) are unearthed during grading, the paleontological monitor will temporarily halt construction and/or divert grading activity in that area to allow recovery of paleontological resources by a paleontological monitor. The area of discovery will be roped off with a 50-foot radius buffer. Once documentation and collection of the find is completed, the monitor will allow grading to recommence in the area of the find.
4.6.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Threshold 4.6-1 The Proposed Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault; strong seismic ground shaking; seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction and lateral spreading; or landslides, and impacts would be less than significant.
Threshold 4.6-2 The Proposed Project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.
Threshold 4.6-3 The Proposed Project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to location on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Proposed Project.
Threshold 4.6-4 The Proposed Project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to location on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994).
4.6 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.6-15
Threshold 4.6-5 The Proposed Project would result in no impact related to soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems.
Threshold 4.6-6 The Proposed Project could potentially directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. However, any potential impacts to paleontological resources would be reduced with the implementation of a mitigation measure for paleontological resources (MM-GEO-1). Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
4.6 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.6-16
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
La
Nacion
fault
Point
Loma
fault
Tex
a
s
S
t
reet
fa
u
l
t
Mission Gorge fault
City of Santee
California Quaternary Faults
Alquist-Priolo Fault Zones
Proposed Land Use
Community Corridor Overlay
Community Hub Overlay
R-14
0 8,000 16,000 n Feet
Date: 2/13/2026 User: cbattle Path: Z:\Projects\j1710001\MAPDOC\PEIR\PEIR.aprx Map: Active Faults and Alquist Priolo Fault Zones Layout: Figure 4.6-1 Active Faults and Alquist Priolo Fault Zones SOURCE: California Dept. of Conservation 2016
City of Santee Land Use Element PEIR
Active Faults and Alquist Priolo Fault Zones
FIGURE 4.6-1
4.6 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.6-18
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Santee
Proposed Land Use
Community Corridor Overlay
Community Hub Overlay
OS
R-14
Earthquake Shaking Potential
Low
Lowest
Date: 2/13/2026 User: cbattle Path: Z:\Projects\j1710001\MAPDOC\PEIR\PEIR.aprx Map: Shaking Potential Layout: Figure 4.6-2 Shaking Potential 0 0.5 1 n Miles
SOURCE: California Dept. of Conservation 2016
City of Santee Land Use Element PEIR
Shaking Potential
FIGURE 4.6-2
4.6 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.6-20
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
San Die g o Ri ver
Q U A I L
C A N Y ON
Medina Dr
Carlton Hills Blvd
Carlton Oaks Dr
Lake Canyon Rd
Ha bl erns Blvd
Fanita Pkwy
Strathmore
Dr
Saint Andrews Dr
Lutheran Way
Abbeywood Rd
Santee Lakes B
Rumson Dr
Mast Blvd
Cuyamaca St
Town Center Pkwy
lton Oaks Dr
Willowgr ove Ave
Inv erness Rd
Cuyamaca St
Mission
Gorge Rd
Prospect Ave
Beck Dr
Cuyamaca St
Oak Creek Dr
Len St
Carreta Dr
Woodglen Vista Dr
Woodpark Dr
2nd St
Northcote Rd
Ironwood Ave
N Magnolia Ave
Riverwa lk Dr
Mast Blvd Mast Blvd Mast Blvd
El Nopal
Woodside Ave
N
Magnolia Ave
Graves Ave
Buena Vista Ave
Sevilla St
Mission Gorge Rd
31 30
27 28
29 26
25 24
23 22 3
1 2 6
4 5
7 8 9 10 11 14 15
12 13 16
17 18 19
20 21
Proposed Land Use
Community Corridor Overlay
Community Hub Overlay
OS
R-14
Paleontological Sensitivity
Qya - (Holocene) young alluvium - low sensitivity
Qu - (Holocene and Pleistocene) alluvium and
colluvium, undivided - low sensitivity to high
sensitivity at depth
Qoa - (Holocene and Plestocene) older alluvium -
low sensitivity to high sensitivity at depth
Tfr - (Eocene) Friars Formation - high sensitivity
Kgr - (Early Cretaceous) Granitoid rocks - no
sensitivity
Date: 2/13/2026 User: cbattle Path: Z:\Projects\j1710001\MAPDOC\PEIR\PEIR.aprx Map: Paleontological Sensitivity Map Overview Layout: Figure 4.6-3 Paleontological Sensitivity Map Overview 0 1,000 2,000
n Feet
SOURCE: Appendix F
City of Santee Land Use Element PEIR
Paleontological Sensitivity Map Overview
FIGURE 4.6-3
4.6 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.6-22
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
4.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.7-1
4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
This section of the draft program environmental impact report (PEIR) describes the existing greenhouse gas (GHG) conditions of the Plan Area, identifies associated regulatory requirements, evaluates potential impacts, and identifies mitigation measures related to implementation of the City of Santee (City) Land Use Element Update (Project or Proposed Project).
4.7.1 Existing Conditions
GHGs are gases that that absorb infrared radiation (i.e., trap heat) in the Earth’s atmosphere. The trapping and buildup of heat in the atmosphere near the Earth’s surface (the troposphere), is referred to as the “greenhouse effect,” and is a natural process that contributes to the regulation of the Earth’s temperature, creating a livable environment on Earth. The Earth’s temperature depends on the balance between energy entering and leaving the planet’s system, and many factors (natural and human) can cause changes in Earth’s energy balance. Human activities that generate and emit GHGs to the atmosphere increase the amount of infrared radiation that gets absorbed before escaping into space, thus enhancing the greenhouse effect and causing the Earth’s surface temperature to rise. This rise in temperature has led to large-scale changes to the Earth’s system (e.g., temperature, precipitation, wind patterns, etc.), which are collectively referred to as climate change. Global climate change is a cumulative impact; a project contributes to this impact through its incremental contribution combined with the cumulative increase of all other sources of GHGs. Thus, GHG impacts are recognized exclusively as cumulative impacts (CAPCOA 2008).
Greenhouse Gases
As defined in California Health and Safety Code Section 38505(g) for purposes of administering many of the state’s primary GHG emissions-reduction programs, GHGs include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), and nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) (see also 14 CCR 15364.5). Some GHGs, such as CO2, CH4, and N2O are emitted into the atmosphere through natural processes and human activities. Of these gases, CO2 and CH4 are emitted in the greatest quantities from human activities. Manufactured GHGs, which have a much greater heat-absorption potential than CO2, include fluorinated gases, such as HFCs, PFCs, and SF6, which are associated with certain industrial products and processes. The following provides a summary of the most common GHGs and their sources.1 ▪ Carbon Dioxide. CO2 is a naturally occurring gas and a by-product of human activities and is the principal anthropogenic GHG that affects the Earth’s radiative balance. Natural sources of CO2 include respiration of bacteria, plants, animals, and fungus; evaporation from oceans; volcanic out-gassing; and decomposition of dead organic matter. Human activities that generate CO2 are from the combustion of fuels such as coal, oil, natural gas, and wood and changes in land use. ▪ Methane. CH4 is produced through both natural and human activities. CH4 is a flammable gas and is the main component of natural gas. Methane is produced through anaerobic (without oxygen) decomposition of waste in landfills, flooded rice fields, animal digestion, decomposition of animal wastes, production and distribution of natural gas and petroleum, coal production, and incomplete fossil fuel combustion. ▪ Nitrous Oxide. N2O is produced through natural and human activities, mainly through agricultural activities and natural biological processes, although fuel burning and other processes also create N2O. Sources of N2O include soil cultivation practices (microbial processes in soil and water), especially the use of 1 The descriptions of GHGs are summarized from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Second Assessment Report (1995), IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (2007), and EPA’s “Overview of Greenhouse Gases” (2025a).
4.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.7-2
commercial and organic fertilizers, manure management, industrial processes (such as in nitric acid production, nylon production, and fossil-fuel-fired power plants), vehicle emissions, and using N2O as a propellant (such as in rockets, racecars, and aerosol sprays). ▪ Fluorinated Gases. Fluorinated gases (also referred to as F-gases) are synthetic powerful GHGs emitted from many industrial processes. Fluorinated gases are commonly used as substitutes for stratospheric O3-depleting substances (e.g., CFCs, HCFCs, and halons). The most prevalent fluorinated gases include the following:
- Hydrofluorocarbons: HFCs are compounds containing only hydrogen, fluorine, and carbon atoms. HFCs are synthetic chemicals used as alternatives to O3-depleting substances in serving many industrial, commercial, and personal needs. HFCs are emitted as by-products of industrial processes and are used in manufacturing.
- Perfluorocarbons: PFCs are a group of human-made chemicals composed of carbon and fluorine only.
These chemicals were introduced as alternatives, with HFCs, to the O3-depleting substances. The two main sources of PFCs are primary aluminum production and semiconductor manufacturing. Since PFCs have stable molecular structures and do not break down through the chemical processes in the lower atmosphere, these chemicals have long lifetimes, ranging between 10,000 and 50,000 years. - Sulfur Hexafluoride: SF6 is a colorless gas soluble in alcohol and ether and slightly soluble in water. SF6 is used for insulation in electric power transmission and distribution equipment, semiconductor manufacturing, the magnesium industry, and as a tracer gas for leak detection. ▪ Nitrogen Trifluoride: NF3 is used in the manufacture of a variety of electronics, including semiconductors and flat panel displays.
▪ Chlorofluorocarbons. CFCs are synthetic chemicals that have been used as cleaning solvents, refrigerants, and aerosol propellants. CFCs are chemically unreactive in the lower atmosphere (troposphere), and the production of CFCs was prohibited in 1987 due to the chemical destruction of stratospheric O3. ▪ Hydrochlorofluorocarbons. HCFCs are a large group of compounds, whose structure is very close to that of CFCs—containing hydrogen, fluorine, chlorine, and carbon atoms—but including one or more hydrogen atoms. Like HFCs, HCFCs are used in refrigerants and propellants. HCFCs were also used in place of CFCs for some applications; however, their use in general is being phased out. ▪ Black Carbon. Black carbon is a component of fine particulate matter, which has been identified as a leading environmental risk factor for premature death. It is produced from the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels and biomass burning, particularly from older diesel engines and forest fires. Black carbon warms the atmosphere by absorbing solar radiation, influences cloud formation, and darkens the surface of snow and ice, which accelerates heat absorption and melting. Black carbon is a short-lived substance that varies spatially, which makes it difficult to quantify the global warming potential (GWP). Diesel exhaust emissions are a major source of black carbon and are toxic air contaminants that have been regulated and controlled in California for several decades to protect public health. In relation to declining diesel particulate matter (DPM) as a result of CARB’s regulations pertaining to diesel engines, diesel fuels, and burning activities, CARB estimates that annual black carbon emissions in California under current strategies, anthropogenic black carbon from transportation is expected to be reduced by over 60% in 2030 (CARB 2022). ▪ Water Vapor. The primary source of water vapor is evaporation from the ocean, with additional vapor generated by sublimation (change from solid to gas) from ice and snow, evaporation from other water bodies, and transpiration from plant leaves. Water vapor is the most important, abundant, and variable GHG in the atmosphere and maintains a climate necessary for life.
4.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.7-3
▪ Ozone. Tropospheric O3, which is created by photochemical reactions involving gases from both natural sources and human activities, acts as a GHG. Stratospheric O3, which is created by the interaction between solar ultraviolet radiation and molecular oxygen, plays a decisive role in the stratospheric radiative balance.
Depletion of stratospheric O3, due to chemical reactions that may be enhanced by climate change, results in an increased ground-level flux of ultraviolet-B radiation. ▪ Aerosols. Aerosols are suspensions of particulate matter in a gas emitted into the air through burning biomass (plant material) and fossil fuels. Aerosols can warm the atmosphere by absorbing and emitting heat and can cool the atmosphere by reflecting light.
Global Warming Potential
Gases in the atmosphere can contribute to climate change both directly and indirectly. Direct effects occur when the gas itself absorbs radiation. Indirect radiative forcing occurs when chemical transformations of the substance produce other GHGs, when a gas influences the atmospheric lifetimes of other gases, and/or when a gas affects atmospheric processes that alter the radiative balance of the Earth (e.g., affect cloud formation or albedo) (EPA 2025a). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) developed the GWP concept to compare the ability of each GHG to trap heat in the atmosphere relative to another gas. The GWP of a GHG is defined as the ratio of the time-integrated radiative forcing from the instantaneous release of 1 kilogram of a trace substance relative to that of 1 kilogram of a reference gas (IPCC 2014). The reference gas used is CO2; therefore, GWP-weighted emissions are measured in metric tons of CO2 equivalent (MT CO2e).
The IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report indicates that the GWP for CH4 is 25 (so emissions of 1 MT of CH4 are equivalent to emissions of 25 MT of CO2), and the GWP for N2O is 298 (IPCC 2007).
Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
According to California’s 2000–2023 GHG emissions inventory (2025 edition), California emitted approximately 360.4 million metric tons (MMT) CO2e in 2023 (CARB 2025a). The sources of GHG emissions in California include transportation, industry, electric power production from both in-state and out-of-state sources, residential and commercial activities, agriculture, high-GWP substances, and recycling and waste. Table 4.7-1, GHG Emissions Sources in California, presents California GHG emission source categories and their relative contributions to the emissions inventory in 2023.
Table 4.7-1. GHG Emissions Sources in California
Source Category
Annual GHG Emissions
(MMT CO2e) Percent of Total
a
Transportation 133.7 37
Industrial 66.9 19
Electric Power 57.2 16
Commercial and Residential 43.3 12
Agriculture 29.2 8
High global-warming potential substances 21.4 6
Recycling and waste 8.6 2
Total 360.4 100
Source: CARB 2025a.
Notes: GHG = greenhouse gas; MMT CO2e = million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. a Column may not add due to rounding.
4.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.7-4
As part of the Sustainable Santee Plan, the City updated its GHG emissions inventory and forecast to include all community emissions from 2013. This inventory estimates GHG emissions from communitywide activities, organized by emissions sector (i.e., energy, transportation, water, waste, and off-road sources). Table 4.7-2, GHG Emissions Sources in the City of Santee, shows the 2013 community emissions.
Table 4.7-2. GHG Emissions Sources in the City of Santee Source Category
Annual GHG Emissions
(MT CO2e) Percent of Total
a
On-Road Transportation 242,499 60
Residential Energy 78,651 20
Commercial/Industrial Energy 48,025 12
Solid Waste 11,151 3
Water 6,578 2
Wastewater 971 <1
Off-Road Sources 14,699 4
Total 371.1 100
Source: City of Santee 2019a.
Notes: MT CO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.
4.7.2 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances
Federal
Massachusetts v. EPA
In Massachusetts v. EPA (April 2007), the U.S. Supreme Court directed the EPA administrator to determine whether GHG emissions from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, or whether the science is too uncertain to make a reasoned decision. In December 2009, the administrator signed a final rule with the following two distinct findings regarding GHGs under Section 202(a) of the federal Clean Air Act:
▪ The administrator found that elevated concentrations of GHGs—CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6—in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations. This is the “endangerment finding.”
▪ The administrator further found that the combined emissions of GHGs—CO2, CH4, N2O, and HFCs—from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the GHG air pollution that endangers public health and welfare. This is the “cause or contribute finding.” These two findings were necessary to establish the foundation for regulation of GHGs from new motor vehicles as air pollutants under the Clean Air Act (42 USC Section 7401).
Notably, President Trump’s Executive Order (EO) 14154 issued on January 10, 2025, called for EPA to reconsider the legality and applicability of the 2009 Endangerment Finding for Greenhouse Gases. On August 1, 2025, EPA issued a proposed rule in response to this Executive Order (see Vol. 90 Federal Register, No. 146, 36288-36365).
In its rule, EPA has proposed to repeal all GHG emission standards for light-duty, medium-duty and heavy-duty vehicles and engines, and has proposed to rescind the 2009 findings summarized above. The proposed rule presents EPA’s position that the Clean Air Act “does not authorize the EPA to prescribe emission standards to address global climate change concerns” (Vol. 90 Federal Register, No. 146, 36288).
4.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.7-5
Energy Independence and Security Act
The Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007 (Public Law 110-140), among other key measures, would do the following, which would aid in the reduction of national GHG emissions:
▪ Increase the supply of alternative fuel sources by setting a mandatory Renewable Fuel Standard requiring fuel producers to use at least 36 billion gallons of biofuel in 2022. ▪ Set a target of 35 miles per gallon for the combined fleet of cars and light trucks by model year 2020 and direct National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to establish a fuel economy program for medium- and heavy-duty trucks and create a separate fuel economy standard for work trucks. ▪ Prescribe or revise standards affecting regional efficiency for heating and cooling products and procedures for new or amended standards, energy conservation, energy-efficiency labeling for consumer electronic products, residential boiler efficiency, electric motor efficiency, and home appliances.
President Trump’s EO 14154 may also impact the EISA because it declared a national energy emergency and directed federal agencies to expedite the permitting and production of domestic energy resources. This emphasis on increasing fossil fuel production and reducing regulatory barriers may undermine the EISA's objectives of enhancing energy efficiency and promoting renewable energy sources.
Federal Vehicle Standards
In response to the Massachusetts v. EPA U.S. Supreme Court ruling discussed above, the Bush Administration issued EO 13432 in 2007 directing EPA, the Department of Transportation, and the Department of Energy to establish regulations that reduce GHG emissions from motor vehicles, non-road vehicles, and non-road engines by 2008. Accordingly, beginning in 2009 and as periodically updated with the passage of time, EPA and NHTSA adopted numerous rules establishing fuel economy standards (miles per gallon) and emission standards for cars and light-duty tracks for various model years.
As discussed above, however, EPA’s proposed rule (see Vol. 90 Federal Register, No. 146, 36288-36365) published in August 2025 would repeal all GHG emission standards for light-duty, medium-duty, and heavy-duty vehicles and engines, if adopted as proposed. Further, NHTSA published an interpretive rule, titled Resetting the Corporate Average Fuel Economy Program (see Vol. 90 Federal Register, No. 111, 24518-24527) in June 2025 setting forth its position that NHTSA cannot consider electric vehicles when setting fuel economy standards. Future rulemaking from NHTSA that establishes looser fuel economy standards for light-duty, medium-duty and heavy-duty vehicles is expected in the coming months. President Trump’s Transportation Secretary also has frozen funding to states for EV charging.
Inflation Reduction Act of 2022
The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) was signed into law by President Biden in August 2022. The bill provides for specific investment in energy and climate reform and is projected to reduce GHG emissions within the United States by 40% compared to 2005 levels by 2030. The bill allocates funds to boost renewable energy infrastructure (e.g., solar panels and wind turbines), includes tax credits for the purchase of electric vehicles, and includes measures that will make homes more energy efficient.
The IRA authorized EPA to implement the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund program, which is a historic $27 billion investment to mobilize financing and private capital to combat the climate crisis and ensure American economic competitiveness. The Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund will be designed to achieve the following program objectives:
4.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.7-6
reduce GHG emissions and other air pollutants; deliver the benefits of GHG- and air-pollution-reducing projects to American communities, particularly low-income and disadvantaged communities; and mobilize financing and private capital to stimulate additional deployment of GHG- and air-pollution-reducing projects (EPA 2025b).
The IRA confirms that reduction of GHGs is a core goal of the Clean Air Act and that the funding provided should allow EPA to increase the scope of its Clean Air Act rulemakings. The Act also confirms applicability of the IRA to GHGs in three specific areas: (1) California’s ability to regulate GHG emissions from vehicles; (2) EPA’s authority to regulate CH4 emissions from oil and gas facilities; and (3) EPA’s authority to regulate GHG emissions from power plants.
On July 4, 2025, President Trump enacted the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which reduces the scope of the IRA and accelerates the phase‑out of multiple IRA clean‑energy incentives, such as residential energy and electric vehicle credits. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act also rescinds substantial federal funding for clean energy, environmental justice, and climate resilience programs, including the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. Furthermore, on July 7, 2025, President Trump signed the EO 14315, which reinforces the changes made under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, further hindering clean energy programs by eliminating taxpayer subsidies for wind, solar, and other clean energy sources.
State
The statewide GHG emissions regulatory framework is summarized in this subsection by category: state climate change targets, building energy, renewable energy and energy procurement, mobile sources, water, solid waste, and other state actions. The following text describes EOs, Assembly Bills (ABs), Senate Bills (SBs), and other plans and policies that would directly or indirectly reduce GHG emissions and/or address climate change issues.
State Climate Targets
Executive Order S-3-05
EO S-3-05 (June 2005) established California’s GHG emissions-reduction targets and laid out responsibilities among the state agencies for implementing the EO and for reporting on progress toward the targets. This EO established the following targets:
▪ By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels
▪ By 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels
▪ By 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80% below 1990 levels EO S-3-05 also directed the California Environmental Protection Agency to report biannually on progress made toward meeting the GHG targets and the impacts to California due to global warming, including impacts to water supply, public health, agriculture, the coastline, and forestry.
Assembly Bill 32
In furtherance of the goals established in EO S-3-05, the legislature enacted AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (California Health and Safety Code Sections 38500–38599 et seq.). AB 32 provided initial direction on creating a comprehensive multiyear program to limit California’s GHG emissions at 1990 levels by 2020, and initiate the transformations required to achieve the state’s long-range climate objectives.
4.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.7-7
Senate Bill 32 and Assembly Bill 197
SB 32 and AB 197 (enacted in 2016) are companion bills. SB 32 codified the 2030 emissions-reduction goal of EO B-30-15 by requiring CARB to ensure that statewide GHG emissions are reduced to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. AB 197 established the Joint Legislative Committee on Climate Change Policies, consisting of at least three members of the Senate and three members of the Assembly, in order to provide ongoing oversight over implementation of the state’s climate policies. AB 197 also added two members of the legislature to the Board as nonvoting members; requires CARB to make available and update (at least annually via its website) emissions data for GHGs, criteria air pollutants, and toxic air contaminants from reporting facilities; and requires CARB to identify specific information for GHG emissions-reduction measures when updating the scoping plan.
Executive Order B-30-15
EO B-30-15 (April 2015) identified an interim GHG-reduction target in support of targets previously identified under S-3-05 and AB 32. EO B-30-15 set an interim target goal of reducing GHG emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 to keep California on its trajectory toward meeting or exceeding the long-term goal of reducing GHG emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050, as set forth in S-3-05. To facilitate achieving this goal, EO B-30-15 called for CARB to update the Scoping Plan to express the 2030 target in terms of MMT CO2e. The EO also called for state agencies to continue to develop and implement GHG emission-reduction programs in support of the reduction targets. EO B-30-15 called for CARB to update the Scoping Plan to express the 2030 target in terms of MMT CO2e.
Executive Order B-55-18
EO B-55-18 (September 2018) establishes a statewide policy for the state to achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible (no later than 2045) and achieve and maintain net negative emissions thereafter. The goal is an addition to the existing statewide targets of reducing the state’s GHG emissions. CARB will work with relevant state agencies to ensure that future Scoping Plans identify and recommend measures to achieve the carbon neutrality goal.
