“Improving lives and communities through transportation” various modes of travel, with the goal of improving the experience of those who use the transportation system.
Caltrans has the following comments:
Traffic Impact Study
• New developments resulting from the City of Santee Land Use Element Update should provide a Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) based Traffic Impact Study (TIS) and local mobility analysis should be provided for future projects. Please use the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research Guidance to identify VMT related impacts.1
• The TIS may also need to identify the proposed project’s near-term and long-term safety or operational issues, on or adjacent any existing or proposed State facilities.
• The Draft EIR needs to include a safety review that follows the Caltrans “Local Development Review (LDR) Safety Review Practitioner’s Guidance” https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/safetyprograms/documents/202402-ldr-safety-review-practitioners-guidance-a11y.pdf.
Complete Streets and Mobility Network
Caltrans views all transportation improvements as opportunities to improve safety, access and mobility for all travelers in California and recognizes bicycle, pedestrian and transit modes as integral elements of the transportation network. Caltrans supports improved transit accommodation through the provision of Park and Ride facilities, improved bicycle and pedestrian access and safety improvements, signal prioritization for transit, bus on shoulders, ramp improvements, or other enhancements that promotes a complete and integrated transportation network. Early coordination with Caltrans, in locations that may affect both Caltrans and the City of Santee is encouraged.
To reduce greenhouse gas emissions and achieve California’s Climate Change target, Caltrans is implementing Complete Streets and Climate Change policies into State Highway Operations and Protection Program (SHOPP) projects to meet multi-modal mobility needs. Caltrans looks forward to working with the City to evaluate potential Complete Streets projects.
1 California Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) 2018. "Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA." https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122-743_Technical_Advisory.pdf Ms. Madeline Mattson, Principal Planner
6/17/2025
“Improving lives and communities through transportation” Bicycle, pedestrian, and public transit access during construction is important.
Mitigation to maintain bicycle, pedestrian, and public transit access during construction is in accordance with Caltrans’ goals and policies.
Land Use and Smart Growth
Caltrans recognizes there is a strong link between transportation and land use.
Development can have a significant impact on traffic and congestion on State transportation facilities. In particular, the pattern of land use can affect both local vehicle miles traveled and the number of trips. Caltrans supports collaboration with local agencies to work towards a safe, functional, interconnected, multi-modal transportation network integrated through applicable “smart growth” type land use planning and policies.
The City should continue to coordinate with Caltrans to implement necessary improvements at intersections and interchanges where the agencies have joint jurisdiction.
Noise
The applicant must be informed that in accordance with 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 772, the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is not responsible for existing or future traffic noise impacts associated with the existing configuration of SR-52, SR-67 and SR-125.
Environmental
Caltrans welcomes the opportunity to be a Responsible Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as we have some discretionary authority of a portion of the project that is in Caltrans’ Right-of-Way (R/W) through the form of an encroachment permit process. We look forward to the coordination of our efforts to ensure that Caltrans can adopt the alternative and/or mitigation measure for our R/W. We would appreciate meeting with you to discuss the elements of the Environmental Document that Caltrans will use for our subsequent environmental compliance.
An encroachment permit will be required for any work within the Caltrans’ R/W prior to construction. As part of the encroachment permit process, the applicant must provide approved final environmental documents for this project, corresponding technical studies, and necessary regulatory and resource agency permits. Specifically, CEQA determination or exemption. The supporting documents must address all environmental impacts within the Caltrans’ R/W and address any impacts from avoidance and/or mitigation measures.
Ms. Madeline Mattson, Principal Planner
6/17/2025
“Improving lives and communities through transportation” We recommend that this project specifically identifies and assesses potential impacts caused by the project or impacts from mitigation efforts that occur within Caltrans’ R/W that includes impacts to the natural environment, infrastructure including but not limited to highways, roadways, structures, intelligent transportation systems elements, on-ramps and off-ramps, and appurtenant features including but not limited to fencing, lighting, signage, drainage, guardrail, slopes and landscaping. Caltrans is interested in any additional mitigation measures identified for the project’s draft Environmental Document.
Should future projects based upon the changes enacted from the General Plan have elements and/or mitigation measures that affect Caltrans’ Right-of-Way, Caltrans would welcome the opportunity to be a Responsible Agency under CEQA.
Sustainability
The City of Santee Climate Action Plan (CAP) contains several actions and strategies that align with Caltrans’ responsibilities and priorities. Caltrans recommends collaboration between our agency and the City of Santee on the proposed transportation related topics including adaptation strategies to help improve the City’s resilience to potential climate change impacts and strategies to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and off-road and on-road greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Caltrans recognizes that transportation is a leading contributor to GHG emissions in the region and is dedicated to reducing and mitigating transportation related emissions.
We recommend collaborating with Caltrans on the following measures such as increasing the use of zero emission vehicles, installing electric vehicle (EV) charging stations, identifying R/W areas to be used for carbon sequestration, and complete streets.
The existing climate hazards discussed in this document will have an impact of the transportation system. We recommend working with Caltrans on determining the preventative strategies the Caltrans can take to keep roadways operational and ensure their longevity against climate stressors such as increased temperatures, changes in precipitation patterns, wildfire, and flooding. Caltrans recognizes the central role that transportation planning plays in safety and ensuring that when these natural hazards do occur, citizens have a reliable evacuation route.
Broadband
Caltrans recognizes that teleworking and remote learning lessen the impacts of traffic on our roadways and surrounding communities. This reduces the amount of VMT and decreases the amount of GHG emissions and other pollutants. The availability of affordable and reliable, high-speed broadband is a key component in supporting Ms. Madeline Mattson, Principal Planner
6/17/2025
“Improving lives and communities through transportation” travel demand management and reaching the state’s transportation and climate action goals.
Mitigation
Caltrans endeavors that any direct and cumulative impacts to the State Highway network be eliminated or reduced to a level of insignificance pursuant to the CEQA and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) standards.
Right-of-Way
Per Business and Profession Code 8771, perpetuation of survey monuments by a licensed land surveyor is required, if they are being destroyed by any construction.
Any work performed within Caltrans’ R/W will require discretionary review and approval by Caltrans and an encroachment permit will be required for any work within the Caltrans’ R/W prior to construction.
For individual projects that may be included in the Program EIR and have impacts to Caltrans’ R/W additional information regarding encroachment permits may be obtained by visiting the website at https://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic-operations/ep.
Projects with the following:
• require a Caltrans Encroachment Permit
• have completed the Caltrans Local Development Review (LDR) process • have an approved environmental document
need to have documents submitted for Quality Management Assessment Process (QMAP) process via email to [email protected]. Early coordination with Caltrans is strongly advised for all encroachment permits.
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Mark McCumsey, LDR Coordinator, at (619) 985-4957 or by e-mail sent to [email protected].
Sincerely,
Kimberly D. Dodson
KIMBERLY D. DODSON, GISP
Branch Chief
Local Development Review
State of California – Natural Resources Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director South Coast Region
3883 Ruffin Road
San Diego, CA 92123
wildlife.ca.gov
Conserving California’s Wildlife Since 1870
June 23, 2025
Madeline Mattson
City of Santee
10601 Magnolia Avenue
Santee, California 92107
[email protected]
Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Program Environmental Impact Report for the City of Santee Land Use Element Update Project, SCH No. 2025051050, San Diego County, CA
Dear Madeline Mattson:
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) reviewed the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) from the City of Santee (City) for the City of Santee Land Use Element Update Project (Project) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines1.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations regarding those activities involved in the Project that may affect California fish and wildlife.
Likewise, CDFW appreciates the opportunity to provide comments regarding those aspects of the Project that CDFW, by law, may be required to carry out or approve through the exercise of its own regulatory authority under the Fish and Game Code.
CDFW ROLE
CDFW is California’s Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources and holds those resources in trust by statute for all the people of the State (Fish & G. Code, §§ 711.7, subd. (a) & 1802; Pub. Resources Code, § 21070; CEQA Guidelines § 15386, subd. (a)). CDFW, in its trustee capacity, has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species (Fish & G. Code, § 1802). Similarly, for purposes of CEQA, CDFW is charged by law to provide, as available, biological expertise during public agency environmental review efforts, focusing specifically on projects and related activities that have the potential to adversely affect fish and wildlife resources.
CDFW may also act as a Responsible Agency under CEQA. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21069; CEQA Guidelines, § 15381). CDFW expects that it may need to exercise 1 CEQA is codified in the California Public Resources Code in section 21000 et seq. The “CEQA Guidelines” are found in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, commencing with section 15000.
Docusign Envelope ID: B3432A82-2002-487E-A0C1-3BDABCC54C78 Madeline Mattson
City of Santee
June 23, 2025
regulatory authority as provided by the Fish and Game Code. For example, the Project may be subject to CDFW’s lake and streambed alteration regulatory authority (Fish & G.
Code, § 1600 et seq.). Likewise, to the extent implementation of the Project as proposed may result in “take” as defined by State law2 of any species protected under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish & G. Code, § 2050 et seq.) or the Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA; Fish & G. Code, §1900 et seq.), the Project proponent may seek related take authorization as provided by the Fish and Game Code.
CDFW also administers the Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) Program, a California regional habitat conservation planning program. The City participates in the NCCP program through their enrollment in the County of San Diego Subregional Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) and the development of their MSCP Subarea Plan (subarea plan).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY
Proponent: City of Santee (City)
Objective: The City is updating its Land Use Element, which is one of the seven components of the City’s General Plan. The stated goal of updating this element is to, (1) connect people to parks, open space, biking, walking, shopping, jobs, and transit; (2) encourage economic development to create new businesses, jobs, retail, and entertainment; and (3) create more places to live. This update will also look at ways to enhance commercial and residential sites along the City’s main commercial corridors to create mixed-use communities. The Project will include an update to the existing conditions to reflect the latest available information; an update to the planning horizon through the year 2045; and revisions to the Land Use Element to meet the goals described above.
Location: Throughout the City of Santee
Biological Setting: As described in the Conservation Element of the Santee General Plan3, the City of Santee sits partially on the coastal plain of the Coastal Province and partially on the foothills of the Peninsular Range Province. The center of the City is characterized by relatively flat topography, while the north and southeastern portions of the City are generally steeper. Six major drainage courses pass through the City: the San Diego River, Forester Creek, Sycamore Creek, Woodglen Vista Creek, Fanita Creek, and Big Rock Creek. Vegetation communities occurring in the City include Diegan coastal sage scrub, grasslands, wetlands, and riparian habitats. The City is almost surrounded by undeveloped land, including Mission Trails Regional Park to the west and southwest, Marine Corps Air Station Miramar to the west and northwest, the 2 “Take” is defined in Section 86 of the Fish and Game Code as “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill.”
3 https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/documents/planning-building/general-plan/gp-conservation-element.pdf Docusign Envelope ID: B3432A82-2002-487E-A0C1-3BDABCC54C78 Madeline Mattson
City of Santee
June 23, 2025
County of San Diego’s Sycamore Goodan Ranch Open Space Preserve to the north, and a low-density portion of the Community of Lakeside to the east.
The City and the surrounding areas are home to a wide range of plant and wildlife resources, including the following special status species:
Invertebrates
• San Diego fairy shrimp (Brachinecta sandiegonensis; Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed endangered),
• Crotch’s bumble bee (Bombus crotchii; CESA-candidate endangered), • Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino; ESA-listed endangered), • Hermes copper butterfly (Lycaena Hermes; ESA-listed threatened), Amphibians
• Western spadefoot (Spea hammondii; ESA-proposed threatened, Species of Special Concern (SSC)),
Reptiles
• California glossy snake (Arizona elegans occidentalis; SSC), • Coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii; SSC),
• Coast patch-nosed snake (Salvadora hexalepis virgultea; SSC), • Coastal whiptail (Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri; SSC), • Red-diamond rattlesnake (Crotalus ruber; SSC),
• Southern California legless lizard (Anniella stebbinsi; SSC), • Two-stripe gartersnake (Thamnophis hammondii; SSC),
Birds
• Coastal cactus wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapullus sandiegensis; SSC), • Coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica; ESA-listed threatened, SSC),
• Least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus; ESA-listed endangered, CESA-listed endangered),
• Tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor; CESA-listed threatened), • Yellow warbler (Setophaga petechia; SSC),
Mammals
• American badger (Taxidea taxus; SSC),
• Big free-tailed bat (Nyctinomops macrotis; SSC),
• Pocketed free-tail bat (Nyctinomops femorosaccus; SSC), • Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus; SSC),
Docusign Envelope ID: B3432A82-2002-487E-A0C1-3BDABCC54C78 Madeline Mattson
City of Santee
June 23, 2025
• San Diego desert woodrat (Neotoma lepida intermedia; SSC), • Western yellow bat (Lasiurus xanthinus; SSC),
Plants
• Decumbent goldenbush (Isocoma menziesii var. decumbens; California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 1B.2),
• Del Mar manzanita (Arctostaphylos glandulosa ssp. crassifolia; ESA-listed endangered, CRPR 1B.1),
• Nuttall’s scrub oak (Quercus dumosa; CRPR 1B.1),
• San Diego ambrosia (Ambrosia pumila; ESA-listed endangered), • San Diego barrel cactus (Ferocactus viridescens; CRPR 2B.1), • San Diego goldenstar (Bloomeria clevelandii; CRPR 1B.1), • San Diego thorn-mint (Acanthomintha ilicifolia; ESA-listed threatened, CESAlisted endangered), • Smooth tarplant (Centromadia pungens ssp. laevis; CRPR 1B.1), • Variegated dudleya (Dudleya variegata; CRPR 1B.2),
• White rabbit-tobacco (Pseudognaphalium leucocephalum; CRPR 2B.2), and • Willowy monardella (Mondardella viminea; ESA-listed endangered, CESA-listed endangered).
Portions of the City overlap U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) designated critical habitat for willowy monardella, Hermes copper butterfly, coastal California gnatcatcher, and least Bell’s vireo. Critical habitat for San Diego ambrosia occurs in Mission Trails Park, adjacent to City limits.
COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CDFW offers the comments and recommendations below to assist the City in adequately identifying and/or mitigating the Project’s significant, or potentially significant, direct and indirect impacts on fish and wildlife (biological) resources.
Specific Comments
1) Consistency with the Draft Subarea Plan. CDFW and USFWS are currently working with the City on development of the City’s subarea plan. Compliance with approved habitat plans, such as the MSCP, is required by CEQA. Specifically, section 15125(d) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR discuss any inconsistencies between a proposed Project and applicable general plans and regional plans, including habitat conservation plans and natural community conservation plans. We encourage the City to carefully evaluate the consistency of the proposed Project with the draft subarea plan and request that the draft PEIR includes an assessment of the Project’s consistency with the draft subarea plan. The draft subarea plan’s open space network designates areas of high biological value as protected open space, conservation opportunity areas, or City-owned preserve. Any proposed Docusign Envelope ID: B3432A82-2002-487E-A0C1-3BDABCC54C78 Madeline Mattson
City of Santee
June 23, 2025
changes should not lead to new, unanticipated direct or indirect impacts or otherwise compromise the conservation goals developed in the draft subarea plan for these habitats and the species they support.
2) Changed Edge Effects. The category of land use adjacent to open space results in varying types and intensities of indirect impacts on biological resources (“edge effects”). For example, residential development can introduce domestic cats that could pursue and hunt wildlife in adjacent open space and other habitat areas, whereas commercial development would be less likely to result in that impact.
Where areas are already developed and currently zoned as commercial or industrial, changing land use to include residential development could result in edge effects that were not analyzed prior to constructing currently existing development.
Moreover, any increases to the anticipated density of a residential area could result in increased intensity of edge effects from human trespass, pets, degraded habitat, and invasive species. Where development is adjacent to open space or undeveloped habitat areas, the PEIR should identify and analyze any changes in edge effects that could be caused by changing the land use designation and include measures to mitigate any significant effects.
3) Increased Recreation Pressure. Many of the City’s existing recreational opportunities occur within or adjacent to areas that have been set aside to conserve habitat for special status species as part of the MSCP preserve system. Increases in residential development would lead to increased demand for recreational opportunities in these conserved areas. As levels of recreational use increase, additional disturbance can exceed the tolerance of sensitive species, thereby reducing the value of adjacent habitats. The PEIR should analyze changes to the value of conserved lands in the event recreational pressure is increased by the Project and include mitigation measures to reduce resultant impacts. The PEIR should identify current recreational open space, including a breakdown of recreational uses (e.g., hiking, mountain biking, equestrian, dog parks, et cetera) and how increased recreation will impact biological resources affected by changes in land use and zoning. The analysis should include a discussion of the current budget allotted for managing recreational open space and determine whether the increase in residential density would necessitate increased funding to manage human impacts, encroachment, and maintenance of open space. The PEIR should analyze the effect of the proposed Project on biological resources as a result of increased recreational activities. The PEIR should identify additional properties that could be set aside for recreational uses, and areas that can be added to the MSCP preserve if recreational uses increase to the point where habitat values are negatively affected.
General Comments
1) Disclosure. The PEIR should provide an adequate, complete, and detailed disclosure about the effects which a proposed project is likely to have on the Docusign Envelope ID: B3432A82-2002-487E-A0C1-3BDABCC54C78 Madeline Mattson
City of Santee
June 23, 2025
environment (Pub. Resources Code, § 20161; CEQA Guidelines, § 15151). Such disclosure is necessary so CDFW may provide comments on the adequacy of proposed avoidance, minimization, or mitigation measures, as well as assess the significance of the specific impact relative to plant and wildlife species impacted (e.g., current range, distribution, population trends, and connectivity). 2) Project Description and Alternatives. To enable adequate review and comment on the proposed Project from the standpoint of the protection of fish, wildlife, and plants (i.e., biological resources), CDFW recommends the following information to be included in the PEIR.
a. A complete discussion of the purpose and need for the proposed Project. b. A range of feasible alternatives to the Project location to avoid minimize direct and indirect impacts on sensitive biological resources and wildlife movement areas. CDFW recommends the City select Project designs and alternatives that would avoid or minimize direct and indirect impacts on biological resources.
CDFW also recommends that the City consider establishing appropriate setbacks from sensitive and special status biological resources. Setbacks should not be impacted by ground disturbance or hydrological changes from any future Project-related construction, activities, maintenance, and development. As a rule, CDFW recommends reducing or clustering a development footprint to retain unobstructed spaces for vegetation and wildlife and provide connections for wildlife between properties and minimize obstacles to open space. c. Project alternatives should be thoroughly evaluated, even if an alternative would impede, to some degree, the attainment of the Project objectives or would be more costly (CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.6). The PEIR shall include sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, public participation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed Project (CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.6).
d. Where the Project may impact aquatic and riparian resources, CDFW recommends the City select Project designs and alternatives that would fully avoid impacts to such resources. CDFW also recommends an alternative that would not impede, alter, or otherwise modify existing surface flow, watercourse and meander, and water-dependent ecosystems and natural communities.