California Air Resources Board’s Climate Change Scoping Plan One specific requirement of AB 32 is for CARB to prepare a “scoping plan” for achieving the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG emission reductions by 2020 (California Health and Safety Code Section 38561[a]), and to update the plan at least once every 5 years. In 2008, CARB approved the first scoping plan: The Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan: A Framework for Change (Scoping Plan). The Scoping Plan included a mix of recommended strategies that combined direct regulations, market-based approaches, voluntary measures, policies, and other emission-reduction programs calculated to meet the 2020 statewide GHG emission limit and initiate the transformations needed to achieve the state’s long-range climate objectives.
In 2014, CARB approved the first update to the Scoping Plan. The First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan:
Building on the Framework (First Update) defined the state’s GHG emission-reduction priorities for the next 5 years and laid the groundwork to start the transition to the post-2020 goals set forth in EOs S-3-05 and B-16-2012 (CARB 2014). The First Update concluded that California was on track to meet the 2020 target but recommended a 2030 mid-term GHG-reduction target be established to ensure a continuum of action to reduce emissions. The First Update recommended a mix of technologies in key economic sectors to reduce emissions through 2050 including energy demand reduction through efficiency and activity changes; large-scale electrification of on-road vehicles, buildings and industrial machinery; decarbonizing electricity and fuel supplies; and the rapid market penetration of efficient and clean energy technologies.
4.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.7-8
In December 2017, CARB released the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update (Second Update) for public review and comment (CARB 2017a). The Second Update built upon the successful framework established in the initial Scoping Plan and First Update, while identifying new technologically feasible and cost-effective strategies that served as the framework to achieve the 2030 GHG target and define the state’s climate change priorities to 2030 and beyond. The strategies’ “known commitments” included implementing renewable energy and energy efficiency (including the mandates of SB 350), increased stringency of the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, measures identified in the Mobile Source and Freight Strategies, measures identified in the proposed Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Plan, and increased stringency of SB 375 targets. To fill the gap in additional reductions needed to achieve the 2030 target, the Second Update recommended continuing the Cap-and-Trade Program and a measure to reduce GHGs from refineries by 20%. The Second Update was approved by CARB’s Governing Board on December 14, 2017.
CARB released the Draft 2022 Scoping Plan Update in May 2022, which outlines the state’s plan to reach carbon neutrality by 2045 or earlier, while also assessing the progress the state is making toward reducing GHG emissions by at least 40% below 1990 levels by 2030, as is required by SB 32 and laid out in the Second Update. The carbon neutrality goal requires CARB to expand proposed actions from only the reduction of anthropogenic sources of GHG emissions to also include those that capture and store carbon (e.g., through natural and working lands, or mechanical technologies). The carbon reduction programs build on and accelerate those currently in place, including moving to zero-emission transportation; phasing out use of fossil gas use for heating homes and buildings; reducing chemical and refrigerants with high GWP; providing communities with sustainable options for walking, biking, and public transit; displacement of fossil-fuel fired electrical generation through use of renewable energy alternatives (e.g., solar arrays and wind turbines); and scaling up new options such as green hydrogen2 (CARB 2022).
The Draft 2022 Scoping Plan Update also emphasizes that there is no realistic path to carbon neutrality without carbon removal and sequestration, and to achieve the state’s carbon neutrality goal, carbon reduction programs must be supplemented by strategies to remove and sequester carbon. Strategies for carbon removal and sequestration include carbon capture and storage (CCS) from anthropogenic point sources, where CO2 is captured as it leaves a facility’s smokestack and is injected into geologic formations or used in industrial materials (e.g., concrete); and carbon dioxide removal (CDR) from ambient air, through mechanical (e.g., direct air capture with sequestration [DACS]) or nature-based (e.g., management of natural and working lands) applications.
California Air Resources Board’s Regulations for the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
CARB’s Regulation for the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions (17 CCR 95100–95157) incorporated by reference certain requirements that EPA promulgated in its Final Rule on Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases (40 CFR Section 98). Specifically, Section 95100(c) of the Mandatory Reporting Regulation incorporated those requirements that EPA promulgated in the Federal Register on October 30, 2009; July 12, 2010; September 22, 2010; October 28, 2010; November 30, 2010; December 17, 2010; and April 25, 2011. In general, entities subject to the Mandatory Reporting Regulation that emit over 10,000 MT CO2e per year are required to report annual GHGs through the California Electronic GHG Reporting Tool. Certain sectors, such as refineries and cement plants, are required to report regardless of emission levels. Entities that emit more than the 25,000 MT CO2e per year threshold are required to have their GHG emissions report verified by a CARB-accredited third party. 2 Green hydrogen refers to hydrogen that is generated by renewable energy or from low-carbon power, and has significantly lower associated carbon emissions than gray hydrogen, which is produced using natural gas and makes up the majority of hydrogen production. For the purposes of the Draft 2022 Scoping Plan, the term “green hydrogen” is not limited to only electrolytic hydrogen produced from renewables.
4.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.7-9
Executive Order B-18-12
EO B-18-12 (April 2012) directed state agencies, departments, and other entities under the Governor’s executive authority to take action to reduce entity-wide GHG emissions by at least 10% by 2015 and 20% by 2020, as measured against a 2010 baseline. EO B-18-12 also established goals for existing state buildings for reducing gridbased energy purchases and water use.
Senate Bill 605 and Senate Bill 1383
SB 605 (2014) requires CARB to complete a comprehensive strategy to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs) in the state (California Health and Safety Code Section 39730); and SB 1383 (2016) requires CARB to approve and implement that strategy by January 1, 2018 (PRC Section 42652–43654). SB 1383 also establishes specific targets for the reduction of SLCPs (40% below 2013 levels by 2030 for CH4 and HFCs, and 50% below 2013 levels by 2030 for anthropogenic black carbon) and provides direction for reductions from dairy and livestock operations and landfills. Accordingly, and as mentioned above, CARB adopted its Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy (SLCP Reduction Strategy) in March 2017. The SLCP Reduction Strategy establishes a framework for the statewide reduction of emissions of black carbon, methane, and fluorinated gases (CARB 2017b).
Assembly Bill 1279
The legislature enacted AB 1279, the California Climate Crisis Act, in September 2022. The bill declares the policy of the state to achieve net zero GHG emissions as soon as possible, but no later than 2045, and achieve and maintain net negative GHG emissions thereafter.
Although AB 1279 establishes an overall policy to achieve net zero GHG emissions as soon as possible, but no later than 2045, recognizing the need to implement carbon dioxide removal and carbon capture, utilization and storage technologies, the legislature established a specific target of 85% below 1990 levels by 2045 for anthropogenic GHG emissions. Therefore, the net zero target does not directly apply to development projects, but the 2045 target of 85% below 1990 levels represents the reductions required to contribute to accomplishing the state’s overall net zero policy.
Building Energy
California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6
The California Building Standards Code was established in 1978 and serves to enhance and regulate California’s building standards. While not initially promulgated to reduce GHG emissions, Part 6 of Title 24 specifically established Building Energy Efficiency Standards that are designed to ensure that new and existing buildings in California achieve energy efficiency and preserve outdoor and indoor environmental quality. These energy-efficiency standards are reviewed every few years by the Building Standards Commission and the California Energy Commission (CEC) and revised if necessary (PRC Section 25402[b][1]). The regulations receive input from members of industry, as well as the public, in order to “reduce the wasteful, uneconomic, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy” (PRC Section 25402). These regulations are carefully scrutinized and analyzed for technological and economic feasibility (PRC Section 25402[d]) and cost effectiveness (PRC Section 25402[b][2–3]). As a result, these standards save energy, increase electricity supply reliability, increase indoor comfort, avoid the need to construct new power plants, and help preserve the environment. The current Title 24 standards are the 2025 Title 24 building energy-efficiency standards, which became effective January 1, 2026.
4.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.7-10
The CEC updates the Title 24 Energy Code every 3 years.
The CEC formally adopted the 2025 Title 24 Energy Code on September 11, 2024, which was then approved by the California Building Standards Commission (CBSC) on December 17, 2024, making its effective date January 1, 2026. Buildings whose permit applications are applied for on or after January 1, 2026, must comply with the 2025 Energy Code. The 2025 Energy Code updates for residential and nonresidential buildings introduce several key changes aimed at improving energy efficiency and supporting the state’s climate goals. These include enhanced mechanical system standards, such as updated requirements for HVAC and heat pump water heaters, and stronger building envelope performance to reduce energy loss. Electrical systems now require more advanced lighting controls and expanded testing protocols. The code also adds readiness provisions for solar and battery storage installations and includes laboratories under its scope for energy-intensive processes.
Compliance tools and manuals have been revised to reflect new modeling rules.
Starting in 2020, the California Energy Code was revised to require solar, and the 2022 Code required “All singlefamily residential buildings shall have a newly installed photovoltaic (PV) system or newly installed PV modules meeting the minimum qualification requirements specified in Joint Appendix JA11” (24 CCR 150.1[c][14]). The California Energy Code was further updated in 2022 to require solar for multifamily buildings, and energy storage for structures greater than three habitable stories (24 CCR 170.2[f], [g], [h]). Similarly, solar photovoltaics and energy storage are now required for grocery stores, offices, financial institutions, unleased tenant space, retail, schools, warehouses, auditoriums, convention centers, hotels/motels, libraries, medical office buildings/clinics, restaurants, theaters, and mixed-use buildings where one or more of these building types constitute at least 80% of the floor area (24 CCR 140.10[a]). The 2025 standards expand upon requirements for PV and battery storage infrastructure compared to previous standards, including requiring readiness for connection with battery energy storage system infrastructure in certain single-family homes.
The 2025 Energy Code includes measures that will further reduce energy use in residential and nonresidential buildings through the following strategies (CEC 2024):
▪ For homes, use heat pumps for both space heating and water heating, expanding on the single heat pump baselines in the 2022 [Energy Code].
▪ For nonresidential building types, expanding on the single zone heat pump baselines in the 2022 [Energy Code].
▪ For low-rise multifamily buildings with individual water heaters in dwelling units, use heat pump water heater baselines, expanding on the space heating heat pump baselines in the 2022 [Energy Code].
▪ Encouraging electric-ready buildings to set up owners to use cleaner electric water heating and cooking when they are ready to invest in those technologies. ▪ Updating photovoltaic and battery energy storage system standards for high-rise multifamily and nonresidential buildings to achieve cost effective installations in consideration of revised net billing and virtual net billing rules.
▪ Updating space conditioning system control standards for nonresidential buildings. ▪ Updating ventilation requirements in multifamily buildings to improve indoor air quality.
4.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.7-11
California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11
In addition to the CEC’s efforts, in 2008, the California Building Standards Commission adopted the nation’s first green building standards. The California Green Building Standards Code (Part 11 of Title 24) is commonly referred to as California’s Green Building Standards (CALGreen), and it establishes minimum mandatory and voluntary standards pertaining to the planning and design of sustainable site development, energy efficiency (in excess of the California Energy Code requirements), water conservation, material conservation, and interior air quality. The CALGreen standards took effect in January 2011 and instituted mandatory minimum environmental performance standards for all ground-up, new construction of commercial, low-rise residential and state-owned buildings and schools and hospitals. Compliance tools and manuals have been revised to reflect new modeling rules, and the updates continue to align with CALGreen standards for sustainability, including water efficiency and indoor air quality.
California Code of Regulations, Title 20
Title 20 of the California Code of Regulations requires manufacturers of appliances to meet state and federal standards for energy and water efficiency (20 CCR 1401–1410 et seq.). The CEC certifies an appliance based on a manufacturer’s demonstration that the appliance meets the standards. New appliances regulated under Title 20 include refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers and freezers; room air conditioners and room air-conditioning heat pumps; central air conditioners; spot air conditioners; vented gas space heaters; gas pool heaters; plumbing fittings and plumbing fixtures; fluorescent lamp ballasts; lamps; emergency lighting; traffic signal modules; dishwaters; clothes washers and dryers; cooking products; electric motors; low voltage dry-type distribution transformers; power supplies; televisions and consumer audio and video equipment; and battery charger systems. Title 20 presents protocols for testing each type of appliance covered under the regulations, and appliances must meet the standards for energy performance, energy design, water performance, and water design. Title 20 contains three types of standards for appliances: federal and state standards for federally regulated appliances, state standards for federally regulated appliances, and state standards for non-federally regulated appliances.
Assembly Bill 1470 (Solar Water Heating)
AB 1470 established the Solar Water Heating and Efficiency Act of 2007 (California Public Utilities Code Sections 2851–2869 et seq.). The bill makes findings and declarations of the legislature relating to the promotion of solar water heating systems and other technologies that reduce natural gas demand.
Assembly Bill 1109
AB 1109 (2007) required the CEC to adopt minimum energy-efficiency standards for general-purpose lighting to reduce electricity consumption by 50% for indoor residential lighting and by 25% for indoor commercial lighting (PRC Section 25402.5.4).
Renewable Energy and Energy Procurement
Senate Bill 1078
SB 1078 (2002) (California Public Utilities Code Section 399.11 et seq.) established the Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) program, which required an annual increase in renewable generation by the utilities equivalent to at least 1% of sales, with an aggregate goal of 20% by 2017. This goal was subsequently accelerated, requiring utilities to obtain 20% of their power from renewable sources by 2010 (see SB 107, EO S-14-08, and EO S21-09).
4.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.7-12
Senate Bill 1368
SB 1368 (2006) required the CEC to develop and adopt regulations for GHG emission performance standards for the long-term procurement of electricity by local publicly owned utilities (California Public Utilities Code Section 8340–8341 et seq.). These standards must be consistent with the standards adopted by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC).
Executive Order S-14-08
EO S-14-08 (2008) focused on the contribution of renewable energy sources to meet the electrical needs of California while reducing the GHG emissions from the electrical sector. This EO required that all retail suppliers of electricity in California serve 33% of their load with renewable energy by 2020. Furthermore, the EO directed state agencies to take appropriate actions to facilitate reaching this target. The California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA), through collaboration with the CEC and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, was directed to lead this effort.
Executive Order S-21-09 and Senate Bill X1-2
EO S-21-09 (2009) directed CARB to adopt a regulation consistent with the goal of EO S-14-08 by July 31, 2010.
CARB was further directed to work with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and CEC to ensure that the regulation builds upon the RPS program and was applicable to investor-owned utilities, publicly owned utilities, direct access providers, and community choice providers. Under this order, CARB was to give the highest priority to those renewable resources that provide the greatest environmental benefits with the least environmental costs and impacts on public health, and those that can be developed the most quickly in support of reliable, efficient, costeffective electricity system operations. On September 23, 2010, CARB initially approved regulations to implement a Renewable Electricity Standard; however, this regulation was not finalized because of subsequent legislation (SB X1-2) signed by Governor Brown in April 2011. CARB was further directed to work with CPUC and CEC to ensure that the regulation builds upon the RPS program and was applicable to investor-owned utilities, publicly owned utilities, direct access providers, and community choice providers. Under this order, CARB was to give the highest priority to those renewable resources that provide the greatest environmental benefits with the least environmental costs and impacts on public health, and those that can be developed the most quickly in support of reliable, efficient, cost-effective electricity system operations. On September 23, 2010, CARB initially approved regulations to implement a Renewable Electricity Standard
SB X1-2 expanded RPS by establishing a renewable energy target of 20% of the total electricity sold to retail customers in California per year by December 31, 2013, and 33% by December 31, 2020, and in subsequent years.
Under the bill, a renewable electrical generation facility is one that uses biomass, solar thermal, photovoltaic, wind, geothermal, fuel cells using renewable fuels, small hydroelectric generation (30 megawatts or less), digester gas, municipal solid waste conversion, landfill gas, ocean wave, ocean thermal, or tidal current, and that meets other specified requirements with respect to its location.
SB X1-2 applies to all electricity retailers in the state, including publicly owned utilities, investor-owned utilities, electricity service providers, and community choice aggregators. All of these entities must meet the renewable energy goals listed above.
4.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.7-13
Senate Bill 350
SB 350 (2015) further expanded the RPS program by establishing a goal of 50% of the total electricity sold to retail customers in California per year by December 31, 2030. In addition, SB 350 included the goal to double the energyefficiency savings in electricity and natural gas final end uses (such as heating, cooling, lighting, or class of energy uses on which an energy-efficiency program is focused) of retail customers through energy conservation and efficiency. The bill also requires the CPUC, in consultation with the CEC, to establish efficiency targets for electrical and gas corporations consistent with this goal.
Senate Bill 100
SB 100 (2018) increased the standards set forth in SB 350, establishing that 44% of the total electricity sold to retail customers in California per year by December 31, 2024; 52% by December 31, 2027; and 60% by December 31, 2030, be secured from qualifying renewable energy sources. SB 100 states that it is the policy of the state that eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources supply 100% of the retail sales of electricity to California. This bill requires that the achievement of 100% zero-carbon electricity resources does not increase the carbon emissions elsewhere in the western grid and that the achievement not be achieved through resource shuffling.
Senate Bill 1020
SB 1020 (September 2022) revises the standards from SB 100, requiring the following percentage of retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers to come from eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources: 90% by December 31, 2035; 95% by December 31, 2040; and 100% by December 31, 2045.
Mobile Sources
State Vehicle Standards (Assembly Bill 1493 and Executive Order B-16-12) Since the early 2000s, California has advanced a robust rubric of complementary legislation, regulation and policy to achieve the reduction of GHG emissions from mobile sources. Key components of that rubric follow:
▪ AB 1493’s (2002) direction to CARB to establish GHG emission standards for passenger vehicles, light-duty trucks, and other vehicles determined by CARB to be vehicles primarily used for noncommercial personal transportation in the state. CARB has adopted implementing standards for model years 2009 and beyond. ▪ CARB’s adoption of the Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) I and II regulations (2012 and 2022, respectively), which combined the control of smog- and soot-causing pollutants and GHG emissions into a single coordinated package of regulations: the low-emission vehicle (LEV) regulation for criteria air pollutant and GHG emissions and a technology-forcing regulation for zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) that contributes to both types of emission reductions.
▪ CARB’s adoption of the Advanced Clean Trucks regulation (2022), which is designed to accelerate the market for ZEVs in the medium- and heavy-duty truck sector through a manufacturer sales requirement and a reporting requirement.
In June 2025, President Trump signed multiple Congressional Review Act resolutions that rescinded the preemption waivers previously granted to California by EPA for both the Advanced Clean Cars and Advanced Clean Trucks regulations, among other California regulations. The revocation of the preemption waivers undermines California’s ability to set its own vehicle emission standards for light-duty, medium-duty and heavy-duty vehicles.
4.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.7-14
The State of California, in concert with 10 other states, filed a federal lawsuit on June 12, 2025, challenging the legal basis for the revocation of the preemption waivers (see State of California et al. v. United States of America [Case 3:25-cv-04966]). Governor Newsom simultaneously issued Executive Order N-27-25, which reaffirmed the state’s commitment accelerate the deployment of zero-emission technologies and directed CARB to develop an alternative regulatory framework to achieve that objective, with the alternative serving as a backstop in the event that pending litigation is not resolved in California’s favor.
Heavy-Duty Diesel
CARB adopted the final Heavy-Duty Truck and Bus Regulation on December 31, 2014, to reduce diesel particulate matter, a major source of black carbon, and oxides of nitrogen emissions from heavy-duty diesel vehicles (13 CCR 2025). The rule requires diesel particulate matter filters be applied to newer heavier trucks and buses by January 1, 2012, with older vehicles required to comply by January 1, 2015. The rule will require nearly all diesel trucks and buses to be compliant with the 2010 model year engine requirement by January 1, 2023. CARB also adopted an Airborne Toxic Control Measure to limit idling of diesel-fueled commercial vehicles on December 12, 2013. This rule requires diesel-fueled vehicles with gross vehicle weights greater than 10,000 pounds to idle no more than 5 minutes at any location (13 CCR 2485).
Executive Order S-1-07
EO S-1-07 (January 2007, implementing regulation adopted in April 2009) sets a declining Low Carbon Fuel Standard for GHG emissions measured in CO2e grams per unit of fuel energy sold in California. The target of the Low Carbon Fuel Standard is to reduce the carbon intensity of California passenger vehicle fuels by at least 10% by 2020 (17 CCR 95480 et seq.). The carbon intensity measures the amount of GHG emissions in the lifecycle of a fuel—including extraction/feedstock production, processing, transportation, and final consumption—per unit of energy delivered.
Senate Bill 375
SB 375 (California Government Code Section 65080 amendment, 2008) addresses GHG emissions associated with the transportation sector through regional transportation and sustainability plans. SB 375 requires CARB to adopt regional GHG-reduction targets for the automobile and light-truck sector for 2020 and 2035, and to update those targets every 8 years. SB 375 requires the state’s 18 regional metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to prepare a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) as part of their Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) that will achieve the GHG-reduction targets set by CARB. If an MPO is unable to devise an SCS to achieve the GHGreduction target, the MPO must prepare an Alternative Planning Strategy demonstrating how the GHG-reduction target would be achieved through alternative development patterns, infrastructure, or additional transportation measures or policies.
A SCS does not: (i) regulate the use of land; (ii) supersede the land use authority of cities and counties; or (iii) require that a city’s or county’s land use policies and regulations, including those in a general plan, be consistent with it (California Government Code Section 65080[b][2][K]). Nonetheless, SB 375 makes regional and local planning agencies responsible for developing those strategies as part of the federally required metropolitan transportation planning process and the state-mandated housing element process.
4.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.7-15
Executive Order N-79-20
EO N-79-20 (September 2020) requires CARB to develop regulations as follows: (1) Passenger vehicle and truck regulations requiring increasing volumes of new ZEVs sold in the state toward the target of 100% of in-state sales by 2035; (2) medium- and heavy-duty vehicle regulations requiring increasing volumes of new zero-emission trucks and buses sold and operated in the state toward the target of 100% of the fleet transitioning to zero-emission vehicles by 2045 everywhere feasible and for all drayage trucks to be zero emission by 2035; and (3) strategies, in coordination with other state agencies, EPA and local air districts, to achieve 100% zero-emission from off-road vehicles and equipment operations in the state by 2035. EO N-79-20 called for the development of a ZeroEmissions Vehicle Market Development Strategy, which was released February 2021, to be updated every 3 years, that ensures coordination and implementation of the EO and outlines actions to support new and used ZEV markets.
In addition, the EO specifies identification of near-term actions, and investment strategies, to improve clean transportation, sustainable freight, and transit options; and calls for development of strategies, recommendations, and actions by July 15, 2021, to manage and expedite the responsible closure and remediation of former oil extraction sites as the state transitions to a carbon-neutral economy.