Project designers should consider elevated crossings to avoid channelizing or narrowing of watercourses. Any modifications to a river, creek, or stream may cause or magnify upstream bank erosion, channel incision, and drop in water level, which may cause the watercourse to alter its course of flow. 3) Project-level Biological Assessment. As part of the analysis of individual projects, an adequate biological resources assessment should be conducted, including a complete assessment and impact analysis of the flora and fauna within and adjacent to individual project sites. The assessment and analysis should place Docusign Envelope ID: B3432A82-2002-487E-A0C1-3BDABCC54C78 Madeline Mattson
City of Santee
June 23, 2025
emphasis on identifying endangered, threatened, rare, and sensitive species; regionally and locally unique species; and sensitive habitats. An impact analysis will aid in determining the individual project’s potential direct, indirect, and cumulative biological impacts, as well as specific avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures necessary to offset those impacts. The PEIR should require the following information be submitted during the City’s review of individual projects. a. Information on the regional setting that is critical to an assessment of environmental impacts, with special emphasis on resources that are rare or unique to the region (CEQA Guidelines, § 15125(c)), including sensitive natural communities, alliances, and associations with a State-wide rarity ranking of S1, S2, and S3. These ranks can be obtained by visiting the Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program - Natural Communities webpage4.
b. A thorough, recent, floristic-based assessment of special status plants and natural communities following CDFW's Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities5. Botanical field surveys should be comprehensive over the entire project site, including areas that will be directly or indirectly impacted by the project. Adjoining properties should also be surveyed where direct or indirect project effects could occur, such as those from fuel modification, herbicide application, invasive species, and altered hydrology. Botanical field surveys should be conducted in the field at the times of year when plants are identifiable, typically during flowering or fruiting. Botanical field survey visits should be spaced throughout the growing season to accurately determine what plants exist in the project site. This usually involves multiple visits to the project site (e.g., in early, mid, and late season) to capture the floristic diversity at a level necessary to determine if special status plants are present.
c. Floristic alliance- and/or association-based mapping and vegetation impact assessments conducted in the project site and within adjacent areas. The Manual of California Vegetation6, second edition, (Sawyer, Keeler-Wolf, & Evens, 2009) should also be used to inform this mapping and assessment. Adjoining habitat areas should be included in this assessment where the project’s construction and activities could lead to direct or indirect impacts offsite. d. A complete and recent assessment of the biological resources associated with each habitat type in the project site and within adjacent areas. A full literature review includes but is not limited to CDFW’s California Natural Diversity Database7 (CNDDB). The CNDDB should be accessed to obtain current information on any previously reported sensitive species occurrence and habitat. 4 https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/Natural-Communities 5 https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=18959&inline 6 https://vegetation.cnps.org/
7 https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB
Docusign Envelope ID: B3432A82-2002-487E-A0C1-3BDABCC54C78 Madeline Mattson
City of Santee
June 23, 2025
An assessment should include a minimum nine-quadrangle search of the CNDDB to determine a list of species potentially present in the project site. A nine-quadrangle search should be provided in the PEIR for adequate disclosure of the project’s potential impact on biological resources. e. A complete, recent assessment of endangered, rare, or threatened species and other sensitive species within the project site and adjacent areas, including SSC and California Fully Protected Species (Fish & G. Code, §§ 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515). Species to be addressed should include all those which meet the CEQA definition of endangered, rare, or threatened species (CEQA Guidelines, § 15380). Seasonal variations in use of the project site should also be addressed such as wintering, roosting, nesting, and foraging habitat. Focused speciesspecific surveys, conducted at the appropriate time of day and year when the sensitive species are active or otherwise identifiable, may be required if suitable habitat is present. See CDFW’s Survey and Monitoring Protocols and Guidelines8 for established survey protocols. Acceptable species-specific survey procedures may be developed in consultation with CDFW and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. f. Project specific biological resources surveys. A lack of records in the CNDDB does not mean that rare, threatened, or endangered plants and wildlife do not occur. Field verification for the presence or absence of sensitive species is necessary to provide a complete biological assessment for adequate CEQA review (CEQA Guidelines, § 15003(i)). CDFW generally considers biological field assessments for wildlife to be valid for a one-year period, and assessments for rare plants may be considered valid for a period of up to three years. Future projects under the PEIR may warrant periodic updated surveys for certain sensitive taxa, particularly if project implementation build out could occur over a protracted time frame or in phases.
4) Direct and Indirect Impacts on Biological Resources. The PEIR should provide a thorough discussion of all direct and indirect impacts to biological resources with specific measures to offset such impacts. The PEIR should address the following. a. A discussion of potential direct impacts from lighting, noise, human activity, and exotic species, including an analysis of indirect impacts on biological resources.
These analyses should include the biological resources located in nearby public lands, open space, adjacent natural habitats, riparian ecosystems, and any designated and/or proposed or existing reserve lands (e.g., preserve lands associated with a Natural Community Conservation Plan (Fish & G. Code, § 2800 et. seq.)).
8 https://wildlife.ca.gov/conservation/survey-protocols Docusign Envelope ID: B3432A82-2002-487E-A0C1-3BDABCC54C78 Madeline Mattson
City of Santee
June 23, 2025
b. A discussion of both the short-term and long-term effects of the Project on species population distributions and size, as well as alterations of the ecosystem supporting those species impacted (CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.2(a)). c. Impacts on, and maintenance of, wildlife corridors/movement areas, including access to undisturbed habitats in areas adjacent to the Project, should be fully analyzed and discussed in the PEIR.
d. A discussion of post-Project fate of drainage patterns, surface flows, and soil erosion and/or sedimentation in streams and water bodies. The discussion should also address potential water extraction activities and potential resulting impacts on habitat supported by groundwater. Measures to mitigate such impacts should be included.
e. An analysis of impacts resulting from proposed changes to land use designations and zoning, including how current land use designations and zoning adjacent to natural areas may inadvertently contribute to wildlife-human conflicts. A discussion of possible conflicts and mitigation measures to reduce these conflicts should be included in the PEIR.
5) Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts on biological resources can result from collectively significant projects which are individually insignificant. The Project, when considered collectively with prior, concurrent, and probable future projects, may have a significant cumulative effect on biological resources. The Project may have the potential to substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of endangered, rare, or threatened species. Species that may be impacted by the Project include, but are not limited to, the biological resources described in this letter.
Accordingly, CDFW recommends the PEIR evaluate the Project’s potential cumulative impacts on biological resources. The Project may have a “significant effect on the environment” if the possible effects of the Project are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. “Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects (Pub. Resources Code, § 21083(b)). The City’s conclusions regarding the significance of the Project’s cumulative impact analysis should be justified and supported by evidence to make those conclusions.
Specifically, if the City concludes that the Project would not result in cumulative impacts on biological resources, the City, “shall identify facts and analysis supporting the Lead Agency’s conclusion that the cumulative impact is less than significant” (CEQA Guidelines section § 15130(a)(2)).
6) Mitigation Measures. Public agencies have a duty under CEQA to prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in a project through the use of feasible alternatives or mitigation measures (CEQA Guidelines, Docusign Envelope ID: B3432A82-2002-487E-A0C1-3BDABCC54C78 Madeline Mattson
City of Santee
June 23, 2025
§§ 15002(a)(3), 15021). Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4, “…an environmental document shall describe feasible measures which could mitigate impacts below a significant level under CEQA. Mitigation measures must be feasible, effective, implementable, and fully enforceable/imposed by the City through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally binding instruments” (Pub.
Resources Code, § 21081.6(b); CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4). a. The PEIR should provide mitigation measures that are specific and detailed (i.e., responsible party, timing, specific actions, location) in order for a mitigation measure to be fully enforceable and implemented successfully via a mitigation monitoring and/or reporting program (Pub. Resources Code, § 21081.6; CEQA Guidelines, § 15097).
b. If a proposed mitigation measure would cause one or more significant effects, in addition to impacts caused by the proposed Project, the PEIR should include a discussion of the effects of proposed mitigation measures (CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4(a)(1)). In that regard, the PEIR should provide an adequate, complete, and detailed disclosure about the Project’s proposed mitigation measure(s).
Adequate disclosure is necessary so CDFW may assess the potential impacts of proposed mitigation measures.
7) Long-term Management of Mitigation Lands. For proposed mitigation lands, the PEIR should include measures to protect the targeted habitat values in perpetuity.
The mitigation should offset Project-induced qualitative and quantitative losses of biological resources. Issues that should be addressed include (but are not limited to) restrictions on access, proposed land dedications, monitoring and management programs, control of illegal dumping, water pollution, and increased human intrusion. An appropriate endowment, determined in consultation with CDFW, should be established to provide for long-term management of mitigation lands. 8) CESA. CDFW considers adverse impacts to a species protected by CESA to be significant. Take of any endangered, threatened, candidate species, or NPPA-listed plant species that results from the Project is prohibited, except as authorized by state law (Fish & G. Code §§ 2080, 2085; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §786.9).
Consequently, if the Project, any Project-related activity, or subsequent projects under the PEIR will result in take of a species designated as endangered or threatened, or a candidate for listing under CESA, CDFW recommends that a Project proponent seek appropriate take authorization under CESA prior to implementing the Project. Appropriate authorization from CDFW may include an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) or a consistency determination in certain circumstances, among other options (Fish & G. Code, §§ 2080.1, 2081, subds. (b) and (c)). Early consultation is encouraged, as significant modification to a Project and mitigation measures may be required to obtain a CESA Permit.
Docusign Envelope ID: B3432A82-2002-487E-A0C1-3BDABCC54C78 Madeline Mattson
City of Santee
June 23, 2025
To ensure CDFW will be able to use the City’s PEIR for the issuance of an ITP, the PEIR should address all Project impacts to CESA-listed species and specify a mitigation, monitoring, and reporting program that will meet the requirements of an ITP.
9) Translocation/Salvage of Plants and Animal Species. Translocation and relocation are the process of moving plants and wildlife from one location to a new location as a means of protecting it from harm or mortality. CDFW generally does not support the use of translocation or relocation as a mitigation strategy for unavoidable impacts to endangered, rare, or threatened plants and animals. These efforts are often unreliable to ensure successful outcomes and require long-term monitoring to determine the fate of the affected species. CDFW has found that permanent preservation and management of habitats capable of supporting affected species is often a more effective long-term strategy for conserving plants, animals and their habitats.
10) Scientific Collecting Permit and Voucher Collecting Permit. A Scientific Collecting Permit would be necessary to capture and relocate wildlife. Pursuant to the California Code of Regulations, title 14, section 650, qualified biologist(s) must obtain appropriate handling permits to capture, temporarily possess, and relocate wildlife to avoid harm or mortality in connection with Project-related activities.
CDFW has the authority to issue permits for the take or possession of wildlife, including mammals; birds, nests, and eggs; reptiles, amphibians, fish, plants; and invertebrates (Fish & G. Code, §§ 1002, 1002.5, 1003). A Scientific Collecting Permit is required to monitor Project impacts on wildlife resources, as required by environmental documents, permits, or other legal authorizations; and, to capture, temporarily possess, and relocate wildlife to avoid harm or mortality in connection with otherwise lawful activities (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 650). For more information, please see CDFW’s Scientific Collecting Permit webpage9.
A voucher collection permit is required to collect state-listed plant species for identification purposes during field surveys, or to collect voucher specimens to document a newly discovered or previously unvouchered occurrence of a statelisted plant. There is no charge to apply for a voucher collection permit. Anyone who collects state-listed plant species, or who may encounter a state-listed plant species during field surveys should have a plant voucher collection permit. To apply for a Voucher Collecting Permit please see CDFW’s Voucher Collecting Permit Page.
11) Lake and Streambed Alteration. CDFW has regulatory authority over activities in streams that will divert or obstruct the natural flow, or change the bed, channel, or bank (which may include associated riparian resources) of any river, stream, or lake or use material from a river, stream, or lake. For any such activities, the Project applicant (or “entity”) must provide written notification to CDFW pursuant to section 9 https://wildlife.ca.gov/Licensing/Scientific-Collecting Docusign Envelope ID: B3432A82-2002-487E-A0C1-3BDABCC54C78 Madeline Mattson
City of Santee
June 23, 2025
1600 et seq. of the Fish and Game Code. Based on this notification and other information, CDFW determines whether a Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA) with the applicant is required prior to conducting the proposed activities. CDFW’s issuance of a LSAA for a project that is subject to CEQA will require CEQA compliance actions by CDFW as a Responsible Agency. CDFW recommends that the City assess whether notification is appropriate. A Notification package for a LSAA may be obtained by accessing CDFW’s Lake and Streambed Alteration Program website10.
12) Wetland Resources. CDFW, as described in Fish and Game Code section 703(a), is guided by the Fish and Game Commission’s (Commission) policies11. Through its Wetlands Resources policy, the Commission “…seek[s] to provide for the protection, preservation, restoration, enhancement, and expansion of wetland habitat in California” (California Fish and Game Commission, 2005). It is the policy of the Commission to strongly discourage development in, or conversion of, wetlands. It opposes, consistent with its legal authority, any development or conversion that would result in a reduction of wetland acreage or wetland habitat values. To that end, the Commission opposes wetland development proposals unless, at a minimum, project mitigation assures there will be ‘no net loss’ of either wetland habitat values or acreage. The Commission strongly prefers mitigation which would achieve expansion of wetland acreage and enhancement of wetland habitat values.”
a. The Wetlands Resources policy provides a framework for maintaining wetland resources and establishes mitigation guidance. CDFW encourages avoidance of wetland resources as a primary mitigation measure and discourages the development or type conversion of wetlands to uplands. CDFW encourages activities that would avoid the reduction of wetland acreage, function, or habitat values. Once avoidance and minimization measures have been exhausted, a project should include mitigation measures to assure a “no net loss” of either wetland habitat values, or acreage, for unavoidable impacts to wetland resources. Conversions include, but are not limited to, conversion to subsurface drains, placement of fill or building of structures within the wetland, and channelization or removal of materials from the streambed. All wetlands and watercourses, whether ephemeral, intermittent, or perennial, should be retained and provided with substantial setbacks, which preserve the riparian and aquatic values and functions benefiting local and transient wildlife populations. CDFW recommends mitigation measures to compensate for unavoidable impacts to be included in the PEIR and these measures should compensate for the loss of function and value.
b. The Fish and Game Commission’s Water policy guides CDFW on the quantity and quality of the waters of this State that should be apportioned and maintained 10 http://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/LSA
11 https://fgc.ca.gov/About/Policies/Miscellaneous
Docusign Envelope ID: B3432A82-2002-487E-A0C1-3BDABCC54C78 Madeline Mattson
City of Santee
June 23, 2025
respectively so as to produce and sustain maximum numbers of fish and wildlife; to provide maximum protection and enhancement of fish and wildlife and their habitat; encourage and support programs to maintain or restore a high quality of the waters of this State; prevent the degradation thereof caused by pollution and contamination; and, endeavor to keep as much water as possible open and accessible to the public for the use and enjoyment of fish and wildlife. CDFW recommends avoidance of water practices and structures that use excessive amounts of water, and minimization of impacts that negatively affect water quality, to the extent feasible (Fish & G. Code, § 5650).
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
CEQA requires that information developed in environmental impact reports and negative declarations be incorporated into a database which may be used to make subsequent or supplemental environmental determinations. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21003, subd. (e).) Accordingly, please report any special status species and natural communities detected during Project surveys to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). The CNDDB website12 provides direction regarding the types of information that should be reported and allows on-line submittal of field survey forms.
In addition, information on special status native plant populations and sensitive natural communities, should be submitted to CDFW’s Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program using the Combined Rapid Assessment and Relevé Form13.
The City should ensure data collected for the preparation of the PEIR is properly submitted.
FILING FEES
The Project, as proposed, would have an impact on fish and/or wildlife, and assessment of filing fees is necessary. Fees are payable upon filing of the Notice of Determination by the City and serve to help defray the cost of environmental review by CDFW.
Payment of the fee is required in order for the underlying project approval to be operative, vested, and final. (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 14, § 753.5; Fish & G. Code, § 711.4; Pub. Resources Code, § 21089.)
CONCLUSION
CDFW appreciates the opportunity to comment on the NOP to assist the City in identifying and mitigating Project impacts on biological resources. 12 https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB
13 https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/Natural-Communities/Submit Docusign Envelope ID: B3432A82-2002-487E-A0C1-3BDABCC54C78 Madeline Mattson
City of Santee
June 23, 2025
Questions regarding this letter or further coordination should be directed to Kelly Fisher, Environmental Scientist14.
Sincerely,
Glen M. Lubcke
Environmental Program Manager
South Coast Region
ec: California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Glen M. Lubcke, Environmental Program Manager
Melanie Burlaza, Senior Environmental Scientist (Supervisor) Kelly Fisher, Environmental Scientist
Cindy Hailey, Staff Services Analyst
Office of Planning and Research
[email protected]
REFERENCES
Sawyer, J. O., Keeler-Wolf, T., & Evens, J. M. (2009). A Manual of California Vegetation (Second ed.). Sacramento, CA: California Native Plant Society. Retrieved from https://vegetation.cnps.org/
14 Phone: 858-354-5083; email: [email protected] Docusign Envelope ID: B3432A82-2002-487E-A0C1-3BDABCC54C78 SANDIEGOCOUNTY.GOV
June 20, 2025
Madeline Mattson, Principal Planner
City of Santee, Planning & Building Department
10601 Magnolia Avenue
Santee, California 92071
Sent via e-mail to: [email protected]
RE: NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND NOTICE OF PUBLIC
SCOPING MEETING ON THE CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE Dear Ms. Mattson,
The County of San Diego Department of General Services (County) staff reviewed the City’s Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the City’s Land Use Element Update (Project), received June 10, 2025.
County staff appreciates the opportunity to review the Project NOP and offer the following comments for consideration. Please note that none of these comments should be construed as County support or opposition for this project.
• The County owns numerous parcels within the city limits of Santee, of which any changes proposed to land use designation on such properties shall be coordinated with the County. The County provides numerous services and facilities to the residents of Santee (e.g. public safety/law enforcement, libraries, health & human services, etc.), of which certain facilities may need to be updated, relocated or built upon County owned land within the Project’s 2045-year horizon. The Project should also include a goal to provide adequate public services and facilities (civic uses) to meet the needs of Santee residents. • The DEIR should recognize that City’s zoning and building ordinances do not apply to a County project located in the city pursuant to Government Code Sections 53090 and 53091. A City’s General Plan does not apply to a County project located in the city.
The County requests a meeting with the City of Santee to discuss changes to land use and planning designations proposed on County land and potential County projects within the Project boundary. The County appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Project NOP. We look forward to receiving future documents related to this Project and providing additional assistance, at your request. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Melanie Tylke, Project Manager, at (619) 616-9326, or via e-mail at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Melanie Tylke, AICP
Project Manager, Asset Management Division
General Services
MARKO MEDVED, PE, CEM
DIRECTOR
GENERAL SERVICES
ASSET MANAGEMENT
5560 OVERLAND AVENUE, SUITE 410, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92123 (858) 694-2338
NICOLE J. ALEJANDRE
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash
VICE-CHAIRPERSON
Buffy McQuillen
Yokoyo Pomo, Yuki,
Nomloki
SECRETARY
Sara Dutschke
Miwok
PARLIAMENTARIAN
Wayne Nelson
Luisefio
COMMISSIONER
Isaac Bojorquez
Ohlone-Costanoan
COMMISSIONER
Stanley Rodriguez
Kumeyaoy
COMMISSIONER
Reid Milanovich
Cahui/la
COMMISSIONER
Bennae Calac
Pauma-Yuima Band of
Luisefio Indians
COMMISSIONER
Vacant
ACTING EXECUTIVE
SECRETARY
Steven Quinn
NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
[email protected]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom Governor
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
May 30, 2025
Madeline Mattson
City of Santee
10601 Mongolia Avenue
Santee CA 92107
Re: 2025051050 City of Santee Land Use Element Update Project, San Diego County Dear Ms. Mattson:
The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) has received the Notice of Preparation (NOP), Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) or Early Consultation for the project referenced above. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code §21000 et seq.), specifically Public Resources Code § 21084. l, states that a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, is a project that may have a sJgnificant effect on fhe environment. (Pub. Resources Code § 21084. l; Cal. Code Regs., tit.14, § 15064.5 (b) (CEQA Guidelines§ 15064.5 (b)). If there is substantial evidence, in light of the whol� record before a iead agency, that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) shall be prepared. (Pub. Resources Code §21080 (d); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 5064 subd.(a) (l) (CEQA Guidelines§ 15064 (a) (l )).