Water
Senate Bill X7-7
SB X7-7, or the Water Conservation Act of 2009, required that all water suppliers increase their water use efficiency with an overall goal of reducing per capita urban water use by 20% by December 31, 2020. Each urban water supplier was required to develop water use targets to meet this goal.
Executive Order B-29-15
In response to the ongoing drought in California, EO B-29-15 (April 2015) set a goal of achieving a statewide reduction in potable urban water usage of 25% relative to water use in 2013. The term of the EO extended through February 28, 2016, although many of the directives have become permanent water-efficiency standards and requirements. The EO includes specific directives that set strict limits on water usage in the state. In response to EO B-29-15, the California Department of Water Resources has modified and adopted a revised version of the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance that, among other changes, significantly increases the requirements for landscape water use efficiency and broadens its applicability to include new development projects with smaller landscape areas.
Executive Order N-10-21
In response to a state of emergency due to severe drought conditions, EO N-10-21 (July 2021) called on all Californians to voluntarily reduce their water use by 15% from their 2020 levels. Actions suggested in EO N-10-21 include reducing landscape irrigation, running dishwashers and washing machines only when full, finding and fixing leaks, installing water-efficient showerheads, taking shorter showers, using a shut-off nozzle on hoses, and taking cars to commercial car washes that use recycled water.
4.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.7-16
Solid Waste
Assembly Bill 939, Assembly Bill 341, Assembly Bill 1826, and Senate Bill 1383 In 1989, AB 939, known as the Integrated Waste Management Act (PRC Section 40000 et seq.), was passed because of the increase in waste stream and the decrease in landfill capacity. The statute established the California Integrated Waste Management Board (replaced in 2010 by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, or CalRecycle), which oversees a disposal reporting system. AB 939 mandated a reduction of waste being disposed where jurisdictions were required to meet diversion goals of all solid waste through source reduction, recycling, and composting activities of 25% by 1995 and 50% by the year 2000.
AB 341 (2011) amended the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 to include a provision declaring that it is the policy goal of the state that not less than 75% of solid waste generated be source-reduced, recycled, or composted by the year 2020, and annually thereafter. In addition, AB 341 required CalRecycle to develop strategies to achieve the state’s policy goal. CalRecycle has conducted multiple workshops and published documents that identify priority strategies that it believes would assist the state in reaching the 75% goal by 2020.
AB 1826 (Chapter 727, Statutes of 2014, effective 2016) requires businesses to recycle their organic waste (i.e., food waste, green waste, landscape and pruning waste, nonhazardous wood waste, and food-soiled paper waste that is mixed in with food waste) depending on the amount of waste they generate per week. This law also requires local jurisdictions across the state to implement an organic waste recycling program to divert organic waste generated by businesses, including multifamily residential dwellings that consist of five or more units. The minimum threshold of organic waste generation by businesses decreases over time, which means an increasingly greater proportion of the commercial sector will be required to comply.
SB 1383 (2016) requires a 50% reduction in organic waste disposal from 2014 levels by 2020, and a 75% reduction by 2025—essentially requiring the diversion of up to 27 million tons of organic waste—to reduce GHG emissions. SB 1383 also requires that not less than 20% of edible food that is currently disposed be recovered for human consumption by 2025.
Other State Actions
Senate Bill 97
SB 97 (2007) directed the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research and CNRA to develop guidelines under CEQA for the mitigation of GHG emissions. CNRA adopted the CEQA Guidelines amendments in December 2009, which became effective in March 2010.
Under the amended CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency has the discretion to determine whether to use a quantitative or qualitative analysis or apply performance standards to determine the significance of GHG emissions resulting from a particular project (14 CCR 15064.4[a]). The CEQA Guidelines require a lead agency to consider the extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions (14 CCR 15064.4[b]). The CEQA Guidelines also allow a lead agency to consider feasible means of mitigating the significant effects of GHG emissions, including reductions in emissions through the implementation of project features or off-site measures (14 CCR 15126.4[c]). The adopted guidelines do not establish a GHG emission threshold, instead allowing a lead agency to develop, adopt, and apply its own thresholds of significance or those developed by other agencies or experts. CNRA also acknowledged that a lead agency could consider compliance with regulations or requirements implementing AB 32 in determining the significance of a project’s GHG emissions (CNRA 2009).
4.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.7-17
With respect to GHG emissions, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4(a) states that lead agencies “shall make a goodfaith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate” GHG emissions. The CEQA Guidelines note that an agency “shall have discretion to determine, in the context of a particular project, whether to: (1) Quantify greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project; and/or (2) Rely on a qualitative analysis or performance-based standards” (14 CCR 15064.4[a]). Section 15064.4(b) states that the lead agency should consider the following when assessing the significance of impacts from GHG emissions on the environment:
(1) the extent to which a project may increase or reduce GHG emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting; (2) whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project; and (3) the extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions (14 CCR 15064.4[b]).
Executive Order S-13-08
EO S-13-08 (November 2008) is intended to hasten California’s response to the impacts of global climate change, particularly sea-level rise. Therefore, the EO directs state agencies to take specified actions to assess and plan for such impacts. The final 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy report was issued in December 2009, and an update, Safeguarding California: Reducing Climate Risk, followed in July 2014. To assess the state’s vulnerability, the report summarizes key climate change impacts to the state for the following areas: Agriculture, Biodiversity and Habitat, Emergency Management, Energy, Forestry, Ocean and Coastal Ecosystems and Resources, Public Health, Transportation, and Water. Issuance of the Safeguarding California: Implementation Action Plans followed in March 2016. In January 2018, the CNRA released the Safeguarding California Plan: 2018 Update, which communicates current and needed actions that state government should take to build climate change resiliency.
Regional
San Diego Association of Governments Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
As discussed above, the passage of SB 375 requires MPOs to prepare an SCS in their RTP. The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) serves as the MPO for the San Diego region and is responsible for developing and adopting a SCS that integrates transportation, land use, and housing to meet GHG-reduction targets set by CARB. The RTP/SCS is updated every 4 years in collaboration the 18 cities and unincorporated County of San Diego, in addition to regional, state, and federal partners. The 2025 Regional Plan was adopted on December 12, 2025.
The 2025 Regional Plan lays out a strategy for improving mobility and access over the next 25 years guided by the plan’s goals for a transportation system that is convenient, equitable, healthy, and safe. The transportation system is categorized into several types of transportation projects—active transportation, Complete Corridors, transit, Flexible Fleets, and transportation system management—along with policies and programs that support the overall system. Through these strategies, the 2025 Regional Plan is projected to reduce per capita GHG emissions 19.35% below 2005 levels by 2035, exceeding the region’s state-mandated target of 19% (SANDAG 2025).
Local
City of Santee Sustainable Santee Plan
The City adopted its Sustainable Santee Plan: The City’s Roadmap to Greenhouse Gas Reductions in December 2019. The plan established goals and policies for the City to incorporate to reduce its GHG emissions in alignment with the state’s targets, including achieving reductions consistent with AB 32 and SB 32 goal of 40% below 1990
4.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.7-18
levels by 2030. The plan includes an inventory of communitywide GHG emissions sources, a forecast of future emissions, and a suite of reduction measures addressing energy, transportation, solid waste, and water use. As a qualified GHG emission reduction plan per CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5, the plan provides a Consistency Checklist that enables development projects to tier from the plan and demonstrate alignment with applicable measures, streamlining CEQA review while supporting the City’s overall climate goals.
4.7.3 Environmental Impacts
4.7.3.1 Methodology
The Proposed Land Use Element Update is a policy document that does not include or propose any site-specific development. Rather, implementation of the Project would result in changes to land use designations, which would allow for additional future development/redevelopment to occur. Therefore, this Draft PEIR does not assess the site-specific construction and operation details of each future development within the Plan Area.
Instead, it assesses the impacts associated with changes to existing land uses and the associated overall effects of buildout of the Proposed Project through 2045, where reasonably foreseeable physical changes to the environment could occur.
Buildout of the Proposed Project would result in a change in emissions relative to existing conditions (“Existing Scenario”). The Proposed Project would allow for a total of 5,687 dwelling units and 3,476,755 square feet of nonresidential uses. Compared to the Existing Scenario, the Proposed Project would potentially result in an increase of 4,596 residential units and 1,740,453 square feet of nonresidential uses.= Construction Emissions
The Proposed Project is a policy-level planning document and does not include specific development projects.
However, implementation of the zoning and land use changes associated with the Proposed Project would allow for additional residential and nonresidential development compared to the Existing Scenario.
The construction of new residential and nonresidential developments allowed under the Proposed Project would occur intermittently throughout the course of the buildout period. As the timing and intensity of potential future development projects are not known at this time, the precise effects of construction activities associated with buildout of the Proposed Project cannot be accurately quantified at this time. While the details of potential future development within Santee are currently unknown because development would be driven by market forces, it is known that implementation of the Proposed Project could result in an increase of 4,596 new dwelling units and an increase of 1,740,453 square feet of nonresidential uses over existing conditions at buildout in 2045. It is anticipated that in any given year, multiple residential and/or nonresidential development projects would be constructed within Santee, which would result in overlapping construction GHG emissions. The construction emission impacts associated with each new residential and nonresidential development would be short term in nature (relative to the buildout year) and limited to the period of time when construction activity is taking place for that particular development.
Although specific projects are not available at this programmatic stage, temporary GHG emissions from construction are expected to be typical of similar development projects subject to existing and future regulatory requirements that impact GHG emissions. For example, construction projects would be subject to CARB’s In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation that applies to certain off-road diesel engines, vehicles, or equipment greater than 25 horsepower. The regulation (1) imposes limits on idling, requires a written idling policy, and requires a disclosure
4.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.7-19
when selling vehicles; (2) requires all vehicles to be reported to CARB (using the Diesel Off-Road Online Reporting System) and labeled; (3) restricts the adding of older vehicles into fleets starting on January 1, 2014; and (4) requires fleets to reduce their emissions by retiring, replacing, or repowering older engines or installing Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies (i.e., exhaust retrofits). The fleet must either show that its fleet average index was less than or equal to the calculated fleet average target rate, or that the fleet has met the Best Achievable Control Technology requirements.
Operational Emissions
Operational GHG emissions are quantified for informational purposes only. Operation of the Project would result in GHG emissions from area sources, mobile sources, energy (natural gas and electricity), solid waste, refrigerants, and water and wastewater, which are briefly described below. Under the same scenarios described in Section 4.2, Air Quality, California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2022.1.1.37 was used to estimate potential Project-generated operational GHG emissions.
Area
Hearths generate GHG emissions through the use of energy to provide localized heat. Landscape maintenance equipment would generate emissions from fuel combustion and evaporation of unburned fuel. Equipment in this category would include lawnmowers, shredders/grinders, blowers, trimmers, chain saws, and hedge trimmers used to maintain the landscaping of the potential future development. The emissions associated with hearths and landscape maintenance equipment were calculated based on default assumptions provided in CalEEMod.
Energy
GHGs are emitted from buildings as a result of activities for which electricity and natural gas are typically used as energy sources. Combustion of any type of fuel emits CO2 and other GHGs directly into the atmosphere; these emissions are considered direct emissions associated with a building. GHGs are also emitted during the generation of electricity from fossil fuels; these emissions are considered to be indirect emissions. GHG emissions associated with natural gas and electricity usage were calculated by CalEEMod using default values. The CalEEMod default energy intensity factors (CO2, CH4, and N2O mass emissions per kilowatt-hour) for SDG&E were used.
Mobile Sources (Motor Vehicles)
Buildout of the Proposed Project would generate GHG emissions from mobile sources (vehicular traffic). Mobile sources for the Existing Scenario and the Project would be residents, visitors, customers, and employees traveling to and from the Project parcels.
Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) data for the Existing Scenario in 2022, as well as the Project in 2045, was provided by the traffic engineer (see Section 4.15, Transportation, and Appendix H, VMT Modeling. CalEEMod default trip rates and trip lengths were adjusted to match the VMT provided for each scenario. CalEEMod default Saturday and Sunday trip rates for the Project were adjusted in proportion to the weekday trip rate adjustment. CalEEMod default emission factors representing the vehicle mix and emissions for 2022 were used for the Existing Scenario, CalEEMod default emission factors representing the vehicle mix and emissions for 2045 were used for buildout of the Project. For additional details see Appendix C, CalEEMod Outputs and Estimated Emissions.
4.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.7-20
Solid Waste
Buildout of the Proposed Project would generate GHG emissions from solid waste and, therefore, result in CO2e emissions associated with landfill off-gassing. CalEEMod default values for solid waste generation were used to estimate GHG emissions associated with solid waste.
Water and Wastewater
Supply, conveyance, treatment, and distribution of water require the use of electricity, which would result in associated indirect GHG emissions. Similarly, wastewater generated by the Project buildout of the Proposed Project requires the use of electricity for conveyance and treatment, along with GHG emissions generated during wastewater treatment. Water consumption estimates for both indoor and outdoor water use and associated electricity consumption from water use and wastewater generation were estimated using CalEEMod default values.
Refrigerants
Refrigerants are substances used in equipment for air conditioning (A/C) and refrigeration. Most of the refrigerants used today are HFCs or blends thereof, which can have high GWP values. All equipment that uses refrigerants has a charge size (i.e., quantity of refrigerant the equipment contains) and an operational refrigerant leak rate, and each refrigerant has a GWP that is specific to that refrigerant. CalEEMod quantifies refrigerant emissions from leaks during regular operation and routine servicing over the equipment’s lifetime and then derives average annual emissions from the lifetime estimate. GHG emissions associated with the use of refrigerants during operations associated with the Proposed Project were calculated by CalEEMod using default parameters.
4.7.3.2 Thresholds of Significance
The significance thresholds/criteria used to evaluate the Project’s GHG emissions impacts are based on the recommendations provided in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.). For the purposes of this GHG emissions analysis, the Project would have a significant environmental impact if it would:
Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. Or, Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.
The Appendix G thresholds for GHGs do not prescribe specific methodologies for performing an assessment, do not establish quantitative thresholds of significance, and do not mandate specific mitigation measures. Rather, the CEQA Guidelines emphasize the lead agency’s discretion to determine the appropriate methodologies and thresholds of significance consistent with the manner in which other impact areas are handled in CEQA (CNRA 2009). Additional guidance regarding assessment of GHGs is discussed below.
Global climate change is a cumulative impact; a project participates in this potential impact through its incremental contribution combined with the cumulative increase of all other sources of GHGs. There are currently no established thresholds for assessing whether the GHG emissions of a project, such as the Project, would be considered a cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change; however, all reasonable efforts should be made to minimize a project’s contribution to global climate change. In addition, while GHG impacts are recognized exclusively as cumulative impacts (CAPCOA 2008), GHG emissions impacts must also be evaluated on a project level under CEQA.
4.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.7-21
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research Guidance
The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research technical advisory titled, “CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review,” states that “public agencies are encouraged but not required to adopt thresholds of significance for environmental impacts. Even in the absence of clearly defined thresholds for GHG emissions, the law requires that such emissions from CEQA projects must be disclosed and mitigated to the extent feasible whenever the lead agency determines that the project contributes to a significant, cumulative climate change impact” (OPR 2008). Furthermore, the advisory document indicates that “in the absence of regulatory standards for GHG emissions or other scientific data to clearly define what constitutes a ‘significant impact,’ individual lead agencies may undertake a project-by-project analysis, consistent with available guidance and current CEQA practice” (OPR 2008).
California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines
With respect to GHG emissions, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4(a) states that lead agencies “shall make a goodfaith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate” GHG emissions resulting from a project. The CEQA Guidelines note that an agency has the discretion to either quantify a project’s GHG emissions or rely on a “qualitative analysis or performance-based standards” (14 CCR 15064.4[a]).
A lead agency may use a “model or methodology” to estimate GHG emissions and has the discretion to select the model or methodology it considers “most appropriate to enable decision makers to intelligently take into account the project’s incremental contribution to climate change” (14 CCR 15064.4[c]). The CEQA Guidelines provide that the lead agency should consider the following when determining the significance of impacts from GHG emissions on the environment (14 CCR 15064.4[b]):
The extent a project may increase or reduce GHG emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting.
Whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project.
The extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions.
In addition, the CEQA Guidelines specify that “[w]hen adopting or using thresholds of significance, a lead agency may consider thresholds of significance previously adopted or recommended by other public agencies, or recommended by experts, provided the decision of the lead agency to adopt such thresholds is supported by substantial evidence” (14 CCR 15064.7[c]).
The extent to which a project increases or decreases GHG emissions in the existing environmental setting should be estimated in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4 titled “Determining the Significance of Impacts from Greenhouse Gas Emissions.” The CEQA Guidelines indicate that when calculating GHG emissions resulting from a project, lead agencies shall make a good-faith effort based on scientific and factual data (14 CCR 15064.4[a]), and lead agencies have discretion to select the model or methodology deemed most appropriate for enabling decision makers to intelligently assess the project’s incremental contribution to climate change (14 CCR 15064.4[c]).
The CEQA Guidelines do not indicate an amount of GHG emissions that constitutes a significant impact on the environment. Instead, they authorize the lead agency to consider thresholds of significance previously adopted or recommended by other public agencies or recommended by experts, provided the decision of the lead agency to adopt such thresholds is supported by substantial evidence (14 CCR 15064.4[a] and 15064.7[c]). Several agencies
4.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.7-22
throughout the state have drafted and/or adopted numerical threshold approaches and guidelines for analyzing the significance of project-related GHG emissions, including the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) 3,000 MT CO2e annual threshold for residential/commercial or mixed-use projects (SCAQMD 2010), and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) 900 MT CO2e threshold (CAPCOA 2008), among others. However, no numerical thresholds have been formally adopted by an air district or lead agency for use in the San Diego region.
In the absence of an adopted numerical threshold for the project region, the significance of the project-related GHG emissions can be determined by evaluating the project’s compliance with regulations or requirements adopted to implement statewide, regional, or local plans for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions. As discussed in Section 4.7.2, Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances, above, the state’s 2030 target (reduce GHG emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030) has been codified in law through SB 32 and the 2045 target (net zero GHG emissions and reduce anthropogenic GHG emissions to 85% below 1990 levels by 2045) has been codified into law through AB 1279. Therefore, 2030 and 2045 mark the next statutory statewide milestone targets applicable to the project.
The City’s 2019 Sustainable Santee Plan quantified baseline and projected GHG emissions and identified Cityspecific strategies to achieve reductions consistent with SB 32’s target of 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. To streamline CEQA review, the Plan includes a Consistency Checklist that allows discretionary projects to tier from the Plan by demonstrating alignment with its measures and land use assumptions. Because the Proposed Project introduces new land use and zoning designations not considered in the Plan, it cannot tier from the Plan; however, applicable Consistency Checklist measures must still be incorporated to mitigate cumulative GHG impacts.
Additionally, as the Plan does not address AB 1279’s 2045 target (85% below 1990 levels), the Plan on its own is not sufficient for analyzing the significance of GHG emissions related to the Proposed Project, which has a horizon year beyond 2030 (i.e., 2050). In this case, significance is evaluated based on compliance with additional statewide strategies such as CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan and SANDAG’s RTP/SCS, as detailed in the following section.
Approach to Determining Significance
Given that neither the City, nor CARB, nor SDAPCD have established a numerical threshold of significance for GHG emissions within Santee, the approach for evaluating the project’s impacts related to GHG emissions relies on compliance with applicable plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. The compliance evaluation is the sole basis for determining the significance of the project’s GHG-related impacts on the environment.
Nevertheless, and in accordance with Section 15064.4 of the CEQA Guidelines, GHG emissions resulting from construction and operation of the project were quantitatively estimated. The potential impacts from Project-related GHG emissions were assessed based on the total increase above the existing environmental setting. The GHG emissions associated with implementation of the project were estimated using industry standard and accepted software tools, techniques, and emissions factors, as described above under Methodology. Estimation of emissions is for informational purposes only, for comparison with existing environmental conditions. The significance of the project’s GHG impacts is based on the project’s compliance with local and statewide GHG-reduction plans, regulations, and requirements. At the state level, guidance on reduction strategies for GHG emissions has been provided through the CARB Scoping Plans, and at the local level through the SANDAG RTP/SCS and the City’s Sustainable Santee Plan.
4.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.7-23
If the Project is compliant with or exceeds the regulations and actions outlined in the applicable state plan (i.e., the 2022 Scoping Plan) and local plans (i.e., SANDAG RTP/SCS and City’s Sustainable Santee Plan), the project could appropriately rely on their use as showing compliance with performance-based standards adopted to fulfill the statewide goal for reducing GHG emissions. The Project’s compliance with regulatory programs adopted by CARB and other state and local agencies is therefore used to evaluate the significance of the project’s GHG emissions.
4.7.3.3 Land Use Element Update Relevant Goals and Policies The following draft goals, policies and implementation actions from the City of Santee Land Use Element are relevant to GHG emissions:
Goal LU-1. A vibrant city with a mix of land uses that offer a wide range of choices to live, work, shop, and play.
Policy LU-1.2. Encourage growth near the city’s core, along major roadways, and near existing amenities, such as transit and recreational facilities.
Policy LU-1.4. Implement the Community Hub Overlay and Community Corridor Overlay, which encourage a mix of uses, a variety of housing options, active frontages, efficient parking strategies, and enhanced walking and biking paths to increase connectivity along high-resource areas and multimodal corridors.
Goal LU-2. A safe and affordable range of housing types at varying locations to meet diverse living needs.
Policy LU-2.2. Encourage the development of higher density residential communities in areas close to the multimodal transit station and along major road corridors where transit and other convenience services are available.
Goal LU-2 Implementation
Action Lead Agency Timeframe
Develop informational and promotional materials to expand awareness of state and local incentive programs for affordable and transit-oriented housing development.
Planning and
Building Department
Ongoing
Goal LU-6. A cohesive development pattern that ensures connectivity for pedestrians, bicyclists, and people with disabilities within and between sites.
Policy LU-6.1. Check each development for consistency with the Mobility Element and the Active Santee Plan for pedestrian and bicycle accessibility before approval.
Policy LU-6.2. Require bicycle parking at sites located adjacent to bike lanes identified in the Planned Bicycle Network Map, in accordance with the Bicycle Parking Design Guidelines.
Policy LU-6.3. Require new developments to consider micromobility concepts and provide direct pedestrian and bicycle connections to nearby sidewalks, trails, and transit stops.
4.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.7-24
Policy LU-6.4. Increase shade trees along pedestrian and bicycle pathways located on private property, particularly where such paths serve as connections to the public active transportation network.
Goal LU-6 Implementation
Action Lead Agency Timeframe
Update the Active Santee Plan every 5 years to reflect current trends in micromobility technology, respond to emerging mobility issues and needs, and continue to build a robust mobility network.
Engineering
Department
Ongoing
Revise Landscape and Irrigation Regulations (Santee Municipal Code Title 13, Section 13.36) to include provisions requiring shade trees along pedestrian and bicycle pathways on new development or redevelopment projects.