In order to determine whether a project will cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, a lead agency will need to determine whether there are historical resources within the area of potential effect (APE).
CEQA wa:; amended significantly in 2014. Assembly Bill 52 (Gatto, Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014) (AB 52) amended CEQA to create a separate category of cultural resources, "tribal cultural resources" (Pub. Resources Code §2107 4) and provides that a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a .. significant effect on the environment. (Pub. Resources Code §21084.2). Public ,agencies shalll, when feasible, avoid damaging effects to any tribal cultural resource. (Pub. Resources Code §21084.3 (a)). AB 52 applies to any project for which a notice of preparatlon, a notice of negative declaration, or a mitigated negative declaration is filed on or after July 1, 2015. If your project involves the adoption of or amendment to a general plan or a specific plan, or the designation ,or proposed designation of open space, on or after March l, 2005, it may also be subject to Senate Bill 18 (Burton, Chapter 905, Statutes of 2004) (SB 18).
Both SB 18 and AB 52 hqve tribal consultation requirements. If your project is also subject to the federal Natiqnal Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.) (NEPA), the tribal consultation requirements of, Section l 06 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 ( 154 U.S.C. 300101, 36 C.F.R. §800 et seq.) may also apply.
The NAHC recommends consultation with California Native American tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of your proposed project as early as possible in order to avoid inadvertent discoveries of Native American human remains and best protect tribal cultural resources. Below is a brief summary of portions of AB 52 and SB 18 as well as the NAHC's recommendations for conducting cultural resources assessments.
Consult your legal counsel about compliance with AB 52 and SB 18 as well as compliance with any other applicable laws.
Pagel of 5
AB 52 has added to CEQA the additional requirements listed below, along with many other requirements:
1. Fourteen Day Period to Provide Notice of Completion of an Application/Decision to Undertake a Project:
Within fourteen ( 14) days of determining that an application for a project is complete or of a decision by a public agency to undertake a project, a lead agency shall provide formal notification to a designated contact of, or tribal representative of, traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribes that have requested notice, to be accomplished by at least one written notice that includes:
a. A brief description of the project.
b. The lead agency contact information.
c. Notification that the California Native American tribe has 30 days to request consultation. (Pub.
Resources Code §21080.3.1 (d)).
d. A "California Native American tribe" is defined as a Native American tribe located in California that is on the contact list maintained by the NAHC for the purposes of Chapter 905 of Statutes of 2004 (SB 18). (Pub. Resources Code §21073).
2. Begin Consultation Within 30 Days of Receiving a Tribe's Request for Consultation and Before Releasing a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or Environmental Impact Report: A lead agency shall begin the consultation process within 30 days of receiving a request for consultation from a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project. (Pub. Resources Code § 21080.3.1, subds. ( d) and ( e)) and prior to the release of a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration or Environmental Impact Report. (Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.1 (b)). a. For purposes of AB 52, "consultation shall have the same meaning as provided in Gov. Code §65352.4 (SB 18). (Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.1 (b)).
3. Mandatory Topics of Consultation If Requested by a Tribe: The following topics of consultation, if a tribe requests to discuss them, are mandatory topics of consultation:
a. Alternatives to the project.
b. Recommended mitigation measures.
c. Significant effects. (Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.2 (a)).
4. Discretionary Topics of Consultation: The following topics are discretionary topics of consultation:
a. Type of environmental review necessary.
b. Significance of the tribal cultural resources.
c. Significance of the project's impacts on tribal cultural resources. d. If necessary, project.alternatives or appropriate measures for preservation or mitigation that the tribe may recommend to the lead agency. (Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.2 (a)).
5. Confidentiality of Information Submitted by a Tribe During the Environmental Review Process: With some exceptions, any information, including but not limited to, the location, description, and use of tribal cultural resources submitted by a California Native American tribe during the environmental review process shall not be included in the environmental document or otherwise disclosed by the lead agency or any other public agency to the public, consistent with Government Code §6254 (r) and §6254.10. Any information submitted by a California Native American tribe during the consultation or environmental review process shall be published in a confidential appendix to the environmental document unless the tribe that provided the information consents, in writing, to the disclosure of some or all of the information to the public. (Pub. Resources Code §21082.3 ( c) ( 1)).
6. Discussion of Impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources in the Environmental Document: If a project may have a significant impact on a tribal cultural resource, the lead agency's environmental document shall discuss both of the following:
a. Whether the proposed project has a significant impact on an identified tribal cultural resource. b. Whether feasible alternatives or mitigation measures, including those measures that may be agreed to pursuant to Public Resources Code §21082.3, subdivision (a), avoid or substantially lessen the impact on the identified tribal cultural resource. (Pub. Resources Code §21082.3 (b)).
7. Conclusion of Consultation: Consultation with a tribe shall be considered concluded when either of the following occurs:
a. The parties agree to measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect, if a significant effect exists, on a tribal cultural resource; or
b. A party, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached. (Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.2 (b)).
8. Recommending Mitigation Measures Agreed Upon in Consultation in the Environmental Document: Any mitigation measures agreed upon in the consultation conducted pursuant to Public Resources Code §21080.3.2 shall be recommended for inclusion in the environmental document and in an adopted mitigation monitoring and reporting program, if determined to avoid or lessen the impact pursuant to Public Resources Code §21082.3, subdivision (b), paragraph 2, and shall be fully enforceable. (Pub. Resources Code §21082.3 (a)).
9. Required Consideration of Feasible Mitigation: If mitigation measures recommended by the staff of the lead agency as a result of the consultation process are not included in the environmental document or if there are no agreed upon mitigation measures at the conclusion of consultation, or if consultation does not occur, and if substantial evidence demonstrates that a project will cause a significant effect to a tribal cultural resource, the lead agency shall consider feasible mitigation pursuant to Public Resources Code §21084.3 (b). (Pub. Resources Code §21082.3 (e)).
10. Examples of Mitigation Measures That, If Feasible; May Be Considered to Avoid or Minimize Significant Adverse Impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources:
a. A v9idance and preservation of the resources in place, including, but not limited to:
i. Planning and construction to avoid the resources and protect the cultural and natural context.
ii. Planning greenspace, parks, or'other open space, to incorporate the resources with culturally appropriate protection and management criteria.
b. T�eating the resource with culturally appropriate dignity, taking into account the tribal cultural values and meanjng of the resource, including, but not limited to, the following:
i. Protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource. ii. Protecting the traditional use of the resource.
iii. Protecting the confidentiality of the resource.
c. Permanent conservation easements or other interests in real property, with culturally appropriate ,:nanagement criteria for.the purposes of preserving or utilizing the resources or places. d.·'. Protecting the resource. (Pub. Resource Code §21084.3 (b)). e. Please note that a federally recognized California Native American tribe or a non-federally recognized California Native American tribeithat is on the contact list maintained by the NAHC to protect a California prehistoric, archaeological,icultural, spiritual, or ceremonial place may acquire and hold conservation easements if the conservation easement is voluntarily conveyed. (Civ. Code §815.3 ( c)). f. Please note that it is the policy of the state that Native American remains and associated grave artifacts shall be repatriated. (Pub. Resources Code §5097.991).
11. Prerequisites for Certifying an Environmental Impact Report or Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration or Negative Declaration with a Significant Impact on an Identified Tribal Cultural Resource: An Environmental Impact Report may not be certified, nor may a mitigated negative declaration or a negative declaration be adopted unless one of the following occurs:
a. The consultation process between the tribes and the lead agency has occurred as provided in Public Resources Code § 21080.3.1 and §21080.3.2 and concluded pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21080.3.2.
b. The tribe that requested consultation failed to provide comments to the lead agency or otherwise failed to engage in the consultation process.
c. The lead agency provided notice of the project to the tribe in compliance with Public Resources Code §21080.3.1 (d) and the tribe failed to request consultation within 30 days. (Pub. Resources Code §21082.3 (d)).
The NAHC's PowerPoint presentation titled, "Tribal Consultation Under AB 52: Requirements and Best Practices" may be found online at: http://nahc.ca.gov/wp content/up oads/2015/ 10/A B52TribaIConsultation CalEPAPDF.pdf
SB18
SB 18 applies to local governments and requires local governments to contact, provide notice to, refer plans to, and consult with tribes prior to the adoption or amendment of a general plan or a specific plan, or the designation of open space. (Gov. Code §65352.3). Local governments should consult the Governor's Office of Planning and Research's "Tribal Consultation Guidelines," which can be found online at:
https://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/09 14 05 Updated Guidelines 922.pdf.
Some of SB l8's provisions include:
1. Tribal Consultation: If a local government considers a proposal to adopt or amend a general plan or a specific plan, or to designate open space it is required to contact the appropriate tribes identified by the NAHC by requesting a "Tribal Consultation List." If a tribe, once contacted, requests consultation the local government must consult with the tribe on the plan proposal. A tribe has 90 days from the date of receipt of notification to request consultation unless a shorter timeframe has been agreed to by the tribe. (Gov. Code §65352.3 (a)(2)).