Planning and
Building
Department
Short-term
(1–2 years)
During development review, ensure neighborhood-serving commercial centers incorporate common access points, pedestrian facilities, and ingress/egress points that provide access to/from residential areas.
Planning and
Building
Department
Ongoing
Goal LU-9. Neighborhoods and corridors that prioritize infill development to create livable communities with public spaces, greenspace, and recreation amenities.
Policy LU-9.2. Identify additional opportunities for mixed-use development in strategic locations that provide access to key services and amenities, such as grocery stores, parks and trails, transit stations, schools, and childcare facilities.
Goal LU-9 Implementation
Action Lead Agency Timeframe
Create an infill opportunity map identifying strategic sites for mixed-use development near parks, schools, transit, and childcare.
Planning and Building
Department
Short-term
(1–2 years)
Integrate requirements from the Community Enhancement,
Recreation, Conservation, and Trails Elements into the
development review checklist to ensure consistent
implementation across all infill projects.
Planning and Building
Department
Immediate
(within 1
year)
Develop a parking overlay district for higher-density or intensity areas, such as the Community Hub and Community Corridor Overlay areas and the Town Center. Explore concepts such as a shared parking allowance based on the specific land uses and “park once” strategies.
Engineering Department
with Planning and Building
Department
Mid-term (3–
5 years)
4.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.7-25
4.7.3.4 Impact Analysis
Threshold 4.7-1: Would the Project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Or, would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? As discussed in Section 4.7.3.2, Thresholds of Significance, above, the significance of the project's GHG emission impacts is determined through an evaluation of compliance with regulations and requirements adopted to implement statewide, regional, and local plans for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. While the GHG emissions increase associated with the project was quantified, the estimate is provided for informational purposes in accordance with Section 15064.4 of the CEQA Guidelines and is not used for determination of significance. As such, the Appendix G thresholds are considered together below, beginning with the evaluation of the project's compliance with applicable plans.
Project Potential to Conflict with Sustainable Santee Plan The City has adopted the Sustainable Santee Plan, which sets GHG-reduction targets for the City to achieve in alignment with statewide legislation. The plan also includes measures for the City to implement in order to achieve those targets that are applied at the project level through the Project Consistency Checklist (City of Santee 2019b).
As previously discussed, the Checklist enables discretionary projects to demonstrate consistency with the Plan by aligning with its measures and land use assumptions. However, because the Proposed Project introduces new land use and zoning designations not addressed in the Plan, it cannot tier from the Plan. Nevertheless, applicable measures from the Consistency Checklist must still be incorporated to mitigate cumulative GHG impacts.
Accordingly, Table 4.7-3, Sustainable Santee Plan CEQA Project Consistency Checklist, evaluates the Project’s applicability with the Sustainable Santee Plan based on each goal outlined in the Project Consistency Checklist.
Table 4.7-3. Sustainable Santee Plan CEQA Project Consistency Checklist Goals Measure Measure Applicability
1. Increase Energy
Efficiency in Existing
Residential Units
1.2. For existing Residential Unit Permit for
Major Modifications (more than 30% of
dwelling unit size, including bathroom and
kitchen) that is considered a Project under
CEQA must implement energy efficiency
retrofits recommended from City Energy Audit
and explain the energy efficiency retrofits
implemented.
Not Applicable. Potential future
development implemented under the
project would not include modifications
to existing residential units.
2. Increase Energy
Efficiency in the New
Residential Units
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.
Applicable. Both ministerial and
discretionary development
implemented under the project would
be required to demonstrate compliance
with this measure through completion
of the Sustainable Santee Consistency
Checklist, as described in MM-GHG-1.
The project would therefore be
consistent with Goal 2.
3. Increase Energy
Efficiency in Existing
Commercial Units
3.2. For existing commercial units of 10,000
sq. ft. or more seeking building permits for
modifications representing 30% or more sq.
Not Applicable. Potential future
development implemented under the
4.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.7-26
Table 4.7-3. Sustainable Santee Plan CEQA Project Consistency Checklist Goals Measure Measure Applicability
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.
project would not include modifications
to existing residential units.
4. Increase Energy
Efficiency in New
Commercial Units
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.
Applicable. Both ministerial and
discretionary development
implemented under the project would
be required to demonstrate compliance
with this measure through completion
of the Sustainable Santee Consistency
Checklist, as described in MM-GHG-1.
The project would therefore be
consistent with Goal 4.
5. Decrease Energy
Demand through
Reducing Urban
Heat Island Effect
5.1. Project utilizes tree planting for shade
and energy efficiency such as tree planting in
parking lots and streetscapes.
Applicable. Both ministerial and
discretionary development
implemented under the project would
be required to demonstrate compliance
with this measure through completion
of the Sustainable Santee Consistency
Checklist, as described in MM-GHG-1.
The project would therefore be
consistent with Goal 5.
5.2. Project uses light‑reflecting surfaces
such as enhanced cool roofs on commercial
buildings.
6. Decrease GHG
Emissions through a
Reduction in VMT
6.1. Proposed project streets include
sidewalks, crosswalks, and other
infrastructure that promotes non‑motorized
transportation options.
Applicable. Both ministerial and
discretionary development
implemented under the project would
be required to demonstrate compliance
with this measure through completion
of the Sustainable Santee Consistency
Checklist, as described in MM-GHG-1.
The project would therefore be
consistent with Goal 6.
6.2. Proposed project installs bike paths to
improve bike transit.
7. Increase Use of
Electric Vehicles
7.1. Install electric vehicle chargers in all new
residential and commercial developments:
▪ For new Single-Family Residential, install
complete 40 Amp electrical service and
one e-charger.
▪ For new Multifamily Residential, install echargers for 13 percent of total parking. ▪ For new Office Space, Regional Shopping
Centers, and Movie Theaters, install echargers for 5 percent of total parking spaces.
▪ For new Industrial and other Land Uses
employing 200 or more employees,
install e-chargers for 5 percent of total
parking spaces.
Applicable. Both ministerial and
discretionary development
implemented under the project would
be required to demonstrate compliance
with this measure through completion
of the Sustainable Santee Consistency
Checklist, as described in MM-GHG-1.
The project would therefore be
consistent with Goal 7.
For Industrial Uses, Not Applicable.
Potential future development
implemented under the project would
not include industrial uses or uses
employing 200 or more employees.
4.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.7-27
Table 4.7-3. Sustainable Santee Plan CEQA Project Consistency Checklist Goals Measure Measure Applicability
8. Improve Traffic
Flow
8.1. Implement traffic flow improvement
program.
▪ Install smart traffic signals at
intersections warranting a traffic signal,
OR
▪ Install roundabout.
Applicable. Both ministerial and
discretionary development
implemented under the project would
be required to demonstrate compliance
with this measure through completion
of the Sustainable Santee Consistency
Checklist, as described in MM-GHG-1.
The project would therefore be
consistent with Goal 8.
9. Decrease GHG
Emissions through
Reducing Solid
Waste Generation
9.1. Reduce waste at landfills.
▪ All development during construction and
demolition activities to recycle
construction and demolition waste.
Applicable. Both ministerial and
discretionary development
implemented under the project would
be required to demonstrate compliance
with this measure through completion
of the Sustainable Santee Consistency
Checklist, as described in MM-GHG-1.
The project would therefore be
consistent with Goal 9.
10. Decrease GHG
Emissions through
Increased Clean
Energy Use
10.1. Increase distributed energy generation
within City of Santee by implementing the
following applicable photovoltaic solar
systems:
▪ 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
application.
▪ 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.
▪ 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.
Applicable. Both ministerial and
discretionary development
implemented under the project would
be required to demonstrate compliance
with this measure through completion
of the Sustainable Santee Consistency
Checklist, as described in MM-GHG-1.
The project would therefore be
consistent with Goal 10.
Source: City of Santee 2019a.
As shown in Table 4.7-3, at a program level of review with no specific development proposals, it is not guaranteed that each future individual project would be consistent with each of the goals of the Sustainable Santee Plan.
Therefore, potential future development allowed under the Project would potentially conflict with the Sustainable Santee Plan, and the impact would be potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure (MM) GHG-1
4.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.7-28
would require individual projects to prepare a project-level, site-specific GHG impacts analysis demonstrating consistency with Sustainable Santee Plan. If an individual project conflicts with the Sustainable Santee Plan, that project would be required to implement project-specific mitigation measures to demonstrate reduction of GHG emissions to the extent feasible.
Although potential future development would not conflict with Sustainable Santee Plan Goals and Implementing Measures with incorporation of mitigation as detailed in Table 4.7-3, development that would be authorized by the Project was not accounted for in the emissions inventories used to develop the Sustainable Santee Plan. However, the Sustainable Santee Plan provides for regular monitoring the effectiveness of the programs and to undertake emission inventory updates. As updates occur, the GHG emissions associated with development allowed by the Proposed Project would be accounted for, ultimately ensuring potential future development would be consistent with the Sustainable Santee Plan. However, until such time the emission inventories are updated, the Project would conflict with the Sustainable Santee Plan. Because the Project would allow for an increase in development potential than was assumed in the Sustainable Santee Plan, the Project would exceed the emissions assumptions used to develop the Sustainable Santee Plan, resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact.
Project Potential to Conflict with State Reduction Targets and the California Air Resource Board’s 2022 Scoping Plan
The most recent CARB 2022 Scoping Plan update outlines the state’s plan to reduce emissions and achieve carbon neutrality by 2045 in alignment with AB 1279 and assesses progress is making toward the 2030 SB 32 target (CARB 2022). CARB approved the 2022 Scoping Plan in December 2022 to outline the state’s plan to reduce anthropogenic emissions to 85% below 1990 levels by 2045 and achieve carbon neutrality by 2045 or earlier. The 2022 Scoping Plan also assesses the progress the state is making toward reducing GHG emissions by at least 40% below 1990 levels by 2030, as is required by SB 32 and laid out in the 2017 Scoping Plan. However, the plan found that additional reductions are needed by 2030 (i.e., 48% below 1990 levels) for the state to remain on track to achieve net zero GHG emissions by 2045. Therefore, carbon reduction programs included in the 2022 Scoping Plan build on and accelerate those currently in place, including moving to zero-emission transportation; phasing out use of fossil gas use for heating homes and buildings; reducing chemical and refrigerants with high GWP; providing communities with sustainable options for walking, biking, and public transit; and displacement of fossil-fuel fired electrical generation through use of renewable energy alternatives (e.g., solar arrays and wind turbines) (CARB 2022). Implementation of the measures and programs included in the 2022 Scoping Plan largely are the responsibility of policymakers and would result in the reduction of project-related GHG emissions with no action required at the project level.
Appendix D, Local Actions, of the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan provides optional, nonregulatory and non-exhaustive guidance for local governments and lead agencies related to local climate action planning in alignment with state climate goals, including key project attributes for residential and mixed-use projects. The project attributes are related to three priority areas, including VMT reduction, transportation electrification, and building decarbonization. Per the Scoping Plan, implementation of these priority areas and related project attributes demonstrates clear consistency with the state’s climate goals, given that they address the largest sources of operational emissions for residential and mixed-use projects. As such, a discussion of the Proposed Project’s potential to conflict with the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan focuses on the three priority areas, below.
The Proposed Project responds to a state-mandated need for additional housing capacity under the City’s Housing Element and accommodates long-term growth anticipated in the region, while seeking to do so in a manner that minimizes VMT and supports sustainable land use patterns. It is fundamentally designed to support
4.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.7-29
VMT reduction and infill development, as evidenced by the primary project objectives outlined in Section 3.3.3, Project Objectives, of this PEIR:
▪ Promote Vertical Mixed-Use Development: Offer infill development opportunities along multimodal corridors near public transit and proximate to existing services and amenities. ▪ Enhance Mobility Access/Reduce VMT: Foster development with micromobility concepts that allow residents to access services, amenities, and recreational opportunities without the need for a vehicle trip, reducing local vehicle trips and VMT.
▪ Promote Fair Housing: Support infill residential development that increases the supply of affordable and workforce housing, especially for families.
▪ Expand Access to Services and Public Spaces: Enhance and protect access to parks, open spaces, libraries, and other community and social services, while preserving educational and cultural resources, public art, and historic landmarks.
In addition to these objectives, there are several features of Proposed Project design that align with the Scoping Plan’s attributes for VMT reduction. The overlays focus on vacant and underdeveloped parcels within established urban areas that are already served by existing utilities and essential public services, such as transit, water, and sewer, ensuring that new development occurs on infill sites rather than expanding into undeveloped areas.
Growth is concentrated entirely within the City’s urbanized footprint, avoiding the loss or conversion of natural or working lands. The Community Hub Overlay allows up to 30 dwelling units per acre and the Community Corridor Overlay allows up to 45 dwelling units per acre, both exceeding the minimum 20 dwelling units per acre threshold for transit-supportive development. Many overlay parcels are located within 0.25 miles of existing transit stops, including the Town Center Trolley Station and local bus routes, further supporting transit accessibility.
These objectives and project features demonstrate that, while the Project introduces substantial new housing and commercial capacity to meet identified growth needs, it does so in a manner that concentrates development in transit-accessible, mixed-use areas and is designed to minimize VMT to the extent feasible. However, as documented in the transportation analysis, 45% of residential clusters and 45% of commercial clusters are expected to exceed the City’s VMT threshold. This outcome reflects the challenge of accommodating required housing growth while minimizing transportation emissions.
While the Proposed Project is intended to promote sustainable land use patterns and aligns with the priority area for VMT reduction, at this programmatic-level of review, it cannot be guaranteed that all future projects will incorporate attributes supporting the transportation electrification and building decarbonization priority areas identified in the CARB Scoping Plan. Therefore, potential future development allowed under the Project would potentially conflict with the goals of CARB’s Scoping Plan, and the impact would be potentially significant.
Implementation of MM-GHG-1 would require individual projects to prepare a project-level site-specific GHG impacts analysis demonstrating how the project would achieve GHG reductions and/or not conflict with the CARB 2022 Scoping Plan and Sustainable Santee Plan. If an individual project conflicts with plans, that project would be required to implement project-specific mitigation measures to help reduce GHG impacts to the extent feasible. As described in Section 4.7.4, Mitigation Measures, example mitigation measures may include requiring potential future development to use all-electric appliances and end uses, install energy efficient appliances, or provide electric vehicle charging infrastructure that meets the most ambitious voluntary standard in the California Green Building Standards Code. If implemented, these mitigation measures would assist future development in not conflicting with the Scoping Plan priority areas of Transportation Electrification and Building Decarbonization.
4.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.7-30
Additionally, MM-TRA-1 and MM-TRA-2, described in Section 4.15, would be implemented by the City to help reduce VMT impacts to the extent feasible. The use of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies, such as ride sharing programs, flexible work schedule programs, and incentives for employees to use transit, as well as future project-specific VMT analyses, would also assist future development in not conflicting with the Scoping Plan priority area of VMT Reduction.
However, the effectiveness of GHG and VMT reducing measures is context-sensitive and would vary depending on the site-specific project site, such as the location, access to transit, etc. At a program level of review, it is not guaranteed that each individual project would fully mitigate the potential impacts. Therefore, impacts associated with GHG emissions would remain significant and unavoidable.
Project Potential to Conflict with the San Diego Association of Governments’ 2025 Regional Plan
As discussed in Section 4.7.2, SANDAG’s 2025 Regional Plan includes an SCS that identifies how the region will achieve state-mandated GHG emissions reductions as it relates to transportation, pursuant to SB 375. The Regional Plan provides the long-term strategy for the region to meet regulatory requirements, address traffic congestion, and create equal access to jobs, education, healthcare, and other community resources. The Project’s potential to conflict with the specific 2025 Regional Plan overarching goals are described below.
Convenient and reliable movement of people and goods. By promoting vertical mixed-use development near public transit and existing amenities, the Mixed-Use Overlay reduces reliance on single-occupancy vehicles and shortens trip lengths. This enhances mobility access and supports regional transit investments, improving travel time reliability and reducing congestion—key outcomes for convenient and efficient movement. This directly improves the Access to Basic Needs measure (e.g., reaching parks and retail within 15 minutes, medical facilities within 30 minutes) and the VMT measure (both regional and per‑capita), which the plan uses to assess how effectively the network reduces driving and congestion. The Project would not conflict with this goal.
Equitable access to essential needs and opportunities. The Project would expand housing choices and integrate services, retail, and public spaces within walkable neighborhoods, ensuring residents of all income levels can access jobs, education, and daily needs without long commutes. This aligns with SANDAG’s equity goal by improving access to opportunities and reducing transportation barriers for underserved communities. The Project would not conflict with this goal.
Healthy communities and environment for everyone. The Project’s compact, transit-oriented development lowers VMT and GHG emissions, supporting climate goals and improving air quality. By creating vibrant, mixed-use areas with public spaces, the update encourages active transportation and healthier lifestyles, advancing regional sustainability and public health objectives. The Project would not conflict with this goal.
Safe transportation network for all users. The Project’s design of mixed-use areas with Complete Streets principles enhances safety for pedestrians, cyclists, and transit riders. Slower speeds, improved crossings, and multimodal connectivity reduce collision risks and support Vision Zero initiatives, ensuring that growth contributes to a safer transportation system for all users. The Project would not conflict with this goal.
As discussed, generally, the project would not conflict with the high-level goals of the 2025 Regional Plan; however, as described in Section 4.15, the Project would have significant VMT compared to existing conditions. As such, the Project would conflict with the SANDAG 2025 Regional Plan’s key strategy to reduce the number of miles driven across the region in advancing a more sustainable and efficient transportation system to achieve reductions in related GHG emissions. Therefore, the impact would be potentially significant.
4.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.7-31
The Project would implement MM-TRA-1 for development projects located in parcel clusters that were identified to have a VMT related impact. MM-TRA-1 would reduce VMT by implementing TDM strategies such as ride sharing programs, flexible work schedule programs, and incentives for employees to use transit. In addition, MM-TRA-2 would require a project-level VMT analysis to identify VMT impacts. Implementation of these transportation mitigation measures as part of future projects reviews would potentially reduce VMT and related GHG emissions; however, the effectiveness of these measures is context-sensitive and would vary depending on project details, such as the location, and access to transit. At a program level of review with no specific development proposals currently available, it is not guaranteed that each individual project would be able to fully mitigate the potential impacts. While MM-TRA-1 and MM-TRA-2 would minimize VMT and associated transportation emissions, impacts would not be fully mitigated and would remain significant. Therefore, Project would conflict with the SANDAG 2025 Regional Plan, and the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions
As noted previously, there is no numeric threshold appropriate to evaluate the significance of Project-generated GHG emissions. As such, the estimation of GHG emissions increase generated by the Project provided below is for informational purposes in accordance with Section 15064.4 of the CEQA Guidelines. The Project’s potential to result in a GHG emissions impact is based on potential to conflict with plans for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions.
Table 4.7-4, Estimated Annual Operation Greenhouse Gas Emissions, presents the increase in GHG emissions compared to existing conditions.
Table 4.7-4. Estimated Annual Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions Emissions Source
CO2 CH4 N2O R CO2e
Metric tons per year
Existing Scenario
Mobile 104,727.59 4.79 4.12 172.86 106,246.61
Area 1,635.76 1.04 0.08 0 1,685.99
Energy 5,846.66 0.39 0.04 0 5,867.45
Water 341.23 5.50 0.13 0 518.11
Waste 299.91 29.97 0.00 0 1,049.28
Refrigerant 0 0 0 2.90 2.90
Existing Scenario Total Emissions 112,851.15 41.69 4.37 175.76 115,370.34 Proposed Project
Mobile 205,311.55 6.26 7.08 22.19 207,599.02
Area 8,445.26 5.43 0.42 0 8,706.81
Energy 7,247.27 1.06 0.10 0 7,303.53
Water 418.27 15.98 0.38 0 932.46
Waste 704.46 70.41 0.00 0 2,464.68
Refrigerant 0 0 0 18.28 18.28
Proposed Project Total Emissions 222,126.81 99.14 7.98 40.47 227,024.78 Net Change
Project Net Change (Project-Existing) 109,275.66 57.45 3.62 -135.28 111,654.44 Notes: CO2 = carbon dioxide; CH4 = methane; N2O = nitrous oxide; R= refrigerant; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent, -- = not applicable.
4.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.7-32
4.7.4 Mitigation Measures
MM-GHG-1 Preparation of Project-Level Greenhouse Gas Impacts Analyses. For potential future development that proceeds before an update to the Sustainable Santee Plan is adopted, a sitespecific greenhouse gas (GHG) analysis is required. The site-specific GHG analysis shall (1) demonstrate how the project would not conflict with the Sustainable Santee Plan Consistency Checklist, and (2) demonstrate how the project would not conflict with the latest California Air Resources Board Scoping Plan, applicable GHG reduction targets, and other applicable GHG reduction plans. The site-specific GHG analysis shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City of Santee Planning and Building Department. Potential measures to reduce GHG emissions from future development shall be required for project approval, including, but not limited to, the following:
Mobile Sources
▪ Provide electric vehicle charging infrastructure that meets or exceeds the most recent California Green Building Standards Tier 2 voluntary requirements. ▪ Provide bicycle parking facilities that exceed the most recent Title 24 Energy Code requirements. ▪ Provide preferential parking spaces for low-emitting, fuel-efficient, and carpool/van vehicles that exceed the most recent Title 24 Energy Code requirements. ▪ Unbundle residential parking costs from property cost. ▪ Implement MM-TRA-1 and MM-TRA-2 as described in Section 4.15, Transportation.
Area Sources
▪ Prohibit wood burning devices, natural gas fireplaces, and propane fireplaces in residential development.
▪ Replace gas powered landscape equipment with zero-emission landscape equipment.
Energy Sources
▪ Require developments to use all-electric appliances and end uses. ▪ Require all applicant-provided appliances be Energy Star–certified appliances or appliances of equivalent energy efficiency (e.g., dishwashers, refrigerators, clothes washers, and dryers). ▪ Encourage residential participation in existing demand response program(s). ▪ Install cool pavement.
▪ Provide battery storage that exceeds the most recent Title 24 Energy Code requirements. ▪ Encourage procurement of electricity from lower carbon intensity power supply.
Water
▪ Adopt a water conservation strategy, which may include the following:
- Installing low-flow water fixtures
- Designing water-efficient landscapes
- Reducing turf in landscapes and lawns
4.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.7-33
Solid Waste
▪ Implement curbside recycling.
▪ Implement green waste collection areas.
▪ Implement an organics diversion program, which may include the following:
- Providing outreach and education materials to encourage reducing the volume of organic waste sent to landfills
- Providing clearly marked triple bin locations (waste, recycling, composting) Refrigerants
▪ Use alternative refrigerants instead of high global warming potential refrigerants. ▪ Reduce service leak emissions by requiring that all appliances be serviced by a qualified technician who must make a recovery attempt using refrigerant recovery or recycling equipment before opening the appliance to atmospheric conditions, in accordance with existing state and federal regulations.
▪ Reduce operational leak emissions by requiring regularly conducted visual inspections to ensure no leakages occur. If a leak does occur, repairs must be made within 14 days of detection.
4.7.5 Significance After Mitigation
Threshold 4.7-1 Implementation of MM-GHG-1 would require individual projects to prepare a project-level site-specific GHG impacts analysis demonstrating how the project would achieve GHG reductions and/or not conflict with the CARB 2022 Scoping Plan and Sustainable Santee Plan. Additionally, to reduce potentially significant impacts associated with VMT associated with potential future development, MM-TRA-1 and MM-TRA-2 described in Section 4.15, would be implemented by the City, and would result in reductions of transportation-related GHG emissions. However, at a program level of review, it is not guaranteed that each individual project would fully mitigate the potential impacts. Therefore, impacts associated with GHG emissions would be significant and unavoidable.
4.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.7-34
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
4.8 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.8-1
4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
This section of the draft program environmental impact report (PEIR) describes the existing hazards and hazardous materials conditions of the Plan Area and vicinity, identifies associated regulatory requirements, evaluates potential impacts, and identifies mitigation measures related to implementation of the City of Santee (City) Land Use Element Update (Project or Proposed Project).
4.8.1 Existing Conditions
This section describes the existing hazardous materials conditions of the Plan Area. Information utilized for this section includes the publicly available database searches and documents that are cited within the text below.
For the purpose of this PEIR, the term “hazardous waste” refers to any waste material that exhibits ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, and/or toxicity, meeting certain criteria as defined in 22 California Code of Regulations (CCR), Section 66261.20. A “hazardous material” is defined in California Health and Safety Code Section 25501(n)(1) as a material that, “because of its quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety or to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment.”
Current Hazardous Material Uses and Hazardous Waste Generation Hazardous materials are used throughout the Plan Area for light industrial, general industrial, general commercial, and residential purposes, which are regulated by multiple agencies at the federal, state, and local government levels. Specific commercial uses on the sites include surface parking lots, professional offices, and shopping centers; however, the potential for contamination resulting from these commercial uses is unlikely.
Household hazardous waste may be generated by residential uses throughout the Plan Area. Household hazardous waste includes the disposal of any product labeled as toxic, poison, corrosive, flammable, combustible, or irritant. Hazardous materials, used in many household products (such as drain cleaners, waste oil, cleaning fluids, insecticides, and car batteries), are often improperly disposed of as part of normal household trash, resulting in these hazardous materials interacting with other chemicals to create risks to people or cause soil and groundwater contamination.
Contaminated Sites
Government Code Section 65962.5 requires the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) to compile a list of hazardous waste and substances sites (Cortese List). While the Cortese List is no longer maintained as a single list, the following databases provide information that meet the Cortese List requirements:
List of Hazardous Waste and Substances sites from Department of Toxic Substances Control EnviroStor database (Health and Safety Code Sections 25220, 25242, 25356, and 116395) List of leaking underground storage tank sites by County and Fiscal Year from the State Water Resources Control Board GeoTracker database (Health and Safety Code 25295) List of solid waste disposal sites identified by the State Water Resources Control Board with waste constituents above hazardous waste levels outside the waste management unit (Water Code Section 13273[e] and 14 CCR 18051)
4.8 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.8-2
List of “active” Cease and Desist Orders and Cleanup and Abatement Orders from the State Water Resources Control Board (Water Code Sections 13301 and 13304) List of hazardous waste facilities subject to corrective action pursuant to Section 25187.5 of the Health and Safety Code, identified by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) In addition to Cortese List sites and the CalEPA Regulated Site Portal (discussed in Current Hazardous Material Uses and Hazardous Waste Generation), the following databases provide additional information regarding potential environmental contamination within the State of California. Table 4.8-1, Online Database Listings, provides a summary of these databases.
Table 4.8-1. Online Database Listings
Database Details
Department of Toxic Substance Control
(DTSC) EnviroStor
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/
The DTSC data management system for tracking cleanup,
permitting, enforcement, and investigation efforts at hazardous waste facilities and sites with known contamination or sites where there may be reasons for further investigation.
Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB) GeoTracker
http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/
The California RWQCB data management system for sites that impact, or have the potential to impact, water quality in California, with emphasis on groundwater. GeoTracker contains records for sites that require cleanup, various unregulated projects, and permitted facilities. Sites include leaking underground storage tank, Department of Defense, cleanup program, irrigated land, oil and gas production, permitted underground storage tank, and land disposal sites.
National Pipeline Mapping System
https://www.npms.phmsa.dot.gov/
The National Pipeline Mapping System Public Map Viewer is a web-based application designed to assist the general public with displaying and querying data related to gas transmission and hazardous liquid pipelines, liquefied natural gas plants, and breakout tanks under Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration jurisdiction.
California Department of Resources
Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) Solid
Waste Information System (SWIS)
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/
SolidWaste/Site/Search
The SWIS database contains information on solid waste facilities, operations, and disposal sites through the state. These include landfills, transfer stations, compositing sites, engineered conversion facilities, and closed disposal facilities.
California Geologic Energy Management
Division (CalGEM) Well Finder
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/calgem/
Pages/Wellfinder.aspx
The CalGEM Well Finder database identifies oil and gas wells and related facilities throughout the state.
A regulatory database search of existing sites within 0.5 miles of the proposed land use changes (Figure 4.8-1, Hazardous Waste Sites Within 1/2 Mile of the Proposed Land Use Changes) was conducted for the purpose of this analysis. The database search specifically identified sites that have had reported releases of hazardous materials or waste, including active contaminated sites that are currently under assessment and/or remediation. Some of the sites identified in these databases include closed cases, which received regulatory closure because the contamination levels at those facilities or sites were found to be below regulatory thresholds, contamination levels were determined to not be a threat to human health or the environment, or remediation was completed to the
4.8 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.8-3
satisfaction of the regulatory agency overseeing the effort. While these sites have received regulatory closure, due to the age of some of the closed regulatory sites, low-threat closure regulations, and changes in regulatory screening levels over time, some of these sites may have residual contamination that no longer meets unrestricted land use criteria. While the search provides context for this analysis, these databases are frequently updated with new information, and the results are subject to change.
GeoTracker Database Sites
The GeoTracker database includes hazardous material release sites found in the Spills, Leaks, Investigations, and Cleanups Program; the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program; military cleanup sites; and permitted land disposal sites (such as landfills). The database search results indicated a total of 98 records for the entire City, 94 of which have received regulatory closure (SWRCB 2025). The remaining open sites have ongoing cleanup under regulatory oversight, have permitted uses, have reports pending, or are awaiting assessment and interim remedial action.
EnviroStor Database Sites
The EnviroStor database includes both state cleanup and federal Superfund sites. The database search showed a total of five records for the City, four of which are cleanup sites under the DTSC Cleanup Program, school cleanup program, or military evaluation, and are open cases with differing levels of further assessment needed. The remaining cleanup site is identified as closed (DTSC 2025).
National Pipeline Mapping System
The database search did not identify any gas transmission pipelines within Santee (NPMS 2025).
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery Solid Waste Information System Database Sites
Five facilities were identified within Santee. Sycamore Landfill is a permitted active landfill, located at 8512 Mast Boulevard, Santee, California 92071. Santee Limited Volume Transfer Operation is an active solid waste operation located at 8502 Railroad Avenue, Santee, California 92701. The three remaining sites were marked as closed.
California Geologic Energy Management Division Oil and Gas Wells No oil and gas wells, nor well fields, were identified on or overlapping Santee (DOC 2025).
4.8.2 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances
Federal
Code of Federal Regulations
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the primary federal agency responsible for enforcement and implementation of federal laws and regulations pertaining to hazardous materials. Applicable federal regulations pertaining to hazardous materials are contained mainly in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Titles 29, 40, 42, and 49. Title 40 CFR Part 273 governs the collection and management of widely generated waste, including batteries, pesticides, mercury-containing equipment, and light bulbs. This regulation streamlines the hazardous waste management standards and ensures that such waste is diverted to the appropriate treatment or recycling facility.
4.8 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.8-4
Title 40 CFR Part 112 requires the preparation of a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan if oil is stored in excess of 1,320 gallons in aboveground storage (or have a buried capacity of 42,000 gallons). Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure regulations place restrictions on the management of petroleum materials and, therefore, have some bearing on hazardous materials management.
Title 40 CFR Part 61 established National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) and names asbestos-containing material as one of these materials. Asbestos-containing material use, removal, and disposal are regulated by EPA under this law. In addition, notification of friable asbestos-containing material removal prior to a proposed demolition project is required by this law.
Hazardous materials, as defined in the CFR, are listed in 49 CFR 172.101. These laws and associated regulations include specific requirements for facilities that generate, use, store, treat, and/or dispose of hazardous materials.
EPA also provides oversight and supervision of federal Superfund investigation/remediation projects, evaluates remediation technologies, and develops hazardous materials disposal restrictions and treatment standards.
Management of hazardous materials is governed by the laws described below.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act and the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly known as Superfund, on December 11, 1980. CERCLA established prohibitions and requirements concerning closed and abandoned hazardous waste sites, provided for liability of persons responsible for releases of hazardous waste at these sites, and established a trust fund to provide for cleanup when no responsible party could be identified. The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) amended CERCLA on October 17, 1986. SARA stressed the importance of permanent remedies and innovative treatment technologies in cleaning up hazardous waste sites, required Superfund actions to consider the standards and requirements found in other state and federal environmental laws and regulations, provided new enforcement authorities and settlement tools, increased state involvement in every phase of the Superfund program, increased the focus on human health problems posed by hazardous waste sites, encouraged greater citizen participation in making decisions on how sites should be cleaned up, and increased the size of the trust fund to $8.5 billion. There are no Superfund sites located within the Plan Area.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, with Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984
Federal hazardous waste laws are generally promulgated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). These laws provide for the “cradle to grave” regulation of hazardous wastes. Any business, institution, or other entity that generates hazardous waste is required to identify and track its hazardous waste from the point of generation until it is recycled, reused, or disposed. DTSC is responsible for implementing the RCRA program and California’s own hazardous waste laws, which are collectively known as the Hazardous Waste Control Law. Under the Certified Unified Program Agency program, CalEPA has in turn delegated enforcement authority to counties for state law regulating hazardous waste producers or generators. The 1986 amendments to RCRA enabled EPA to address environmental problems that could result from underground tanks storing petroleum and other hazardous substances. Some of the other mandates of this law include increased enforcement authority for EPA, more stringent hazardous waste management standards, and a comprehensive underground storage tank program.
Based on a search of the DTSC EnviroStor database, there are no sites in the Plan Area with RCRA hazardous waste facility permits.
4.8 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.8-5
Hazardous Materials Transportation Act
The transportation of hazardous materials is regulated by the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (HMTA), which is administered by the Research and Special Programs Administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). The HMTA provides DOT with a broad mandate to regulate the transport of hazardous materials, with the purpose of adequately protecting the nation against risk to life and property, which is inherent in the commercial transportation of hazardous materials. The HMTA governs the safe transportation of hazardous materials by all modes, excluding bulk transportation by water. The Research and Special Programs Administration carries out these responsibilities by prescribing regulations and managing a user-funded grant program for planning and training grants for states and Native American tribes. DOT regulations that govern the transportation of hazardous materials are applicable to any person who transports, ships, causes to be transported or shipped, or is involved in any way with the manufacture or testing of hazardous materials packaging or containers. DOT regulations pertaining to the actual movement govern every aspect of the movement, including packaging, handling, labeling, marking, placarding, operational standards, and highway routing. Additionally, DOT is responsible for developing curriculum to train for emergency response and administers grants to states and Native American tribes for ensuring the proper training of emergency responders. The HMTA was enacted in 1975 and was amended and reauthorized in 1990, 1994, and 2005.
Federal Aviation Administration
Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter 1, Subchapter E, Part 77 – Aeronautics and Space – Safe, Efficient Use, and Preservation of the Navigable Airspace This regulation establishes requirements for notifying the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) of certain construction activities and alterations to existing structures to ensure there are no obstructions to navigable airspace. For example, projects that include construction or alteration exceeding 200 feet in height above ground level are required to notify FAA.
State
California Environmental Protection Agency
CalEPA was created in 1991 by the Governor’s Executive Order W-5-91. Several state regulatory boards, departments, and offices were placed under the CalEPA umbrella to create a cabinet-level voice for the protection of human health and the environment and to assure the coordinated deployment of state resources. Among those responsible for hazardous materials and waste management are DTSC, the Department of Pesticide Regulation, and the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. CalEPA also oversees the Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program (Unified Program).
California Health and Safety Code and Code of Regulations California Health and Safety Code (HSC) Chapter 6.95 and 19 CCR 2729 set out the minimum requirements for business emergency plans and chemical inventory reporting. These regulations require businesses to provide emergency response plans and procedures, training program information, and a hazardous materials chemical inventory disclosing hazardous materials stored, used, or handled on site. A business that uses hazardous materials or a mixture containing hazardous materials must establish and implement a business plan if the hazardous material is handled in certain quantities.
4.8 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.8-6
HSC Section 25501 states that “hazardous materials” include, but are not limited to, hazardous substances, hazardous waste, and any material that a handler or the administering agency has a reasonable basis for believing that it would be “injurious to the health and safety of persons or harmful to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment.” Hazardous materials refer generally to hazardous substances that exhibit corrosive, poisonous, flammable, and/or reactive properties and have the potential to harm human health and/or the environment.
The transport of hazardous waste materials is further governed by California HSC Section 25163 and CCR Title 22, Chapter 13. Specifically, HSC Section 25163 requires transporters of hazardous waste to hold a valid registration issued by DTSC in their possession while transporting hazardous waste. Additionally, CCR Title 22, Chapter 13 includes a number of requirements, which include, but are not limited to, the requirement to receive an identification number and a registration certificate from DTSC, requirement to obtain a Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest that has been properly completed and signed by the generator and transporter prior to accepting hazardous wastes, and delivery of hazardous waste to authorized facilities only.
California Department of Toxic Substances Control
The California DTSC, which is a department of CalEPA, is authorized to carry out the federal RCRA hazardous waste program in California to protect people from exposure to hazardous wastes. The department regulates hazardous waste, cleans up existing contamination, and looks for ways to control and reduce the hazardous waste produced in California, primarily under the authority of RCRA and in accordance with the California Hazardous Waste Control Law (California HSC Division 20, Chapter 6.5) and the Hazardous Waste Control Regulations (22 CCR Divisions 4 and 4.5). Permitting, inspection, compliance, and corrective action programs ensure that people who manage hazardous waste follow state and federal requirements and other laws that affect hazardous waste specific to handling, storage, transportation, disposal, treatment, reduction, cleanup, and emergency planning.
California Building Code
The State of California provides a minimum standard for building design through the 2025 California Building Code, which is located in Part 2 of CCR Title 24. Part 2 of the 2025 California Building Code is a fully integrated code based on the 2024 International Building Code. It is generally adopted on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis, subject to further modification based on local conditions. Commercial and residential buildings are plan-checked by local city and county building officials for compliance with the California Building Code. Typical fire safety requirements of the California Building Code include the installation of sprinklers in all high-rise buildings; the establishment of fire resistance standards for fire doors, building materials, and particular types of construction; and the clearance of debris and vegetation within a prescribed distance from occupied structures in wildlife hazard areas.
California Accidental Release Prevention Program
The California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) program (19 CCR 5050.1 et seq.) regulates facilities that use or store regulated substances, such as toxic or flammable chemicals, in quantities that exceed established thresholds. Under the regulations, industrial facilities that handle hazardous materials above threshold quantities are required to prepare and submit a Risk Management Plan to the local Certified Unified Program Agency. The overall purpose of CalARP is to prevent accidental releases of regulated substances and reduce the severity of releases that may occur. The CalARP program requires businesses to have planning activities that are intended to minimize the possibility of an accidental release by encouraging engineering and administrative controls. It is further intended to mitigate the consequences of an accidental release by requiring owners or operators of facilities to develop and implement an accident prevention program. The CalARP program meets the requirements of the EPA Risk Management Program, which was established pursuant to the Clean Air Act amendments.
4.8 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.8-7
California Division of Occupational Safety and Health
The California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) is responsible for developing and enforcing workplace safety standards and ensuring worker safety in the handling and use of hazardous materials (CCR Title 8 Division 1, Chapter 3.2). Among other requirements, Cal/OSHA requires entities handling specified amounts of certain hazardous chemicals to prepare injury and illness prevention plans and chemical hygiene plans and provides specific regulations to limit exposure of construction workers to lead. Cal/OSHA applies to the Proposed Project because contractors will be required to comply with its handling and use requirements that would increase worker safety and reduce the possibility of spills and to prepare an emergency response plan to respond to accidental spills.
California Fire Code
CCR Part 9 of Title 24 refers to the California Fire Code, which contains regulations consistent with nationally recognized and accepted practices for safeguarding life and property from the following hazards: fire and explosion; dangerous conditions arising from the storage, handling, and use of hazardous materials and devices; and hazardous conditions in the use or occupancy of buildings or premises. The California Fire Code also contains provisions to assist emergency response personnel. The California Fire Code also establishes requirements intended to provide safety and assistance to firefighters and emergency responders during emergency operations.
The provisions of the California Fire Code apply to the “construction, alteration, movement, enlargement, replacement, repair, equipment, use and occupancy, location, maintenance, removal, and demolition of every building or structure” throughout California. The California Fire Code includes regulations regarding fire-resistancerate construction, fire protection systems such as alarm and sprinkler systems, fire service features such as fire apparatus access roads, means of egress fire safety during construction and demolition, and wildland–urban interface areas. There are fire-safety-related building standards referenced in other parts of Title 24. The 2022 California Fire Code is a fully integrated code based on the 2021 International Fire Code.
California Emergency Services Act
Under the Emergency Services Act (California Government Code Section 8550 et seq.), the State of California developed an emergency response plan to coordinate emergency services provided by federal, state, and local agencies. Rapid response to incidents involving hazardous materials or hazardous waste is an integral part of the plan, which is administered by the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services. The Office of Emergency Services coordinates the responses of other agencies, including EPA, the California Highway Patrol, the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs), air quality management districts, and county disaster response offices.
Asbestos-Containing Materials Regulations
State agencies, in conjunction with EPA and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), regulate removal, abatement, and transport procedures for asbestos-containing materials. Releases of asbestos from industrial, demolition, or construction activities are prohibited by these regulations and medical evaluation and monitoring is required for employees performing activities that could expose them to asbestos. Additionally, the regulations include warnings that must be heeded and practices that must be followed to reduce the risk for asbestos emissions and exposure. Finally, federal, state, and local agencies must be notified prior to the onset of demolition or construction activities with the potential to release asbestos.
4.8 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.8-8
The California Air Resources Board is responsible for overseeing compliance with the federal Asbestos NESHAP in Los Angeles County. The Asbestos NESHAP Program enforces compliance with the federal NESHAP regulation for asbestos and investigates all related complaints, as specified by California HSC Section 39658(b)(1). Of the 35 air districts in California, 16 do not have an asbestos program in place. In these “non-delegated” districts, a demolition/renovation notification is required for compliance with the Asbestos NESHAP. (This notification is not equivalent to a permit.) The California Air Resources Board reviews and investigates the notifications. The program also administers two annual statewide Asbestos NESHAP task force meetings for air districts and EPA to facilitate communication and enforcement continuity and assists EPA in training district staff to enforce the Asbestos NESHAP.
The California Department of Consumer Affairs Contractors State License Board manages the licensing of asbestos abatement contractors.
Toxic Substances Control Act
EPA prohibited the use of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the majority of new electrical equipment starting in 1979 and initiated a phase-out for much of the existing PCB-containing equipment. The inclusion of PCBs in electrical equipment and the handling of those PCBs are regulated by the provisions of the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 USC 2601 et seq.). Relevant regulations include labeling and periodic inspection requirements for certain types of PCB-containing equipment and highly specific safety procedures for their disposal. The state likewise regulates PCB-laden electrical equipment and materials contaminated above a certain threshold as hazardous waste; these regulations require that such materials be treated, transported, and disposed accordingly. At lower concentrations for non-liquids, RWQCBs may exercise discretion over the classification of such wastes.
California Division of Occupational Safety and Health Lead in Construction Standard Cal/OSHA’s Lead in Construction Standard is contained in 8 CCR 1532.1. The regulations address all of the following areas: permissible exposure limits; exposure assessment; compliance methods; respiratory protection; protective clothing and equipment; housekeeping; medical surveillance; medical removal protection; employee information, training, and certification; signage; record keeping; monitoring; and agency notification.
Regional and Local
San Diego County Department of Environmental Health
The San Diego County Department of Environmental Health regulates and enforces state underground storage tank and aboveground petroleum storage tank installation and monitoring requirements, including permitting and inspecting, for businesses within San Diego County, including those in Santee. The County of San Diego (County) operates a Site Assessment Mitigation program to mitigate the release of contaminant materials. The San Diego County Department of Environmental Health is also responsible for administering the state’s Leaking Underground Fuel Tank program. The purpose of the program is to oversee the proper assessment and remediation of contaminants released from underground storage tanks.
San Diego County Air Pollution Control District
Although the California Air Resources Board is responsible for the regulation of mobile emission sources within the state, local air quality management districts and air pollution control districts are responsible for the development and implementation of rules and regulations designed to attain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards and
4.8 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.8-9
California Ambient Air Quality Standards, as well as the permitting of new or modified sources, development of air quality management plans, and adoption and enforcement of air pollution regulations. The San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) is the local agency responsible for the administration and enforcement of air quality regulations in San Diego County, where Santee is located. SDAPCD is responsible for monitoring air quality and planning, implementing, and enforcing programs designed to attain and maintain state and federal ambient air quality standards within the San Diego Air Basin.
Regional Water Quality Control Board
RWQCB implements the California Water Code, which regulates waste discharges to land. If a discharge of waste threatens a water of the state, a report of waste discharge or an application for a waiver of a report of waste discharge must be filed with RWQCB. RWQCB accomplishes its permitting responsibility by issuing either a general or site-specific permit (Waste Discharge Permit) or a waiver of a permit.
County of San Diego Consolidated Fire Code
The County, in collaboration with the local fire protection districts, created the first Consolidated Fire Code in 2001.
The Consolidated Fire Code contains the County and fire protection districts’ amendments to the California Fire Code. The purpose of consolidation of the County and local fire districts’ adoptive ordinances is to promote consistency in the interpretation and enforcement of the fire code for the protection of the public health and safety.