2. No Statutory Time Limit on SB 18 Tribal Consultation. There is no statutory time limit on SB 18 tribal consultation.
3. Confidentiality: Consistent with the guidelines developed and adopted by the Office of Planning and Research pursuant to Gov. Code §65040.2, the city or county shall protect the confidentiality of the information concerning the specific identity, location, character, and use of places, features and objects described in Public Resources Code §5097.9 and §5097.993 that or� within the city's or county's jurisdiction. (Gov. Code §65352.3 (b)).
4. Conclusion of SB 18 Tribal Consultation: Consultation should be concluded at the point in which:
a. The parties to the consultation come to a mutual agreement concerning the appropriate measures for preservation or mitigation; or
b. Either the local government or the tribe, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached concerning the appropriate measures of preservation or mitigation. (Tribal Consultation Guidelines, Governor's Office of Planning and Research (2005) at p. 18).
Agencies should be aware that neither AB 52 nor SB 18 precludes agencies from initiating tribal consultation with tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with their jurisdictions before the timeframes provided in AB 52 and SB 18. For that reason, we urge you to continue to request Native American Tribal Contact Lists and "Sacred Lands File" searches from the NAHC. The request forms tan be found online at: http://nahc.ca.gov/resources/forms/ . . NAHC Recommendations for Cultural Resources Assessments To adequately assess the existence and significance of tribal cultural resources and plan for avoidance, preservation in place, or barring both, mitigation of project-related impacts to tribal cultural resources, the NAHC recommends the following actions:
1. Contact the appropriate regional California Historical Research Information System (CHRIS) Center (https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=30331) for an archaeological records search. The records search will determine:
a. If part or all of the APE has been previously surveyed for cultural resources. b. If any known cultural resources have already been recorded on or adjacent to the APE. c. If the probability is low, moderate, or high that cultural resources are located in the APE. d. If a survey is required to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present.
2. If an archaeological inventory survey is required, the final stage is the preparation of a professional report detailing the findings and recommendations of the records search and field survey. a. The final report containing site forms, site significance, and mitigation measures should be submitted immediately to the planning department. All information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and associated funerary objects should be in a separate confidential addendum and not be made available for public disclosure.
b. The final written report should be submitted within 3 months after work has been completed to the appropriate regional CHRIS center.
3. Contact the NAHC for:
a. A Sacred Lands File search. Remember that tribes do not always record their sacred sites in the Sacred Lands File, nor are they required to do so. A Sacred Lands File search is not a substitute for consultation with tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the project's APE.
b. A Native American Tribal Consultation List of appropriate tribes for consultation concerning the project site and to assist in planning for avoidance, preservation in place, or, failing both, mitigation measures.
4. Remember that the lack of surface evidence of archaeological resources (including tribal cultural resources) does not preclude their subsurface existence.
a. Lead agencies should include in their mitigation and monitoring reporting program plan provisions for the identification and evaluation of inadvertently discovered archaeological resources per Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § l 5064.5(f) (CEQA Guidelines§ l 5064.5(f) ). In areas of identified archaeological sensitivity, a certified archaeologist and a culturally affiliated Native American with knowledge of cultural resources should monitor all ground-disturbing activities.
b. Lead agencies should include in their mitigation and monitoring reporting program plans provisions for the disposition of recovered cultural items that are not burial associated in consultation with culturally affiliated Native Americans.
c. Lead agencies should include in their mitigation and monitoring reporting program plans provisions for the treatment and disposition of inadvertently discovered Native American human remains. Health and Safety Code §7050.5, Public Resources Code §5097.98, and Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15064.5, subdivisions (d) and (e) (CEQA Guidelines§ 15064.5, subds. (d) and (e)) address the processes to be followed in the event of an inadvertent discovery of any Native American human remains and associated grave goods in a location other than a dedicated cemetery.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at my email address:
Sincerely,
Andrew Green
Cultural Resources Analyst
cc: State Clearinghouse
Appendix B
Visual Photographs
Appendix A-3: Site Photos
EIR For Santee Land Use Element Update
Path: Z:\Projects\j1710001\MAPDOC\SanteeLandUseElement
Location 1: View from Magnolia Avenue looking east at the existing City Hall site (APN 378-160-25-00) Location 2: View from Mast Boulevard looking southwest
Appendix A-3: Site Photos
EIR For Santee Land Use Element Update
Path: Z:\Projects\j1710001\MAPDOC\SanteeLandUseElement
Location 3: View from Woodside Avenue looking east
Location 4: View from the southwestern corner of Rockvill Street and Magnolia Avenue looking north
Appendix A-3: Site Photos
EIR For Santee Land Use Element Update
Path: Z:\Projects\j1710001\MAPDOC\SanteeLandUseElement
Location 5: View from the northwest corner of Mission Gorge Road and Cottonwood Avenue looking southeast
Location 6: View from a parking lot looking east toward Tamberly Way Appendix A-3: Site Photos
EIR For Santee Land Use Element Update
Path: Z:\Projects\j1710001\MAPDOC\SanteeLandUseElement
Location 7: View from o ce development parking lot looking northwest across vacant lot Location 8: View from a parking lot o
of Town Center Way looking west
SOURCE: Google Earth Street View 2022
Appendix A-3: Site Photos
EIR For Santee Land Use Element Update
Path: Z:\Projects\j1710001\MAPDOC\SanteeLandUseElement
Location 9: View from a parking lot looking northeast toward the intersection of Cuyamaca Street and Mast Boulevard
Location 10: View from Cuyamaca Street adjacent driveway looking east Appendix A-3: Site Photos
EIR For Santee Land Use Element Update
Path: Z:\Projects\j1710001\MAPDOC\SanteeLandUseElement
Location 11: View from a parking lot o Buena Vista Avenue and Cuyamaca Street looking east Location 12: View from a western segment of Mission Gorge Road looking south Appendix A-3: Site Photos
EIR For Santee Land Use Element Update
Path: Z:\Projects\j1710001\MAPDOC\SanteeLandUseElement
Location 13: View from southwest corner of Carlton Hills Boulevard and Gorge Avenue looking east
Appendix C
CalEEMod Outputs and Estimated Emissions
Table of Contents
Santee Land Use Element Update Existing Scenario Detailed Report Santee Land Use Element Update Proposed Scenario Detailed Report 44 2 Santee Land Use Element Update Existing Scenario Detailed Report, 1/23/2026 1 / 42
Santee Land Use Element Update Existing Scenario Detailed Report Table of Contents
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
1.2. Land Use Types
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector
2. Emissions Summary
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.1. Unmitigated
Santee Land Use Element Update Existing Scenario Detailed Report, 1/23/2026 2 / 42
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.1. Unmitigated
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.1. Unmitigated
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated
5. Activity Data
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
Santee Land Use Element Update Existing Scenario Detailed Report, 1/23/2026 3 / 42
5.9.1. Unmitigated
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
5.16.2. Process Boilers
Santee Land Use Element Update Existing Scenario Detailed Report, 1/23/2026 4 / 42
5.17. User Defined
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
Santee Land Use Element Update Existing Scenario Detailed Report, 1/23/2026 5 / 42
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
8. User Changes to Default Data
8.1. Justifications
8.3. Land Use
8.5. Operations
8.5.1. Mobile Sources