The ordinances include permit requirements for the installation, alteration, or repair of new and existing fire protection systems and penalties for violations of the Consolidated Fire Code. The Consolidated Fire Code provides the minimum requirements for access, water supply and distribution, construction type, fire protection systems, and vegetation management. Additionally, the Consolidated Fire Code regulates hazardous materials and associated measures to ensure that public health and safety are protected from incidents relating to hazardous substance releases. San Diego County’s 2020 Consolidated Fire Code (the most recent adoption) was certified by the State Board of Forestry, resulting in its superseding 14 CCR 1270 et seq., as it would otherwise apply within San Diego County.
San Diego County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan The San Diego County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan was originally prepared in July 2010 and updated in October 2017 to meet federal and state requirements for disaster preparedness to make the County eligible for funding and technical assistance from state and federal hazard mitigation programs. The plan includes a risk assessment to enable local jurisdictions to identify and prioritize appropriate mitigation actions to reduce losses from potential hazards, including flooding, earthquakes, fires, and human-made hazards. To address potential hazards, the plan then incorporates mitigation goals and objectives, mitigation actions and priorities, an implementation plan, and documentation of the mitigation planning process for each of the 22 participating jurisdictions, including Santee.
California Disaster and Civil Defense Master Mutual Aid Agreement As provided for in the California Emergency Services Act, the California Disaster and Civil Defense Master Mutual Aid Agreement was developed in 1950 and adopted by all 58 California counties. This statewide mutual aid system is designed to ensure that adequate resources, facilities, and other support is provided to jurisdictions whenever their own resources prove to be inadequate to cope with a given situation. San Diego County is located in Mutual Aid Region 6 of the state system, which also includes Imperial, Riverside, San Bernardino, Inyo, and Mono Counties.
4.8 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.8-10
Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan-Gillespie Field and Marine Corps Air Station Miramar The San Diego County Regional Airport Authority, designated as the Airport Land Use Commission for all public airports in San Diego County, adopted the Gillespie Field Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) on January 25, 2010 (last amended December 20, 2010) and the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Miramar ALUCP in October 2008 (last amended in November 2011). The ALUCP assists in achieving compatible land use development in the area surrounding Gillespie Field Airport and MCAS Miramar Airport. The ALUCP designates the airport influence area and contains projected noise contours, flight activity zones, a land use compatibility matrix, and plan recommendations for areas surrounding Gillespie Field and MCAS Miramar. The airport influence area is delineated by using the projected 60-decibel (dB) Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) contour and is generally the area in which current and future airport-related noise, overflight, safety, and/or airspace protection factors may affect land uses or necessitate restrictions on uses. For the purposes of this analysis, the airport influence area is divided into Review Area 1 and Review Area 2 for Gillespie Field and Review Area 1 and Review Area 2 for MCAS Miramar.
Gillespie Field Airport Influence Area Review Area 1 and Review Area 2 ▪ Airport Influence Area (AIA) “Review Area 1 consists of locations where noise or safety concerns may necessitate limitations on the types of land use actions. Specifically, Review Area 1 encompasses locations exposed to aircraft noise levels of 60 dB CNEL or greater together with all of the safety zones” identified in the ALUCP (SDCRAA 2010). All parcels within the proposed Community Corridor Overlay, along with the southernmost parcels located within the proposed Community Hub Overlay, intersect Gillespie Field AIA Review Area 1.
▪ AIA “Review Area 2 consists of locations beyond Review Area 1 but within the airspace and/or overflight notification areas…. Limits on the heights of structures, particularly in areas of high terrain, are the only restrictions on land uses within Review Area 2” (SDCRAA 2010). All parcels within the proposed Community Corridor Overlay and Community Hub Overlay are within Gillespie Field AIA Review Area 2.
Marine Corps Air Station Miramar Airport Influence Area Review Area 1 and Review Area 2 ▪ AIA “Review Area 1 consists of locations where noise and/or safety concerns may necessitate limitations on the types of land uses. Specifically, Review Area 1 encompasses locations exposed to noise levels of CNEL 60 dB or greater together with all of the safety zones depicted on the associated maps in this chapter.
Within Review Area 1, all types of land use actions are to be submitted to the ALUC for review to the extent review is required by law” (SDCRAA 2011). The Plan Area is not within Review Area 1 for MCAS Miramar. ▪ AIA “Review Area 2 consists of locations beyond Review Area 1 but within the airspace protection and/or overflight areas depicted on the associated maps in this chapter. Limits on the heights of structures, particularly in areas of high terrain, are the only restrictions on land uses within Review Area 2. The additional function of this area is to define where various mechanisms to alert prospective property owners about the nearby airport are appropriate. Within Review Area 2, only land use actions for which the height of objects is an issue are subject to ALUC review” (SDCRAA 2011). A majority of the proposed parcels within the Community Hub Overlay fall within Review Area 2 for MCAS Miramar.
City of Santee Hazard Mitigation Plan
The purpose of the Hazard Mitigation Plan is to identify risks and ways to mitigate damage from natural and human-caused disasters. Goal 7 of the Plan, Hazardous Materials Release, outlines objectives and actions to monitor and prevent the release of hazardous materials, along with educational awareness to the public about the dangers (City of Santee 2023).
4.8 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.8-11
City of Santee Emergency Operation Plan
According to the City’s Safety and Environmental Justice Element, “The City’s Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) was prepared with input from partnering jurisdictions within San Diego County to provide a system for the effective management of emergencies consistent with the County EOP and to ensure the protection of life, property, and the environment before, during, and after an emergency event, natural disaster, or technological incident” (City of Santee 2025).
Santee General Plan
The City’s General Plan contains objectives and policies aimed at minimizing potential risks associated with hazards and hazardous materials. The Safety and Environmental Justice Element of the General Plan aims to reduce loss of life, injuries, and damage to property resulting from natural and human-caused public safety hazards including flooding, geologic and seismic hazards, fire, traffic hazards, and crime. Related objectives and policies of the Safety and Environmental Justice Element are listed below (City of Santee 2025).
Safety and Environmental Justice Element
The City’s General Plan Safety and Environmental Justice Element includes various goals, objectives, and policies relating to hazardous materials, the application of which would help to avoid the release or exposure to hazardous materials, including the following:
Goal 4. Improve the City of Santee’s capacity to prevent and respond to emergencies and hazardous materials incidents.
Objective 8.0. Ensure the efficient control of emergency operations during natural or human-caused disasters.
Policy 8.1. Continue to hold periodic disaster exercises in cooperation with the appropriate state and federal agencies.
Policy 8.2. Update the adopted Santee Emergency Operations Plan periodically to ensure the safety of residents, employees, and visitors in times of natural or human-caused disaster.
Policy 8.3. Maintain an Emergency Operations Center to coordinate resources, information, and communication, which would strengthen the City of Santee’s ability to detect and respond to threats.
Objective 9.0. Minimize the risk of damage to people, property, and the environment caused by hazardous materials.
Policy 9.1. Continue to implement the County of San Diego’s Hazardous Waste Management Plan or develop and implement an equivalent plan.
Policy 9.2. Continue to participate in the San Diego County Joint Powers Authority Hazardous Materials Response Team in dealing with hazardous materials incidents.
Policy 9.3. Require that any potential hazardous materials issues be fully investigated at the environmental review stage prior to project approval.
4.8 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.8-12
Policy 9.4. Review any proposed uses involving the use, transport, storage, or handling of hazardous waste to ensure that such uses will not represent a significant risk to surrounding uses or the environment.
Policy 9.5. Continue to provide for a household hazardous waste collection program for Santee residents as part of the contract with the City of Santee trash franchisee.
Policy 9.6. Control the location, manufacture, storage, or use of hazardous materials in Santee through Zoning Ordinance implementation and the development review process.
Policy 9.7. Encourage safe and proper disposal of household hazardous waste.
Policy 9.8. Promote safe, environmentally sound means of solid waste disposal for the community.
Policy 9.9. Investigate ways to encourage businesses to recycle their waste.
Policy 9.10. Continue to implement the Construction and Demolition Diversion Ordinance as required by Cal Recycle.
Noise Element
The City’s General Plan Noise Element includes goals and policies related to airport hazards, the application of which would help avoid excessive noise, including the following (City of Santee 2003):
Policy 1.7. The City shall discourage any future expansion of the facilities of Gillespie Field or intensification of operation, other than what has been already planned in the airport’s master plan, that would result in greater noise impacts to the City.
Policy 1.8. The City shall encourage the implementation of noise control procedures by Gillespie Field to minimize noise exposure caused by aircraft flyovers within the City.
Policy 1.9. As recommended by the Gillespie Field Comprehensive Land Use Plan, the City of Santee shall work with the County of San Diego to reduce the future 65dB CNEL noise contour impact on residentially zoned areas.
Policy 1.10. The City of Santee shall require single family detached residences located between the 65-70 dB CNEL contours for Gillespie Field to ensure that interior noise levels do not exceed 45dB Ldn.
Policy 1.11. The City shall require disclosure of airport noise impacts as a condition of all future residential development in the 65-70dB noise contours.
Policy 1.12. The City shall require the recordation of avigation easements for new development proposed within the 65-70dB noise contours and the Runway Protection and Inner Approach / Departure zones for Gillespie Field.
Policy 1.13. The City shall continue to monitor helicopter routes from MCAS Miramar to ensure approved routes are adhered to and shall oppose any realignment of existing routes or establishment of new routes that would result in increased noise impacts to the City.
4.8 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.8-13
Santee Municipal Code
The City’s Municipal Code is a compilation of the Santee City Charter and all regulatory and penal ordinances and certain administrative ordinances adopted by the City Council. The City’s Municipal Code includes Chapter 11.04, California Building Code; Chapter 11.18, California Fire Code; and Chapter 11.24, Construction and Improvement Standards.
4.8.3 Environmental Impacts
4.8.3.1 Methodology
The Project is a policy document that does not include or propose any site-specific development that could directly result in construction or operational impacts to the environment. Rather, implementation of the Project would result in changes to allowable land uses on select parcels due to the proposed Community Corridor Overlay, the Community Hub Overlay, and the proposed zone change on one parcel, which would allow for additional future development/redevelopment to occur on those parcels. Therefore, this Draft PEIR does not assess the site-specific construction and operational details of each future development within the Plan Area. Instead, it assesses the impacts associated with changes to existing land uses and the associated overall effects of buildout of the Proposed Project through 2045, where reasonably foreseeable physical changes to the environment could occur.
4.8.3.2 Thresholds of Significance
The significance criteria used to evaluate the Project’s impacts to hazards and hazardous materials are based on California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Appendix G. For the purposes of this Project, a potentially significant impact to hazards and hazardous materials would occur if the Proposed Project would:
1. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
2. 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.
3. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.
4. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code § 65962.5 and, as result, create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.
5. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area.
6. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
7. Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.
4.8 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.8-14
4.8.3.3 Land Use Element Update Relevant Goals and Policies The following draft goals, policies, and implementation actions from the Land Use Element Update are relevant to hazards and hazardous materials:
Goal LU-5. Industrial uses that provide high-quality employment opportunities and are compatible with adjacent land uses.
Policy LU-5.1. Ensure that industrial development minimizes off-site impacts related to access and circulation, noise, dust, odors, visual features, or hazardous materials that cannot be adequately mitigated.
Goal LU-5 Implementation
Action Lead Agency Timeframe
Conduct an inventory of underutilized industrial sites and develop a targeted redevelopment plan focused on employment-generating uses.
Planning and
Building Department
Short-term (1–2
years)
Goal LU-10. A City that protects health and safety within an Airport Influence Area by minimizing exposure to high levels of noise and risk of aircraft accidents.
Policy LU-10.1. Review all development proposed in the Gillespie Field Airport Influence Area, consistent with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan policies addressing noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight.
Policy LU-10.2. Implement and maintain the Airport Compatibility Overlay (as shown in Figures 1.1 through
1.4 [of the Land Use Element Update]) to restrict residential densities and development intensities consistent with the Gillespie Field Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
Policy LU-10.3. Require that all proposed development projects (ministerial and discretionary actions) notify the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in areas where the proposed development meets the notification criteria as defined by Code of Federal Regulation Title 14, Part 77, and that:
▪ All proposed development projects that are subject to FAA notification requirement provide documentation that FAA has determined that the project is not a hazard to air navigation prior to project approval
▪ The City Council consider any proposed development that the FAA has determined to be a hazard to air navigation once state and Airport Land Use Commission requirements are satisfied Policy LU-10.4. Continue to collaborate with the Airport Land Use Commission to comply with state law that requires general plans, specific plans, and all new development be consistent with the policies and criteria set forth in the Gillespie Field Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
Policy LU-10.6. Encourage clustering of development within Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Safety Zones, across multiple parcels, to increase the size of contiguous landscaped and parking areas.
4.8 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.8-15
Goal LU-10 Implementation
Action Lead Agency Timeframe
Adopt a Zoning Ordinance update to establish the Airport Compatibility Overlay, including applicable provisions of the Gillespie Field Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
Planning and
Building
Department
Immediate
(within 1 year)
Coordinate with the Airport Land Use Commission to establish development project review procedures to reduce the need for Airport Land Use Commission review of projects.
Planning and
Building
Department
Immediate
(within 1 year)
4.8.3.4 Impacts Analysis
Threshold 4.8-1: Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
The Proposed Project is a policy document that includes updates to land use designations, land use maps, goals and policies, as described in Chapter 3, Project Description. No physical development is proposed as part of the Project; however, the Proposed Project would facilitate development or redevelopment of certain parcels selected for the Community Hub Overlay, the Community Corridor Overlay, or the parcel designated as Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 378-160-25-00. The impacts related to reasonably foreseeable future development or redevelopment construction and operational activities are described below.
Construction
Future demolition, earthwork, and construction activities for reasonably foreseeable future development projects facilitated by the Proposed Project would require the use of heavy equipment and machinery and various building materials, which would require temporary and limited use of hazardous substances. The temporary transport, storage, and use of commonly used hazardous substances, such as gasoline, diesel fuel, lubricating oils, paint, grease, adhesives, welding gases, solvents, and vehicle and equipment maintenance-related materials, is anticipated to be required for future projects. All hazardous materials must be used and stored in accordance with manufacturers’ instructions and handled in compliance with federal, local, and state requirements as summarized in Section 4.8.2, Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances, of this Draft PEIR. Such requirements include compliance with the federal HMTA. The transport of hazardous waste materials is further governed by HSC Section 25163 and CCR Title 22, Chapter 13.
Because the proposed land use designation changes are primarily within the urbanized downtown areas of the City where the parcels are built out with existing structures, potential future development would involve demolition of existing structures. There is potential for hazardous materials and building products, such as asbestos and leadbased paint, to be present in these buildings. Hazardous material assessment and abatement is required under local regulations, specifically OSHA, Cal/OSHA, California Department of Public Health, and SDAPCD Rule 1206.
Strict adherence to these rules, specifically SDAPCD Rule 1206, do not allow demolition or renovation without appropriate survey for, identification of, and abatement of asbestos. Additional rules and regulations, including HSC Section 25163, require transporters of hazardous waste to hold a valid registration issued by DTSC in possession while transporting hazardous waste. As such, adherence to existing rules and regulations prior to and during demolition of existing buildings and structures would limit public exposure to hazardous materials during routine transport, use, or disposal.
4.8 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.8-16
During construction activities, the commonly used hazardous substances must be transported from construction sites and disposed of at a contracted solid waste disposal provider in accordance with all federal, state, and local regulations, including the HSC, HMTA, Cal/OSHA, and Santee Fire Department requirements. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in new or different methods for future construction activities that are not already allowed within the Plan Area or otherwise result in changes to existing requirements for the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Consequently, with compliance of applicable regulations, the future use of construction-related hazardous materials would not pose a significant risk to the public or environment through the temporary routine transport and limited use or disposal of hazardous materials. Therefore, construction impacts would be less than significant.
Operation
Long-term operations of future residential, commercial, and mixed-use land uses facilitated by the Proposed Project would be generally associated with expanded use of typical household and commercial materials (e.g., paints, solvents, cleaning supplies, refrigerants, landscaping products, and petroleum products).
Future residential, mixed-use, and commercial land uses would use typical commercially available hazardous materials. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not propose any new industrial uses, and no expansion of the Industrial General or Light Industrial land uses would occur beyond the existing condition. Regulations that govern the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials include RCRA and HSC Section 25163 as mentioned above. Additionally, California has air and water emission standards, which require permits for limited emissions from operation of commercial and industrial businesses, under the regulatory authority of SDAPCD and State Water Quality Control Board, respectively. These laws and regulations are designed to reduce and/or eliminate exposure of hazardous materials to the public and the environment. Compliance with permitting and associated regulations would protect future residents and others within the Plan Area from exposure to hazardous materials.
Overall, with regulatory compliance and the implementation goals and policies that aim to protect the environment from hazards and pollutants in the City’s Safety and Environmental Justice Element, future development projects are not anticipated to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials, and impacts would be less than significant.
Threshold 4.8-2: Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Construction
The implementation of land use designation changes would result in reasonably foreseeable future development that may involve demolition of existing structures, ground-disturbing activities such as excavation and grading, and redevelopment of existing structures and sites. As discussed in Section 4.8.1, Existing Conditions, and shown on Figure 4.8-1, there are many sites identified within the Plan Area that are listed on a hazardous materials site database located on or near the parcels selected for the Community Hub Overlay and the Community Corridor Overlay; however, there are no hazardous materials sites on or near parcel APN 378-160-25-00. The full extent of the contaminated soil, groundwater, or soil vapor may not be known or previously documented or may have spread.
As such, development of these sites, particularly with the aforementioned activities, could cause an upset or accident condition where previously unknown sources of hazardous material contamination are encountered and are released to the environment. The contamination at these sites could also restrict the future land use (i.e., residential), without further remediation or protection measures.
4.8 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.8-17
Future site-specific development projects would be required to undergo individual permitting processes, including future CEQA review on a project-specific level if necessary. Therefore, individual site-specific hazards would be required to be addressed during future development ministerial or discretionary processing in compliance with local, state, and federal regulations.
In addition, as discussed in the previous impact section, demolition of existing structures without proper assessment, abatement, and disposal of hazardous materials and building materials, such as lead-based paint and asbestos, could cause a release to the environment. Hazardous material assessment of asbestos and lead-based paint and, if necessary, abatement is required under local regulations, specifically OSHA, Cal/OSHA, California Department of Public Health, and SDAPCD Rule 1206.
Future development could result in upset or accidental condition if not completed in compliance with regulations and with the proper oversight, and as such, impacts would be potentially significant. To reduce potentially significant impacts, mitigation would be required. Mitigation Measure (MM) HAZ-1 requires a preliminary hazardous materials evaluation be completed prior to issuance of permits, which would include review of hazardous material databases and past site uses to determine if hazardous material impacts, such as contaminated soil, soil vapor, or groundwater, have occurred. Should the evaluation in MM-HAZ-1 identify potential contamination, MM-HAZ-2 outlines and requires characterization and management of hazardous material impacts on the proposed development site. Primarily, MM-HAZ-2 includes characterization and management criteria for soil and soil vapor contamination. It is assumed, based on the urban nature of the Proposed Project, that groundwater would not be used for beneficial purposes on any future development site, and therefore groundwater contamination would not impact future developments within the Plan Area. In addition to rules and regulations, the proposed framework of MM-HAZ-1 and MM-HAZ-2 would require identification and characterization of hazardous material impacts on each development site before demolition and construction and require management procedures for contaminated soil and soil vapor if identified, respectively. With implementation of these mitigation measures and adherence to rules and regulations, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Operation
The implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in changes to land use designations allowing industrial land uses, and existing industrial uses would continue to be required to adhere to all appropriate federal, state, and local regulations regarding discharges to air, land, and water that contain hazardous materials. Regulations that apply to the routine handling of hazardous materials, as discussed above, also require spill prevention, training, and release control measures be in place for hazardous materials used or stored in quantities that could result in a significant release (larger than reportable quantities, for example). These laws and regulations are designed to reduce and/or eliminate accidental spill or release of controlled hazardous materials or substances. Compliance with permitting and associated regulations would protect residents and the environment from significant hazards related to reasonably foreseeable upset or accidental conditions. The impact would be less than significant.
Threshold 4.8-3: Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? The Project parcels are located within 0.25 miles of Faith Trolley Preschool, Rio Seco School, Santee KinderCare, and Santana High School, as shown in Figure 4.13-2, Schools.
The Proposed Project would not include any site-specific development that could directly result in the release of hazardous emissions or materials within 0.25 miles of an existing or proposed school. Future development projects that would be facilitated by the Proposed Project are anticipated to result in the redevelopment of existing land
4.8 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.8-18
uses, including residential, commercial, and mixed-use within 0.25 miles of an existing or proposed school. As discussed previously, long-term operations of future residential, commercial, and mixed-use development implemented under the Proposed Project would be generally associated with typical household and commercial materials (e.g., paints, solvents, cleaning supplies, refrigerants, landscaping products, and petroleum products).
The proposed land use changes would not expand or increase risks associated with hazardous materials.
Additionally, the proposed land use designation changes are primarily within the urbanized downtown areas of the City where the parcels are built out with existing structures, and potential future development would involve demolition of existing structures and the transportation and disposal of demolition waste. There is potential for hazardous materials and building products, such as asbestos and lead-based paint, to be present in these buildings. Hazardous material assessment and abatement is required under local regulations, specifically OSHA, Cal/OSHA, California Department of Public Health, and SDAPCD Rule 1206. Strict adherence to these rules, specifically SDAPCD Rule 1206, does not allow demolition or renovation without appropriate survey for, identification of, and abatement of asbestos. Additional rules and regulations, including HSC Section 25163, require transporters of hazardous waste to hold a valid registration issued by DTSC in possession while transporting hazardous waste. As such, adherence to existing rules and regulations prior to and during demolition of existing buildings and structures would limit exposure to hazardous materials within 0.25 miles of an existing or proposed school. As such, the impact related to the release of hazardous emissions or materials within 0.25 miles of an existing or proposed school resulting from the implementation of the land use designations changes, goals, and policies of the Proposed Project would be less than significant.
Moreover, the Proposed Project would not result in new industrial uses on properties that are not already designated for industrial uses, and no expansion of industrial land area would occur beyond the existing condition. The Proposed Project would not introduce industrial businesses into areas that were previously residential/commercial or other uses and would therefore not expose existing or proposed schools to hazardous emissions or industrial uses.
Any new residential, commercial, and mixed-use operations within 0.25 miles of a school would continue to be required to comply with regulations related to the routine use, storage, and transport of hazardous materials. For the reasons discussed above, impacts would be less than significant.
Threshold 4.8-4: Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code § 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
As indicated in Section 4.8.1, there are many sites located on or within 0.5 miles of the Proposed Project parcels that have been listed on databases compiled pursuant to the Cortese List, as well as other databases of contaminated sites (Figure 4.8-1). As discussed for Threshold 4.8-2, development of these sites, particularly open active remediation sites pursuant to the Cortese List, could cause an upset or accident condition where hazardous materials are released to the environment. The contamination at these sites could also restrict future land use (i.e., residential), without further remediation or protection measures. Even sites that have been closed may have remaining contamination that may pose a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Future site-specific development projects would be required to undergo individual permitting processes, including future CEQA review on a project-specific level if necessary. Therefore, individual site-specific hazards would be required to be addressed during future development ministerial or discretionary processing in compliance with local, state, and federal regulations. However, future development could result in upset or accidental conditions if not completed in compliance with regulations and with the proper oversight, and as such, impacts would be potentially significant.