8.5.1.1. Vehicle Data
Santee Land Use Element Update Existing Scenario Detailed Report, 1/23/2026 6 / 42
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Santee Land Use Element Update Existing Scenario Operational Year 2025
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.60000
Precipitation (days) 7.60000
Location 32.83840817282021, -116.98464742327751
County San Diego
City Santee
Air District San Diego County APCD
Air Basin San Diego
TAZ 6528
EDFZ 12
Electric Utility San Diego Gas & Electric
Gas Utility San Diego Gas & Electric
App Version 2022.1.1.37
1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Apartments Mid
Rise
1,087.00 Dwelling Unit 0.00000 1,043,520 104,352 — 3,033.00 — Santee Land Use Element Update Existing Scenario Detailed Report, 1/23/2026 7 / 42
Single Family 4.00000 Dwelling Unit 12.6800 7,800.00 46,851.0 — 11.0000 — Housing
Regional Shopping
Center
288.064 1000sqft 19.0200 288,064 28,806.0 — — Community Shopping Center
Strip Mall 1,290.91 1000sqft 198.980 1,290,913 129,091 — — Neighborhood Shopping Center
Place of Worship 108.042 1000sqft 14.5500 108,042 10,804.0 — — — Government (Civic
Center)
49.2840 1000sqft 8.93000 49,284.0 4,928.00 — — —
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected
2. Emissions Summary
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2,158.10 2,091.89 328.581 5,191.29 11.0802 290.245 625.141 915.386 288.529 158.563 447.092 32,433.2 794,126 826,559 276.190 29.9640 2,752.77 845,146 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2,132.07 2,066.74 355.688 4,828.47 10.7420 290.082 625.141 915.223 288.406 158.563 446.970 32,433.2 760,172 792,605 277.794 31.5875 88.4097 809,051 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 778.953 739.321 290.874 2,985.21 7.08576 69.3399 549.936 619.276 68.6992 139.498 208.197 8,941.16 672,686 681,627 251.839 26.3708 1,061.57 696,843 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 142.159 134.926 53.0845 544.801 1.29315 12.6545 100.363 113.018 12.5376 25.4584 37.9960 1,480.31 111,371 112,851 41.6948 4.36598 175.756 115,370 Santee Land Use Element Update Existing Scenario Detailed Report, 1/23/2026 8 / 42
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 377.154 340.897 289.332 2,989.29 7.30583 5.70723 625.141 630.848 5.33687 158.563 163.900 — 743,963 743,963 31.6195 26.7614 2,735.28 755,464 Area 1,780.34 1,750.69 33.8474 2,198.28 3.74117 284.118 — 284.118 282.772 — 282.772 30,299.0 13,110.6 43,409.6 27.9752 2.17811 — 44,758.0 Energy 0.60807 0.30404 5.40209 3.72064 0.03317 0.42012 — 0.42012 0.42012 — 0.42012 — 35,314.1 35,314.1 2.33912 0.22520 — 35,439.7 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 322.809 1,738.25 2,061.06 33.2067 0.79933 — 3,129.43 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 1,811.46 0.00000 1,811.46 181.049 0.00000 — 6,337.69 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 17.4898 17.4898 Total 2,158.10 2,091.89 328.581 5,191.29 11.0802 290.245 625.141 915.386 288.529 158.563 447.092 32,433.2 794,126 826,559 276.190 29.9640 2,752.77 845,146 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 370.418 333.694 317.679 2,763.73 6.97485 5.70953 625.141 630.851 5.33908 158.563 163.902 — 710,485 710,485 33.2438 28.3889 70.9199 719,847 Area 1,761.04 1,732.74 32.6065 2,061.01 3.73398 283.953 — 283.953 282.647 — 282.647 30,299.0 12,634.6 42,933.5 27.9553 2.17407 — 44,280.3 Energy 0.60807 0.30404 5.40209 3.72064 0.03317 0.42012 — 0.42012 0.42012 — 0.42012 — 35,314.1 35,314.1 2.33912 0.22520 — 35,439.7 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 322.809 1,738.25 2,061.06 33.2067 0.79933 — 3,129.43 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 1,811.46 0.00000 1,811.46 181.049 0.00000 — 6,337.69 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 17.4898 17.4898 Total 2,132.07 2,066.74 355.688 4,828.47 10.7420 290.082 625.141 915.223 288.406 158.563 446.970 32,433.2 760,172 792,605 277.794 31.5875 88.4097 809,051 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 323.838 291.529 277.535 2,450.77 6.21018 5.04614 549.936 554.982 4.71870 139.498 144.217 — 632,560 632,560 28.9536 24.8558 1,044.09 641,735 Area 454.507 447.487 7.93725 530.716 0.84241 63.8736 — 63.8736 63.5604 — 63.5604 6,806.89 3,073.21 9,880.09 6.29020 0.49041 — 10,183.5 Energy 0.60807 0.30404 5.40209 3.72064 0.03317 0.42012 — 0.42012 0.42012 — 0.42012 — 35,314.1 35,314.1 2.33912 0.22520 — 35,439.7 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 322.809 1,738.25 2,061.06 33.2067 0.79933 — 3,129.43 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 1,811.46 0.00000 1,811.46 181.049 0.00000 — 6,337.69 Santee Land Use Element Update Existing Scenario Detailed Report, 1/23/2026 9 / 42
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 17.4898 17.4898 Total 778.953 739.321 290.874 2,985.21 7.08576 69.3399 549.936 619.276 68.6992 139.498 208.197 8,941.16 672,686 681,627 251.839 26.3708 1,061.57 696,843 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 59.1005 53.2041 50.6501 447.266 1.13336 0.92092 100.363 101.284 0.86116 25.4584 26.3195 — 104,728 104,728 4.79360 4.11516 172.860 106,247 Area 82.9476 81.6665 1.44855 96.8558 0.15374 11.6569 — 11.6569 11.5998 — 11.5998 1,126.96 508.804 1,635.76 1.04141 0.08119 — 1,685.99 Energy 0.11097 0.05549 0.98588 0.67902 0.00605 0.07667 — 0.07667 0.07667 — 0.07667 — 5,846.66 5,846.66 0.38727 0.03728 — 5,867.45 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 53.4448 287.788 341.232 5.49774 0.13234 — 518.113 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 299.908 0.00000 299.908 29.9747 0.00000 — 1,049.28 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.89563 2.89563 Total 142.159 134.926 53.0845 544.801 1.29315 12.6545 100.363 113.018 12.5376 25.4584 37.9960 1,480.31 111,371 112,851 41.6948 4.36598 175.756 115,370
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
23.4734 21.2168 18.0075 186.048 0.45470 0.35521 38.9077 39.2629 0.33216 9.86870 10.2009 — 46,303.0 46,303.0 1.96794 1.66558 170.239 47,018.7 Single
Family
Housing
0.08954 0.08094 0.06869 0.70971 0.00173 0.00136 0.14842 0.14978 0.00127 0.03765 0.03891 — 176.631 176.631 0.00751 0.00635 0.64941 179.362 Santee Land Use Element Update Existing Scenario Detailed Report, 1/23/2026 10 / 42
Regiona 68.3854 61.8112 52.4615 542.016 1.32469 1.03483 113.350 114.385 0.96768 28.7506 29.7183 — 134,895 134,895 5.73323 4.85236 495.960 136,980 l
Shoppin
g
Center
Strip
Mall
275.144 248.693 211.075 2,180.77 5.32980 4.16358 456.057 460.221 3.89339 115.676 119.570 — 542,741 542,741 23.0673 19.5231 1,995.46 551,131 Place of
Worship
6.46944 5.84750 4.96299 51.2761 0.12532 0.09790 10.7232 10.8211 0.09154 2.71988 2.81143 — 12,761.4 12,761.4 0.54238 0.45905 46.9191 12,958.7 Govern
ment
(Civic
Center)
3.59223 3.24689 2.75576 28.4717 0.06958 0.05436 5.95419 6.00855 0.05083 1.51025 1.56108 — 7,085.92 7,085.92 0.30116 0.25489 26.0523 7,195.46 Total 377.154 340.897 289.332 2,989.29 7.30583 5.70723 625.141 630.848 5.33687 158.563 163.900 — 743,963 743,963 31.6195 26.7614 2,735.28 755,464 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
23.0542 20.7685 19.7718 172.010 0.43410 0.35535 38.9077 39.2630 0.33229 9.86870 10.2010 — 44,219.3 44,219.3 2.06904 1.76687 4.41393 44,802.0 Single
Family
Housing
0.08794 0.07923 0.07542 0.65616 0.00166 0.00136 0.14842 0.14978 0.00127 0.03765 0.03891 — 168.683 168.683 0.00789 0.00674 0.01684 170.905 Regiona
l
Shoppin
g
Center
67.1641 60.5052 57.6015 501.118 1.26468 1.03525 113.350 114.386 0.96808 28.7506 29.7187 — 128,825 128,825 6.02775 5.14746 12.8592 130,522 Strip
Mall
270.230 243.439 231.756 2,016.22 5.08834 4.16526 456.057 460.222 3.89500 115.676 119.571 — 518,318 518,318 24.2523 20.7105 51.7380 525,147 Place of
Worship
6.35389 5.72395 5.44925 47.4071 0.11964 0.09794 10.7232 10.8212 0.09158 2.71988 2.81146 — 12,187.1 12,187.1 0.57024 0.48696 1.21651 12,347.7 Govern
ment
(Civic
Center)
3.52807 3.17829 3.02576 26.3233 0.06643 0.05438 5.95419 6.00857 0.05085 1.51025 1.56110 — 6,767.05 6,767.05 0.31663 0.27039 0.67548 6,856.22 Total 370.418 333.694 317.679 2,763.73 6.97485 5.70953 625.141 630.851 5.33908 158.563 163.902 — 710,485 710,485 33.2438 28.3889 70.9199 719,847 Santee Land Use Element Update Existing Scenario Detailed Report, 1/23/2026 11 / 42
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
3.95549 3.56085 3.38992 29.9347 0.07585 0.06164 6.71714 6.77877 0.05764 1.70388 1.76152 — 7,009.23 7,009.23 0.32083 0.27542 11.5692 7,110.89 Single
Family
Housing
0.01552 0.01397 0.01330 0.11744 0.00030 0.00024 0.02635 0.02659 0.00023 0.00668 0.00691 — 27.4990 27.4990 0.00126 0.00108 0.04539 27.8979 Regiona
l
Shoppin
g
Center
9.61119 8.65229 8.23695 72.7365 0.18431 0.14976 16.3216 16.4713 0.14005 4.14016 4.28020 — 17,031.3 17,031.3 0.77956 0.66923 28.1113 17,278.3 Strip