In addition to rules and regulations, the proposed framework of MM-HAZ-1 and MM-HAZ-2 would require the
4.8 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.8-19
identification of hazardous materials, both in building materials and soils, that could result in a release if not properly identified and managed. In addition, sites are added to and removed from the contaminated site lists as defined in Government Code Section 65962.5 on a rolling basis. The preliminary hazardous materials evaluation required by MM-HAZ-1 would identify sites listed on Cortese and non-Cortese databases and is required to be completed within 1 year of preliminary permit issuances, reducing the likelihood of new contamination not being identified. Characterization and management procedures outlined in MM-HAZ-2 would further delineate and appropriately manage contamination, if identified, so that potential future development could be completed without significant hazards to the public or environment. With implementation of MM-HAZ-1 and MM-HAZ-2, as well as adherence to rules and regulations, impacts associated with Cortese List sites would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Threshold 4.8-5: 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 or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? For the purposes of this analysis, AIAs do not pose a safety risk associated with airport hazards; rather, an AIA is the area in which existing or future airport-related noise, overflight, safety, and/or airspace protection factors may significantly affect land uses or necessitate restrictions on those uses. The land use consistency analysis related to the AIA for MCAS Miramar Airport and Gillespie Field Airport is discussed in detail in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning. Section 4.10 discusses the applicable land use regulations that future development facilitated by the Proposed Project would comply with to ensure compatible land uses with Gillespie Field Airport and MCAS Miramar Airport.
As shown on Figures 4.8-2a and 4.8-2b, Airport Land Use Hazards, all the parcels within the proposed Community Corridor Overlay, along with the southernmost parcels located within the proposed Community Hub Overlay, are within or intersect Gillespie Field Safety Zones and Gillespie Field AIA Review Area 1. The proposed re-designation parcel (APN 378-160-25-00) does not intersect with Gillespie Field Review Areas or Safety Zones. Review Area 1 encompasses locations exposed to aircraft noise levels of 60 dB CNEL or greater together with all the Safety Zones identified in the ALUCP. All parcels within the proposed Community Corridor Overlay and Community Hub Overlay are within Gillespie Field AIA Review Area 2. Limits on the heights of structures, particularly in areas of high terrain, are the only restrictions on land uses within Review Area 2.
Specifically, parcels within the Community Corridor Overlay intersect with Safety Zones 2, 3, 4, and 6. Parcels within the Community Hub Overlay intersect with Safety Zone 4 and 6. No Proposed Project land use changes would fall within Safety Zone 1 or 5. Characteristics of the Safety Zones are described in Table 4.8-2, Gillespie Field Airport Safety Zone Characteristics, below.
4.8 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.8-20
Table 4.8-2. Gillespie Field Airport Safety Zone Characteristics Safety
Zone Description
Relative
Risk Level Nature of Accident Risk
1 Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)
and within Runway Primary
Surface primarily on airport
property; airport ownership
encouraged.
Very High Landing undershoots and overshoots; over-runs on aborted take-offs; loss of control on takeoff.
2 Inner Safety Zone High Airport at low altitude with limited directional options in emergencies: typically under 400 feet
on landing; on take-off engine at maximum stress.
3 Inner Turning Zone Moderate Turns at low altitude on arrival for aircraft flying tight base leg present stall-spin potential; likely
touchdown area if emergency at low altitude on
take-off, especially to left of centerline.
4 Outer Safety Zone Moderate Low altitude overflight for aircraft on straight-in approaches, especially instrument approaches; on
departure, aircraft normally complete transition
from take-off power and flap settings to climb
mode and begin turns to en route heading.
5 Sideline Zone primarily on
airport property
Low to
Moderate
Low risk on landing; moderate risk from loss of
directional control on takeoff, especially with twin
engine aircraft.
6 Traffic Pattern Zone Low Significant percentage of accidents, but spread over wide area; widely varied causes.
Source: SDCRAA 2010.
As identified in Table 4.8-2, the future development or redevelopment located within the applicable Safety Zones would potentially be exposed to the hazards identified. However, the Gillespie Field ALUCP provides policies and criteria applicable to future development, including compatible residential and non-residential development in certain safety zones and noise contours surrounding the airport, as well as non-compatible uses. The Gillespie Field ALUCP also includes regulations for land uses in Safety Zones 1 through 6 related to residential density and intensity allowed in each Safety Zone. The San Diego County Regional Airport Authority uses these policies and criteria to review land use plans and development proposals within the Safety Zones to ensure proposed development meets compatibility criteria. The proposed Land Use Element Update states that the City will review all development projects within the AIA to ensure consistency with the Gillespie Field ALUCP. For mixed-use development projects, they must meet both residential density and non-residential intensity criteria.
Proposed Policy LU-10.1. requires the following: “Review all development proposed in the Gillespie Field Airport Influence Areas, consistent with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) policies addressing noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight.” This policy would ensure the City reviews all future development applications for consistency with all compatibility criteria prior to approval, thereby avoiding potential conflicts with land use compatibility. Further, Goal LU-10 and Policy LU-10.1 through Policy LU-10.6 (as listed above in Section 4.8.3.3) align the Proposed Land Use Element Update with the land use regulations of the Gillespie Fild ALUCP to minimize exposure of residents to high levels of noise or risk of aircraft accidents. Specifically, Policy LU-10.2 requires the City to implement and maintain the Airport Limited Density Overlay, which is consistent with the Gillespie ALUCP, to restrict residential densities and development intensities in accordance with the AIA and Safety Zones.
4.8 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.8-21
As shown in Figures 4.8-2a and 4.8-2b, the majority of the proposed parcels within the Community Hub Overlay fall within Review Area 2 for MCAS Miramar. Parcel APN 378-160-25-00 does not intersect with either MCAS Miramar Airport Review Area. The MCAS Miramar ALUCP states that height limits on structures are the only restriction within Review Area 2. Height is limited for structures that have received final notice of determination from FAA that the project would constitute a hazard or obstruction to air navigation. This determination is made through the process known as “Part 77,” pursuant to Title 14 CFR, Chapter 1, Subchapter E, Part 77. Height would also be limited for any proposed object in a High Terrain Zone with a height greater than 35 feet above ground level. The Proposed Project land use changes do not fall within a mapped High Terrain Zone (SDCRAA 2011). Lastly, height would be limited for any project with potential to create electric or visual hazards or to cause an increase in attraction of birds or other wildlife that could result in a hazard to aircraft operations. The proposed land use changes would allow mixed-use development within MCAS Miramar Review Area 2. Mixed-use development would be unlikely to include any type of land uses that would create electric or visual hazards, such as bright or neon lights, or cause an increase in birds or other wildlife, such as a body of water. Regardless, all future development would be assessed for compatibility with land use restrictions and criteria as part of project review to ensure the future development would not result in a conflict with the MCAS Miramar Review Area 2 that could have the potential to result in a safety hazard.
In summary, all potential future development that would be facilitated by the Proposed Project and located within the AIA for either airport would be required to comply with policies in the ALUCP, including density and intensity regulations, and General Plan goals and policies to ensure consistency with compatibility criteria and avoid potential safety hazards. As applicable, site-specific land use proposals within the Review Area or Safety Zones for either airport would be reviewed by the City for consistency with ALUCP criteria and would be routed to the Airport Land Use Commission for a compatibility determination as part of the site-specific development review. If individual projects were found to be incompatible with the requirements of Gillespie Field ALUCP or the MCAS Miramar ALUCP, consultation with the Airport Land Use Commission would be undertaken at the time of specific development proposals. Notwithstanding the potential override of ALUCP density limitations, individual projects would be required to obtain an FAA determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation and/or implement FAA conditions that would allow the FAA determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation. Conformance with applicable City policies, ALUCP design considerations applicable to development with airport safety zones, and any applicable FAA conditions would ensure that future development facilitated by the Proposed Project and located within the Gillespie Field and MCAS Miramar Review Area 2 would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Plan Area. Impacts associated with airport hazards would be less than significant.
Threshold 4.8-6: Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
See Section 4.18, Wildfire, of this Draft PEIR for a detailed description of the existing emergency response and planning framework for the City and the potential impacts to the implementation of the Proposed Project. Below is a summary of the detailed analysis found in Section 4.18.
The Proposed Project is intended to guide citywide growth and development with a focus on land use and policy issues that are specific to the unique characteristics of the City. No specific development is proposed as part of the Proposed Project that would result in the impairment of an existing adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The City’s Safety and Environmental Justice Element includes goals and policies that support the preparation and providing of adequate emergency response services; requires all new development meet established response time standards for fire and life safety services (Policy 3.2); ensures the continuation of longterm maintenance of fire hazard reduction projects (Policy 3.21); requires the Santee Fire Department be involved
4.8 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.8-22
in the review of development applications (Policy 3.25); and requires that adequate staffing, equipment, technology, training, and funding for the Santee Fire Department be provided (Policy 3.31). As such, the impact to an existing adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan resulting from the implementation of the land use designations, goals, and policies of the Proposed Project would be less than significant.
As described in Table 3.2, Proposed Residential Land Use Change, in Chapter 3 of this Draft PEIR, the potential population increase at 65% buildout would result in an increase of approximately 16,151 additional residents.
Although the Proposed Project would potentially introduce a permanent residential population to the Plan Area that would require evacuation in a wildfire emergency, development and redevelopment resulting in population growth would occur over multiple years. Because the Plan Area is highly urbanized and built out, development or redevelopment facilitated by the Proposed Project, specifically the change in land use to new mixed-use designations, would consist of infill projects in urbanized areas with established streets and infrastructure, which would not be likely to require any substantive reconfigurations, changes, or additions to the street system that would impair or otherwise affect an emergency response or evacuation. Additionally, these structures would be subject to the California Fire Code, which includes regulations regarding fire services features, such as fire apparatus access roads and means of egress. The City’s Safety and Environmental Justice Element identifies evacuation routes from the EOP in proximity to the potential future development areas associated with the proposed land use changes, including State Route 52 (east–west), State Route 67 (north–south), and State Route 125 (north–south). Evacuation for the Proposed Project would rely on existing local roads that connect to these major transportation corridors (City of Santee 2025).
Any construction activities facilitated as a result of Proposed Project implementation that could potentially impact adjacent streets and roadways and thereby interfere with emergency access would be subject to review by the City’s Traffic Engineering Division, which is responsible for design, installation, and monitoring of traffic signals, signs, road markings, and other measures to ensure the safe and efficient flow of traffic on City streets, including traffic control plans. Traffic control plans are required for any construction activity that will disrupt traffic flow on City streets and must be prepared in accordance with the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, the San Diego Regional Standard Drawings, and the provision that emergency access to all nearby properties must be maintained at all times, unless the permit allows a temporary restriction. The traffic control plans must be prepared by a licensed traffic control company or a licensed Traffic Engineer.
As identified in the City’s Safety and Environmental Justice Element, which references the City’s EOP, law enforcement is responsible for coordinating evacuation efforts. Impacts to police and fire protection services would include the ability of the Sheriff and Fire Department to coordinate evacuation efforts within Santee. Individual development would make a fair share contribution to the City for the continued adequacy of fire response and emergency services consistent with the City’s Municipal Code and Fee Schedule. Fees are used for acquiring, designing, constructing, improving, providing, and maintaining fire and police facilities. Continued provision of fire and police facilities ensure adequate personnel, equipment, and resources to successfully manage emergency response. Development of fire stations and police stations/outposts in the City would be subject to review and approval by the Santee Fire Department as to sizing, location, and need (City of Santee 2025).
Due to compliance with required regulations (including applicable provision of the California Fire Code), implementation of traffic control plans during construction activity, continued implementation of emergency response programs to support the goals and policies set forth in the City’s Safety and Environmental Justice Element, and the general location and nature of Proposed Project–facilitated development (which would consist of infill development in areas with established roadway infrastructure and within existing developed areas), potential impacts to an adopted emergency response/evacuation plan associated with implementation of the Proposed Project would be less than significant.
4.8 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.8-23
Threshold 4.8-7: Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
The Proposed Project is a policy document that includes updates to land use designations, land use maps, goals, and policies, as described in Chapter 3. No physical development is proposed as part of the Project; however, while the Proposed Project would facilitate development or redevelopment though the proposed Community Hub Overlay, Community Corridors Overlay, and parcel APN 378-160-25-00, the Proposed Project would facilitate reasonably foreseeable development that would indirectly result in the exposure of people or structures to risk involving wildland fires.
As illustrated in Figure 4.18-1, Fire Hazard Severity Zones, the Plan Area includes lands in or near a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Areas identified as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones are primarily in the northern section of Santee. Much of the Fire Hazard Severity Zone covers undeveloped land. However, the zone also covers land along the western and eastern borders. The maximum buildout of residential uses would result in an increase of 10,192 dwelling units and 28,971 residents compared to the existing land use designations. Potential future development adjacent to or within a high fire hazard area can result in increased fire-related risk to people and structures. Although Proposed Project–facilitated development would increase the potential for ignition and fuels on the Plan Area, the proposed land use designation changes that could facilitate reasonably foreseeable future development would be within parts of the City that are generally surrounded by existing development, including existing roadways, which would act as fuel breaks between the mixed-use areas and the wildland–urban interface area. Parcel APN 378-160-25-00 is currently developed with municipal buildings, including City Hall, and open space on the eastern portion of the parcel. The portion designated Open Space would remain designated as Open Space, and the Proposed Project would not facilitate development within the open space. Potential development or redevelopment in these areas would not represent a substantial change in conditions that would exacerbate wildfire risk. Additionally, structures would be required to comply with all current City and state fire code standards, which would reduce the likelihood of fire ignition and spread. The Santee Fire Code, Chapter 11.18 of the City’s Municipal Code, requires fire protection plans, specific construction methods and requirements, construction materials, and other development requirements for new development within fire hazard severity zones or the wildland–urban interface (City of Santee 2025). As such, Proposed Project–facilitated development would not represent a significant fire risk and would not exacerbate wildfire risk. Additionally, in the case of a wildfire, occupants of Proposed Project–facilitated development would be advised on strategies to limit exposure by their local health and air quality officials to reduce exposure to pollutants. Impacts related to exposure of occupants of Proposed Project– facilitated development to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire would be less than significant.
4.8.4 Mitigation Measures
MM-HAZ-1 Preliminary Hazardous Materials Evaluation. Prior to the issuance of a grading, demolition, or building permit, a preliminary hazardous materials evaluation shall be completed on the proposed building site(s) to evaluate for past uses and operations that may have resulted in use or releases of hazardous materials to the environment. This includes sites that are listed on an environmental regulatory database as either currently undergoing investigation or remediation or previously underwent investigation or remediation, as well as sites with current or former industrial or commercial operations that may have utilized hazardous materials for manufacturing or operations. Past and current uses of the proposed project site shall be evaluated, and the evaluation shall include review of historical aerial photographs, topographic
4.8 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.8-24
maps, and regulatory files from permitting and environmental agencies with jurisdiction over the project site. The evaluation should be completed within 1 year of issuance of the grading, demolition, or building permits.
MM-HAZ-2 Contamination Characterization and Management. Based on the findings of the preliminary hazardous materials evaluation completed as part of Mitigation Measure (MM) HAZ-1 and prior to the issuance of a grading, demolition, or building permit, sites with previously documented soil, soil vapor, and/or groundwater contamination cases that have been closed shall be reviewed by the City of Santee (City) to determine compliance with applicable regulatory standards for exposure limits based on the proposed land use (i.e., residential, commercial, industrial), as well as construction worker safety requirements. The applicant may be required to provide additional data (i.e., samples) and/or a health risk assessment to the City to demonstrate such compliance prior to the issuance of a grading or demolition permit.
Avoidance. If sampling indicates soil contamination is identified above regulatory screening levels applicable to site development, development plans shall be prepared to avoid construction on or within areas of soil contamination or where grading/excavation may result in disturbance of contaminated soils. If soil vapor contamination is identified above regulatory screening levels, project plans shall be designed to avoid placement of buildings on areas with identified soil vapor contamination.
Soil Management Plan. If contaminated soils cannot be avoided, or if there is a chance that previously unidentified contaminated soils may be encountered, a soil management plan (SMP) shall be prepared by a qualified paleontological monitorenvironmental consultant (i.e., a hazardous materials professional such as an environmental engineer, Professional Engineer, Professional Geologist, or other equivalent profession with appropriate experience with contaminated soil management during construction) that outlines the proper screening, handling, characterization, transportation, and disposal procedures for contaminated soils on site. It is recommended the SMP include, as appropriate, avoidance measures to allow construction of the project site to be completed without encountering contaminated soils. The SMP shall include health and safety and training procedures for workers who may come in contact with contaminated soils. The SMP shall be implemented by the project applicant or their designated contractor for all sites with confirmed and suspected contaminated soils. If the hazardous materials evaluation (MM-HAZ-1) identified the potential for underground storage tanks, wells, or other subsurface features, the SMP shall also include procedures for the identification and proper abandonment or protection of these features, as applicable, should any be identified during demolition and construction activities. The SMP shall include all applicable federal, state, and local regulations (including San Diego County Certified Unified Program Agency and San Diego Air Pollution Control District) associated with handling, excavating, and disposing of contaminated soils; the proposed disposal facility that will accept the contaminated soils; and appropriate procedures, notifications, permitting requirements, handling, and disposal requirements for decommissioning any underground storage tanks, wells, or other subsurface features.
Soil Vapor Mitigation. If soil vapor impacts cannot be avoided and if concentrations of contaminants in soil vapor are above applicable regulatory screening levels for the proposed project within the footprint of a proposed building or enclosed structure, vapor mitigation measures shall be implemented in accordance with the State Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) 2011
4.8 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.8-25
Vapor Intrusion Mitigation Advisory or the most current regulatory guidance at the time of the project. The construction contractor shall incorporate vapor mitigation design features into building plans that reduce potential vapor intrusion in buildings and enclosed structures within the planning area to below DTSC Screening Levels current at the time of the project. Vapor mitigation systems may be passive or active in nature, so long as they are designed to prevent vapor intrusion into buildings in accordance with applicable DTSC regulations at the time the systems are designed.
The vapor mitigation design shall also include operations and maintenance (O&M) and a monitoring program to verify the functionality of the system in accordance with DTSC regulations applicable at the time the system is designed. Operation of the project shall maintain functionality of these features as required to continue protection from vapor intrusion. Following completion of construction and occupancy of the buildings, indoor air monitoring shall occur as outlined in the O&M procedures and per regulatory requirements to verify implemented measures are functioning properly and adequately mitigating vapor intrusion to below residential DTSC Screening Levels applicable to the project (residential or commercial/industrial). If indoor air samples reveal vapor intrusion occurring at levels above applicable DTSC Screening Levels, modifications shall be made, as necessary, to the designed system to improve the efficacy in reducing vapor intrusion to below applicable screening levels.
4.8.5 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Threshold 4.8-1: Potential impacts related to the routine use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Threshold 4.8-2: The Proposed Project would have the potential to result in upset or accidental condition if not completed in compliance with regulations and with the proper oversight, and as such, impacts would be potentially significant. In addition to rules and regulations, the proposed framework of MM-HAZ-1 and MM-HAZ-2 would require the identification of hazardous materials, both in building materials and soils, that could result in a release of hazardous materials if not properly identified and managed. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Threshold 4.8-3: Potential impacts related to the release of hazardous emissions or hazardous or acutely hazardous materials within 0.25 miles of an existing or proposed school would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Threshold 4.8-4: Potential impacts related to projects sites included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 would be potentially significant. In addition to rules and regulations, the proposed framework of MM-HAZ-1 and MM-HAZ-2 would require the identification of hazardous materials, both in building materials and soils, that could result in a release if not properly identified and managed. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Threshold 4.8-5: Potential impacts related to safety hazards or excessive noise from adjacent airport uses would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Threshold 4.8-6: Potential impacts related to impairment of an emergency response plan would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
4.8 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.8-26
Threshold 4.8-7: Potential impacts related to the exposure of, people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
4.8 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.8-27
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
$"#
$"# $"#
$"#
$"#
$"#
$"#
$"#$"#
$"#
$"#$"#
$"#
$"#
$"#
$"#
$"#
$"#
$" $"#
#
$"#
$"# $"#
$"#
$"#
$"#
$"#
$"#$"#
$"# $"# $"#
$"#
$"#
$"#$"#
$"#
$"#
$"#
$"#
$"#
$"# $"#
$"#
$"#$"#
$"#
$"#
$" $"#
#
$"#
$"#
$"# $"#
$"#$"#
$"#$"#
$"#
$"#
$"#$"#
$"#
$"#
$"# $"#
$"#
$"#
$"#
$"#
$"#
$"#
$"#
$"#$"# $"# $"#
$"# $"#
$"#
$"#
$"#
$"#
$"#
$"#
$"#
$"#
$"#
$"#
Woodside Ave
N
Cuyamaca
St
Weld Blvd
Riverside Dr
El Nopal
Ä67
0 0.5 1 n Miles Date: 2/13/2026 User: cbattle Path: Z:\Projects\j1710001\MAPDOC\PEIR\PEIR.aprx Map: Hazardous Waste Sites Within Half Mile of the Proposed Land Use Changes Layout: Figure 4.8-1 Hazardous Waste Sites Within Half Mile of the Proposed Land Use Changes City of Santee
Proposed Land Use
Community Corridor Overlay
Community Hub Overlay
OS
R-14
Hazardous Waste Site
$"# DTSC EnviroStor Sites
$"# SWRCB Geotracker Sites
SOURCE: Bing Maps 2025; City of Santee 2023; Open Street Map 2023 City of Santee Land Use Element PEIR
Hazardous Waste Sites Within ½ Mile of the Proposed Land Use Changes FIGURE 4.8-1
4.8 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.8-29
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Santee
Proposed Land Use
Community Corridor Overlay
Community Hub Overlay
OS
R-14
MCAS Miramar Airport Influence Area
AIA 2
Gillespie Field Airport Influence Area
Review Area 1
Review Area 2
Gillespie Field Airport Safety Zone
Zone 1
Zone 2
Zone 3
Zone 4
Zone 5
Zone 6
Date: 2/13/2026 User: cbattle Path: Z:\Projects\j1710001\MAPDOC\PEIR\PEIR.aprx Map: Airport Land Use Hazards (8a) Layout: Figure 4.8-2a Airport Land Use Hazards 0 0.5 1 n Miles
SOURCE: SanGIS 2025
City of Santee Land Use Element PEIR
Airport Land Use Hazards
FIGURE 4.8-2a
4.8 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.8-31
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Santee
Proposed Land Use
Community Corridor Overlay
Community Hub Overlay
OS
R-14
MCAS Miramar Airport Influence Area
AIA 2
Gillespie Field Airport Influence Area
Review Area 1
Review Area 2
Gillespie Field Airport Safety Zone
Zone 1
Zone 2
Zone 3
Zone 4
Zone 5
Zone 6
Date: 2/13/2026 User: cbattle Path: Z:\Projects\j1710001\MAPDOC\PEIR\PEIR.aprx Map: Airport Land Use Hazards (8b) Layout: Figure 4.8-2b Airport Land Use Hazards 0 1,160 2,320
n Feet
SOURCE: SanGIS 2025
City of Santee Land Use Element PEIR
Airport Land Use Hazards
FIGURE 4.8-2b
4.8 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.8-33
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
4.9 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.9-1
4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
This section of the draft program environmental impact report (PEIR) describes the existing hydrology and water quality conditions of the Plan Area, identifies associated regulatory requirements, and evaluates potential impacts related to implementation of the City of Santee (City) Land Use Element Update (Project or Proposed Project).
4.9.1 Existing Conditions
4.9.1.1 Environmental Setting
Hydrologic and Watershed Characteristics
The Plan Area is predominantly developed; however, there are some undeveloped or underdeveloped parcels interspersed throughout the Plan Area, including over 2,000 acres designated as Planned Development in the northern portion of Santee, which is the location of the planned Fanita Ranch development. Open space is largely confined to dedicated parks and trails throughout Santee. The majority of the Project parcels are developed lands with existing infrastructure (e.g., residential homes, commercial buildings, parking lots). A few of the parcels associated with the Project parcels are undeveloped sites with native vegetation.
The Plan Area is within the San Diego Hydrologic Unit in the lower San Diego Hydrologic Area and in the Santee Hydrologic Subarea of the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (Basin Plan). The San Diego Hydrologic Unit is a long, triangular-shaped area of about 440 square miles drained by the San Diego River that extends from El Capitan Reservoir to the Pacific Ocean. The watershed is drained by the San Diego River and contains five water storage reservoirs: El Capitan, San Vicente, Cuyamaca, Jennings, and Murray (San Diego RWQCB 2021).
Water Resources
As noted in the City’s General Plan Conservation Element, “The water in Santee’s waterways comes primarily from four sources: rainfall, surface runoff, groundwater from aquifers, and recycled water from Padre Dam Municipal Water District’s water recycling facility at Santee Lakes” (City of Santee 2003a). The City has five primary waterways:
the San Diego River, Forester Creek, Sycamore Creek, and creeks paralleling Big Rock Road and Fanita Drive. The watersheds for these waterways are described in the Conservation Element as follows (City of Santee 2003a):
All of the creeks have their own watersheds in addition to lying within the larger San Diego River watershed. Forester Creek drains the runoff from the north facing slopes of hills within the City of El Cajon. Sycamore Creek drains the runoff from Sycamore Canyon and from Carlton Hills, and the creeks running parallel to Fanita Drive and Big Rock Road drain the runoff from Cowles Mountain and Fanita Hills located within the City of El Cajon. All of these watersheds empty into the San Diego River, which flows westward into the Pacific Ocean.
Groundwater Resources
The groundwater resources in the San Diego region are described in the Basin Plan as follows (San Diego RWQCB 2021):
All major drainage basins in the San Diego Region contain ground water basins. The basins are relatively small in area and usually shallow. Although these groundwater basins are limited in size, the groundwater yield from the basins has been important to the development of the Region. A
4.9 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.9-2
number of the larger ground water basins can be of future significance in the Region for storage of both imported waters and reclaimed wastewaters. Nearly all of the local ground waters of the Region have been intensively developed for municipal and agricultural supply purposes.
As noted in the San Diego County Water Authority’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, “Groundwater accounts for a small percentage of the San Diego region’s water supply portfolio” (SDCWA 2021). The 2020 Urban Water Management Plan estimates that water agencies within the San Diego County Water Authority’s service area use about 22,300 acre-feet per year (AFY) of groundwater. In general, groundwater supplies are limited by both the geology and the semi-arid hydrologic conditions of the region. Narrow river valleys with shallow alluvial deposits are characteristic of many of the “more productive groundwater basins.” Excessive salinity in many basins has occurred as a result of irrigation with saline imported water and overpumping. Outside of the alluvial basins, groundwater resources are limited and generally only capable of yielding small amounts of groundwater (SDCWA 2021).
Groundwater basins within Santee are generally limited to areas along the San Diego River, Sycamore Creek, and Forester Creek (City of Santee 2003b). The quality of groundwater is low as indicated by the total dissolved solids goal as tabulated for this area by the Basin Plan. The total dissolved solids goal is 1,000 milligrams/liter for the Santee Hydrologic Sub Area and 2,000 milligrams/liter for the Santee Hydrologic Sub Area (alluvial aquifer for lower Sycamore Canyon) (San Diego RWQCB 2021), which is generally considered not suitable as a source for potable water.
Flood Hazards
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) defines a 100-year flood zone as an area with a 1% or higher chance of experiencing a flood each year (referred to as a “High Risk Flood Zone”) and a 500-year flood zone as an area with a 0.2% or higher chance of experiencing a flood each year (referred to as a “Moderate Risk Flood Zone”).
Areas surrounding the San Diego River and, to a lesser extent, Forester Creek are located within High Risk and Moderate Risk Flood Zones. Portions of the proposed Community Corridor Overlay and Community Hub Overlay parcels are located in the 500-year flood hazard and 100-year flood hazard areas, as shown in Figure 4.9-1, FEMA Flood Zones. The proposed Medium-High Residential (R-14) parcel is not located within a flood hazard area.
Drainage Features
The City’s municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) consists of nearly 50 miles of storm drainpipes, and 5 miles of open channel, which drain to 10 miles of creeks and rivers. The largest receiving water in Santee is the San Diego River, which enters Santee in the east and flows westward toward the Pacific Ocean. Additionally, Forester Creek enters from the southeast and enters the San Diego River at a location west of Carlton Hills Boulevard. Sycamore Creek enters Santee from the north, flows southward, and enters the San Diego River just past Santee Lakes Regional Park.
As the City has developed, drainage infrastructure has been constructed to reduce the potential for flooding and divert stormwater from properties and roadways. Most of the infrastructure has been designed to accommodate the stormwaters of a 100-year flood. The City’s Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Years 2024–2028 (City of Santee 2023) identifies funding for a number of citywide drainage improvements, including the Corrugated Metal Pipe (CMP) Storm Drain Replacement Program, Mission Gorge Road Drainage Improvements, San Diego River Bacteria Reduction projects, Shadow Hill Road/Woodside Avenue Drainage Improvements, and Storm Drain Trash Diversion project. In addition, new development is conditioned to construct master drainage facilities or pay development fees, as needed, to address drainage deficiencies.
4.9 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.9-3
Dam Inundation Areas
There are three lakes located upstream from the Plan Area that are used for water storage. These include the San Vicente Dam, the El Capitan Dam, and the Chet Harritt Dam (Lake Jennings). The whole Plan Area is within a dam inundation area for the El Capitan Dam, the Chet Harritt Dam, and/or San Vicente Dam (DWR 2025a). The inundation maps for the El Capitan Dam and the San Vicente Dam were prepared in 1974; the Chet Harritt Dam inundation map was prepared in approximately 1975. Based on current knowledge, no hazardous conditions exist at any of the dams.
The California Department of Water Resources, Division of Dam Safety, reviews the safety of dams annually.
4.9.2 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances
Federal
Clean Water Act
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the lead federal agency responsible for water quality management. The Clean Water Act (CWA) is the primary federal law that governs and establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States and regulating quality standards for surface waters. Pursuant to federal law, EPA has published water quality regulations under Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Various elements of the CWA address water quality. These are discussed below.
Water Quality Criteria/Standards
Section 303 of the CWA requires states to adopt water quality standards for all surface waters of the United States.
Water quality standards consist of designated beneficial uses of the water body in question and criteria that protect the designated uses. EPA publishes advisory water quality criteria that reflect the latest scientific knowledge on the kind and extent of all effects on health and welfare that may be expected from the presence of pollutants in water.
As described in the discussion of state regulations below, the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) have designated authority in California to identify beneficial uses and adopt applicable water quality objectives (WQOs).
Clean Water Act Section 303(d) Impaired Waters List
Section 303(d) of the CWA requires states to identify waters where current pollution control technologies alone cannot meet the water quality standards set for that waterbody. Every 2 years, states are required to submit a list of impaired waters and any that may soon become impaired to EPA. As part of submittal to EPA, states must develop a total maximum daily load (TMDL) for each of the listed pollutants. In California, implementation of TMDLs is achieved through water quality control plans, known as basin plans.
Clean Water Act Section 401
CWA Section 401 requires that any person applying for a federal permit or license for a project that may result in a discharge of pollutants into waters of the United States must obtain a state water quality certification that the activity complies with all applicable water quality standards, limitations, and restrictions. In California, the authority to grant a water quality certification or waive the requirement is delegated by SWRCB to the nine RWQCBs. A Section 401 Water Quality Certification is required for any activities requiring a Section 404 permit (see CWA Section 404, below) to discharge dredged or fill materials into waters of the United States.
4.9 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.9-4
Clean Water Act Section 404
CWA Section 404 requires authorization from the Secretary of the Army, acting through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, for the discharge of dredged or fill material into all waters of the United States, including wetlands.
Waters of the United States and their lateral limits are defined in Title 33, Part 328.3(a) of the Code of Federal Regulations. Any activity resulting in the placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the United States requires a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In accordance with CWA Section 401, projects that apply for a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit for discharge of dredged or fill material must also obtain water quality certification from the appropriate RWQCB indicating that the project will uphold water quality standards.
Clean Water Act Section 402
CWA Section 402(p) established the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program that regulates MS4 discharges to surface waters of the United States. Under the NPDES program, all industrial facilities (including active construction sites) and municipalities of a certain size that discharge pollutants into waters of the United States are required to obtain a NPDES permit. Stormwater discharges in California are commonly regulated through general and individual NPDES permits, which are adopted by SWRCB or the RWQCBs and administered by the RWQCBs.
Federal Emergency Management Agency
FEMA is the primary federal agency with the responsibility of administering programs and coordinating with communities to establish effective floodplain management standards. FEMA is responsible for developing the Flood Insurance Rate Map, which delineates Special Flood Hazard Areas and flood risk zones. State and local agencies are responsible for implementing regulations, ordinances, and policies in compliance with FEMA requirements to address floodplain management issues.
National Flood Insurance Act
The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 established the National Flood Insurance Program to provide flood insurance within communities that adopt floodplain management programs to mitigate future flood losses. The Act also requires identification of all floodplain areas within the United States and the establishment of flood risk zones within those areas. FEMA is the primary agency responsible for administering programs and coordinating with communities to establish effective floodplain management standards. FEMA is responsible for preparing Flood Insurance Rate Maps that delineate the areas of known special flood hazards and their risk applicable to the community.
Executive Order 11988
Under Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, FEMA is responsible for management of floodplain areas defined as the lowland and relatively flat areas adjoining inland and coastal waters subject to a 1% or greater chance of flooding in any given year (the 100-year floodplain). FEMA requires that local governments covered by federal flood insurance pass and enforce a floodplain management ordinance that specifies minimum requirements for any construction within the 100-year floodplain. The Executive Order addresses floodplain issues related to public safety, conservation, and economics. It generally requires federal agencies constructing, permitting, or funding a project in a floodplain to avoid incompatible floodplain development, be consistent with the standards and criteria of the National Flood Insurance Program, and restore and preserve natural and beneficial floodplain values.
4.9 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.9-5
State
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act is the principal statute governing water quality and water pollution issues in California and is the primary vehicle for implementation of California’s responsibilities under the CWA. Unlike the CWA, the Porter-Colone Act applies to both surface and groundwater. The Porter-Cologne Act gives authority to SWRCB and each of the nine RWQCBs power to protect water quality. The City is under the jurisdiction of the San Diego RWQCB – Region 9. SWRCB and the San Diego RWQCB have the authority and responsibility to adopt plans and policies, regulate discharges to surface and groundwater, regulate waste disposal sites, and require cleanup of discharges of hazardous materials and other pollutants. The Porter-Cologne Act also establishes reporting requirements for unintended discharges of any hazardous substances, sewage, or oil or petroleum products.
Each RWQCB must formulate and adopt a water quality control plan (basin plan) for its region. The basin plans must conform to the policies set forth in the Porter-Cologne Act and established by SWRCB in its state water policy. The Porter-Cologne Act also provides that an RWQCB may include within its basin plan water discharge prohibitions applicable to conditions, areas, or types of waste.
San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board Basin Plan The basin plan for Region 9 recognizes natural water quality, existing and potential beneficial uses, and water quality problems. The San Diego RWQCB also has regulatory authority to enforce the requirements of the CWA and the California Water Code. This includes the regulatory authority to enforce the implementation of TMDLs, the adoption of waste discharge requirements to ensure compliance with surface WQOs, and groundwater management.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Construction General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity Under the Construction General Permit (CGP), the state requires that projects disturbing more than 1 acre of land during construction file a Notice of Intent with RWQCB in order to be covered under the CGP. The following construction activities generate the need for a CGP: clearing, grading, stockpiling, and excavation. A stormwater pollution prevention plan must be developed and implemented for each site covered by the CGP, and best management practices (BMPs) need to be included and designed to prevent construction pollutants from contacting stormwater and keep products of erosion from moving off site into receiving waters throughout the construction and life of the project.
Water Code
The California Water Code is enforced by the California Department of Water Resources. The Water Code outlines California waters of the state and regulates the discharge of waste or fill into these waters.
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act provides a framework to regulate groundwater. The intent of the law is to strengthen local groundwater management of basins most critical to the state’s water needs with an understanding that groundwater is most effectively managed at the local level. The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act requires basins to be sustainably managed by local public agencies (e.g., counties, cities, and water agencies) who become Groundwater Sustainability Agencies. The primary purpose of the Groundwater
4.9 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.9-6
Sustainability Agencies is to develop and implement a Groundwater Sustainability Plan to achieve long-term groundwater sustainability. The act requires Groundwater Sustainability Plans to be developed for high- and medium-priority basins. The City’s groundwater basins are not required to implement Groundwater Sustainability Plans (DWR 2025b).
Local
City of Santee Clean Water Storm Water Program
Stormwater runoff in Santee is regulated in accordance with the City’s Guidelines for Surface Water Pollution Prevention (City of Santee 2015). This stormwater guidance manual supports the City’s Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (Stormwater Management Ordinance), codified as Chapter 9.06 of the City’s Municipal Code. The manual also supports the water quality protection provisions of Municipal Code Chapter 11.40, Excavation and Grading. Moreover, the manual is not a stand-alone document but must be read with applicable parts of the aforementioned chapters of the City’s Municipal Code (collectively, “ordinances”). In general, this stormwater manual categorically and explicitly establishes how dischargers must comply with the ordinances and receive permits for projects and activities that are subject to those ordinances. The stormwater manual and the ordinances have been prepared to provide the City with the respective legal authority and administrative actions necessary to comply with the requirements of the CGP (Order No. 2022-0057-DWQ).
City of Santee Best Management Practice Design Manual
The City’s BMP Design Manual provides guidelines for compliance with on-site post-construction stormwater requirements in the Regional MS4 Permit and assists the land development community by streamlining project reviews and maximizing cost-effective environmental benefits, meeting performance standards specified in the Regional MS4 Permit. As noted in the BMP Design Manual, “[b]y following the process outlined in this manual, [proponents] (for both private and public developments) can develop a single integrated design that complies with the … Regional MS4 Permit source control and site design requirements, storm water pollutant control requirements (i.e., water quality), and hydromodification management (flow-control and sediment supply) requirements” (City of Santee 2016).
Jurisdictional Runoff Management Program
Runoff is managed in accordance with the City’s Jurisdiction Runoff Management Program (City of Santee 2021):
The [Regional MS4 Permit] … regulates discharges to [MS4s] within 18 municipalities in San Diego County, the County of San Diego, the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority, and the San Diego Unified Port District (collectively referred to as Copermittees or Municipalities). [The Regional MS4 Permit requires] each Copermittee, including the City of Santee (City), to develop a comprehensive … Jurisdictional Runoff Management Program (JRMP).… The JRMP is the City of Santee’s approach to improving water quality in rivers, bays, lakes, and the Pacific Ocean through reducing discharges of pollutants to the storm water conveyance system. The City’s storm water conveyance system, like that of most other jurisdictions across the United States, conveys runoff from rain, irrigation runoff, natural groundwater seepage, and other sources of water…. To reduce pollutants in these discharges to water bodies, the City implements or requires its residents, businesses, municipal facilities, and land owners to implement a variety of measures commonly referred to as best management practices (BMPs).… Major components of the JRMP include the
4.9 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.9-7
implementation of BMP requirements, water quality monitoring, educational outreach efforts, municipal maintenance procedures, inspection and enforcement programs, and water quality monitoring procedures.
City of Santee General Plan
The City’s General Plan includes goals and policies related to hydrology and water quality in the Conservation Element, Community Enhancement Element (City of Santee 2003a), and Safety and Environmental Justice Element (City of Santee 2025).
Conservation Element
Objective 2.0. Protect floodways to reduce flood hazards, protect biological resources and preserve the aesthetic quality along water corridors.
Policy 2.1. The City shall encourage the protection of the San Diego River Corridor and all other City water corridors to reduce flood hazards, protect significant biological resources and scenic values, and to provide for appropriate recreational uses.
Policy 2.6. The City encourages the development of appropriate flood control measures to assure public safety, which also prioritize maintenance of natural habitats and vegetation, and provision of community recreational opportunities as feasible and appropriate.
Policy 2.7. The City shall ensure that all development proposals are located outside of designated floodways and all development in the 100-year floodplain is consistent with the City’s Flood Damage Protection Ordinance.
Community Enhancement Element
Objective 16.0. Utilize the natural design elements presented by the river/creek system within the City.
Policy 16.1. The City should encourage the strengthening of links between the San Diego River, Forester Creek, Woodglen Vista Creek and the Sycamore Creek/Santee Lakes.
Policy 16.2. The City should promote the introduction of water elements (fountains, streams/canals, ponds, etc.) and riparian plant materials (i.e Sycamores, Oaks, etc) into developments along watercourses.
Policy 16.3. The City should ensure that all development along the River corridor maximizes orientation towards the River and enhances the natural character of the River.
Policy 16.4. The City shall respect the natural stream processes of the San Diego River and its tributaries and ensure that flood control improvements along existing watercourses/channels avoid concrete channelization whenever possible and retain the natural character of the corridor through planting or preservation of native vegetation.
Safety and Environmental Justice Element
Objective 1.0. Minimize injuries, loss of life, and property damage resulting from flood hazards.
4.9 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.9-8
Policy 1.1. Encourage the use of innovative site design strategies within the floodplain, which ensure the minimization of flood hazards and maintenance of the natural character of waterways.
Policy 1.2. Require that developments proposed within a floodplain area use design and site planning techniques to ensure that structures are elevated at least 1 foot above the 100-year flood level.
Policy 1.6. Require a hydrologic study, including the analysis of effects on downstream and upstream properties and on the flood-carrying characteristics of the stream, for development proposed in the floodplain.
Policy 1.8. Prohibit development within the 100-year floodway, subject to the provisions of the City of Santee’s Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance.
City of Santee Municipal Code
Chapter 9.06 – Stormwater Management and Discharge Control City Municipal Code Chapter 9.06, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control, is intended “to protect and enhance the water quality of [local] watercourses, water bodies, and wetlands in a manner pursuant to and consistent with the Clean Water Act, the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and [Regional MS4 Permit]” through the following means:
Effectively prohibiting nonstormwater discharges to the stormwater conveyance system.
Eliminating illicit discharges and illicit connections to the stormwater conveyance system.
Reducing the discharge of pollutants from the stormwater conveyance system, to the maximum extent practicable in order to achieve applicable water quality objectives for surface waters in San Diego County.
Achieving compliance with total maximum daily load (TMDL) regulations.
Chapter 11.36 – Flood Damage Prevention
City Municipal Code Chapter 11.36, Flood Damage Prevention, establishes regulatory standards “to minimize the public and private losses due to flood conditions.” The standards apply to “all areas of special flood hazards” as designated in the City’s Municipal Code Section 11.36.070. Specifically, Section 11.36.150 provides detailed standards of construction applicable to all areas of special flood hazard including types of construction materials, elevation requirements, and flood-proofing design measures.
Chapter 11.40 – Excavation and Grading
City Municipal Code Chapter 11.40, Excavation and Grading, “[e]stablishes minimum requirements for grading, excavating and filling of land” and provides water quality protection provisions. It also provides for the issuance of permits and the enforcement of the chapter provisions.
Title 12 – Subdivision of Land, Development Fees, and Dedications There are several development impact fees in the City’s Municipal Code. These fees impose on new development the costs of constructing public facilities, which are reasonably related to the impacts of the new development. The drainage fee is for the installation of needed drainage improvements identified from the City’s latest master drainage facility study.
4.9 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.9-9
4.9.3 Environmental Impacts
4.9.3.1 Methodology
The Project is a policy document that does not include or propose any site-specific development that could directly result in construction or operational impacts to the environment. Rather, implementation of the Project would result in changes to land use designations, which would allow for future development/redevelopment to occur. Therefore, this Draft PEIR does not assess the site-specific construction and operation details of each future development within the Plan Area. Instead, it assesses the impacts associated with the changes to existing land uses and the associated overall effects of the buildout of the Project through 2045 where reasonably foreseeable physical changes to the environment could occur.
4.9.3.2 Thresholds of Significance
The significance criteria used to evaluate the Project’s impacts to hydrology and water quality are based on CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. For the purposes of this Project, a potentially significant impact to hydrology and water quality would occur if the Proposed Project would:
1. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality.
2. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin.
3. 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:
a. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. b. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site.
c. 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. d. Impede or redirect flood flows.
4. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation.
5. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.
4.9.3.3 Land Use Element Update Relevant Goals and Policies None of the proposed draft goals, policies, and implementation actions from the Land Use Element Update are relevant to hydrology and water quality.
4.9 – HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 4.9-10
4.9.3.4 Impacts Analysis
Threshold 4.9-1: Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? The Project is a policy document that does not include or propose any site-specific development that could directly result in construction or operational impacts to the environment. However, the Proposed Project would involve land use designation changes that allow for reasonably foreseeable development and redevelopment at a higher density than allowed under the current land use and zoning at the Project parcels. The following analysis applies to potential future development within any of the areas proposed for land use designation changes (i.e., the Community Hub Overlay, the Community Corridor Overlay, and Assessor’s Parcel Number [APN] 378-160-25-00 proposed for Medium-High Residential [R-14], also referred to as the Project parcels).