Mall
44.6580 40.2026 38.2727 337.968 0.85640 0.69587 75.8375 76.5334 0.65072 19.2371 19.8878 — 79,135.3 79,135.3 3.62219 3.10954 130.618 80,283.1 Place of
Worship
0.40538 0.36494 0.34742 3.06789 0.00777 0.00632 0.68841 0.69473 0.00591 0.17462 0.18053 — 718.348 718.348 0.03288 0.02823 1.18568 728.768 Govern
ment
(Civic
Center)
0.45483 0.40945 0.38980 3.44210 0.00872 0.00709 0.77238 0.77947 0.00663 0.19592 0.20255 — 805.968 805.968 0.03689 0.03167 1.33031 817.659 Total 59.1005 53.2041 50.6501 447.266 1.13336 0.92092 100.363 101.284 0.86116 25.4584 26.3195 — 104,728 104,728 4.79360 4.11516 172.860 106,247
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 5,451.87 5,451.87 0.33324 0.04039 — 5,472.24 Santee Land Use Element Update Existing Scenario Detailed Report, 1/23/2026 12 / 42
Single———————————— 36.3349 36.3349 0.00222 0.00027— 36.4706 Family
Housing
Regiona l
Shoppin g
Center
———————————— 3,755.73 3,755.73 0.22957 0.02783— 3,769.76 Strip
Mall
———————————— 16,830.7 16,830.7 1.02877 0.12470— 16,893.6 Place of
Worship
———————————— 1,434.02 1,434.02 0.08765 0.01062— 1,439.38 Govern
ment
(Civic
Center)
———————————— 1,209.70 1,209.70 0.07394 0.00896— 1,214.22 Total———————————— 28,718.4 28,718.4 1.75540 0.21278— 28,825.7 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
———————————— 5,451.87 5,451.87 0.33324 0.04039— 5,472.24 Single
Family
Housing
———————————— 36.3349 36.3349 0.00222 0.00027— 36.4706
Regiona l
Shoppin g
Center
———————————— 3,755.73 3,755.73 0.22957 0.02783— 3,769.76 Strip
Mall
———————————— 16,830.7 16,830.7 1.02877 0.12470— 16,893.6 Place of
Worship
———————————— 1,434.02 1,434.02 0.08765 0.01062— 1,439.38 Santee Land Use Element Update Existing Scenario Detailed Report, 1/23/2026 13 / 42
Govern — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,209.70 1,209.70 0.07394 0.00896 — 1,214.22 ment
(Civic
Center)
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 28,718.4 28,718.4 1.75540 0.21278 — 28,825.7 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 902.620 902.620 0.05517 0.00669 — 905.992 Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 6.01566 6.01566 0.00037 0.00004 — 6.03813 Regiona
l
Shoppin
g
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — — 621.805 621.805 0.03801 0.00461 — 624.128 Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — — — 2,786.52 2,786.52 0.17032 0.02065 — 2,796.93 Place of
Worship
— — — — — — — — — — — — 237.419 237.419 0.01451 0.00176 — 238.306 Govern
ment
(Civic
Center)
— — — — — — — — — — — — 200.279 200.279 0.01224 0.00148 — 201.028 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 4,754.66 4,754.66 0.29063 0.03523 — 4,772.42
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Santee Land Use Element Update Existing Scenario Detailed Report, 1/23/2026 14 / 42
Apartme 0.22734 0.11367 1.94268 0.82667 0.01240 0.15707 — 0.15707 0.15707 — 0.15707 — 2,465.90 2,465.90 0.21823 0.00464 — 2,472.74 nts
Mid Rise
Single
Family
Housing
0.00337 0.00169 0.02880 0.01226 0.00018 0.00233 — 0.00233 0.00233 — 0.00233 — 36.5570 36.5570 0.00324 0.00007 — 36.6584 Regiona
l
Shoppin
g
Center
0.03683 0.01842 0.33483 0.28126 0.00201 0.02545 — 0.02545 0.02545 — 0.02545 — 399.508 399.508 0.03536 0.00075 — 400.616 Strip
Mall
0.16505 0.08253 1.50049 1.26041 0.00900 0.11404 — 0.11404 0.11404 — 0.11404 — 1,790.33 1,790.33 0.15844 0.00337 — 1,795.30 Place of
Worship
0.12885 0.06443 1.17138 0.98396 0.00703 0.08902 — 0.08902 0.08902 — 0.08902 — 1,397.65 1,397.65 0.12369 0.00263 — 1,401.52 Govern
ment
(Civic
Center)
0.04663 0.02332 0.42391 0.35609 0.00254 0.03222 — 0.03222 0.03222 — 0.03222 — 505.797 505.797 0.04476 0.00095 — 507.200 Total 0.60807 0.30404 5.40209 3.72064 0.03317 0.42012 — 0.42012 0.42012 — 0.42012 — 6,595.74 6,595.74 0.58372 0.01242 — 6,614.03 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
0.22734 0.11367 1.94268 0.82667 0.01240 0.15707 — 0.15707 0.15707 — 0.15707 — 2,465.90 2,465.90 0.21823 0.00464 — 2,472.74 Single
Family
Housing
0.00337 0.00169 0.02880 0.01226 0.00018 0.00233 — 0.00233 0.00233 — 0.00233 — 36.5570 36.5570 0.00324 0.00007 — 36.6584 Regiona
l
Shoppin
g
Center
0.03683 0.01842 0.33483 0.28126 0.00201 0.02545 — 0.02545 0.02545 — 0.02545 — 399.508 399.508 0.03536 0.00075 — 400.616 Strip
Mall
0.16505 0.08253 1.50049 1.26041 0.00900 0.11404 — 0.11404 0.11404 — 0.11404 — 1,790.33 1,790.33 0.15844 0.00337 — 1,795.30 Place of
Worship
0.12885 0.06443 1.17138 0.98396 0.00703 0.08902 — 0.08902 0.08902 — 0.08902 — 1,397.65 1,397.65 0.12369 0.00263 — 1,401.52 Santee Land Use Element Update Existing Scenario Detailed Report, 1/23/2026 15 / 42
Govern
(Civic
Center)
0.04663 0.02332 0.42391 0.35609 0.00254 0.03222 — 0.03222 0.03222 — 0.03222 — 505.797 505.797 0.04476 0.00095 — 507.200 Total 0.60807 0.30404 5.40209 3.72064 0.03317 0.42012 — 0.42012 0.42012 — 0.42012 — 6,595.74 6,595.74 0.58372 0.01242 — 6,614.03 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
0.04149 0.02074 0.35454 0.15087 0.00226 0.02866 — 0.02866 0.02866 — 0.02866 — 408.257 408.257 0.03613 0.00077 — 409.390 Single
Family
Housing
0.00062 0.00031 0.00526 0.00224 0.00003 0.00042 — 0.00042 0.00042 — 0.00042 — 6.05243 6.05243 0.00054 0.00001 — 6.06922 Regiona
l
Shoppin
g
Center
0.00672 0.00336 0.06111 0.05133 0.00037 0.00464 — 0.00464 0.00464 — 0.00464 — 66.1432 66.1432 0.00585 0.00012 — 66.3266 Strip
Mall
0.03012 0.01506 0.27384 0.23002 0.00164 0.02081 — 0.02081 0.02081 — 0.02081 — 296.410 296.410 0.02623 0.00056 — 297.232 Place of
Worship
0.02352 0.01176 0.21378 0.17957 0.00128 0.01625 — 0.01625 0.01625 — 0.01625 — 231.397 231.397 0.02048 0.00044 — 232.038 Govern
ment
(Civic
Center)
0.00851 0.00426 0.07736 0.06499 0.00046 0.00588 — 0.00588 0.00588 — 0.00588 — 83.7405 83.7405 0.00741 0.00016 — 83.9728 Total 0.11097 0.05549 0.98588 0.67902 0.00605 0.07667 — 0.07667 0.07667 — 0.07667 — 1,092.00 1,092.00 0.09664 0.00206 — 1,095.03
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 1,697.38 1,669.08 32.6065 2,061.01 3.73398 283.953 — 283.953 282.647 — 282.647 30,299.0 12,634.6 42,933.5 27.9553 2.17407 — 44,280.3 Santee Land Use Element Update Existing Scenario Detailed Report, 1/23/2026 16 / 42
Consum
Products
59.6551 59.6551 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s
4.00831 4.00831 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent
19.2941 17.9519 1.24088 137.268 0.00719 0.16532 — 0.16532 0.12494 — 0.12494 — 476.023 476.023 0.01994 0.00404 — 477.725 Total 1,780.34 1,750.69 33.8474 2,198.28 3.74117 284.118 — 284.118 282.772 — 282.772 30,299.0 13,110.6 43,409.6 27.9752 2.17811 — 44,758.0 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 1,697.38 1,669.08 32.6065 2,061.01 3.73398 283.953 — 283.953 282.647 — 282.647 30,299.0 12,634.6 42,933.5 27.9553 2.17407 — 44,280.3 Consum
er
Product
s
59.6551 59.6551 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s
4.00831 4.00831 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 1,761.04 1,732.74 32.6065 2,061.01 3.73398 283.953 — 283.953 282.647 — 282.647 30,299.0 12,634.6 42,933.5 27.9553 2.17407 — 44,280.3 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 69.5925 68.4322 1.33687 84.5016 0.15309 11.6421 — 11.6421 11.5885 — 11.5885 1,126.96 469.939 1,596.90 1.03979 0.08086 — 1,646.99 Consum
er
Product
s
10.8871 10.8871 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s
0.73152 0.73152 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Santee Land Use Element Update Existing Scenario Detailed Report, 1/23/2026 17 / 42
Landsca 1.73647 1.61567 0.11168 12.3541 0.00065 0.01488 — 0.01488 0.01124 — 0.01124 — 38.8657 38.8657 0.00163 0.00033 — 39.0046 pe
Equipm
ent
Total 82.9476 81.6665 1.44855 96.8558 0.15374 11.6569 — 11.6569 11.5998 — 11.5998 1,126.96 508.804 1,635.76 1.04141 0.08119 — 1,685.99
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 73.1804 399.488 472.669 7.52823 0.18125 — 714.886 Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.26929 8.13202 8.40131 0.02811 0.00072 — 9.31753 Regiona
l
Shoppin
g
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — 40.8879 218.225 259.113 4.20593 0.10123 — 394.428 Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — — 183.233 977.942 1,161.17 18.8482 0.45365 — 1,767.57 Place of
Worship
— — — — — — — — — — — 6.47785 35.3053 41.7832 0.66639 0.01604 — 63.2238 Govern
ment
(Civic
Center)
— — — — — — — — — — — 18.7614 99.1600 117.921 1.92983 0.04644 — 180.007 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 322.809 1,738.25 2,061.06 33.2067 0.79933 — 3,129.43 Santee Land Use Element Update Existing Scenario Detailed Report, 1/23/2026 18 / 42
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
——————————— 73.1804 399.488 472.669 7.52823 0.18125— 714.886 Single
Family
Housing
——————————— 0.26929 8.13202 8.40131 0.02811 0.00072— 9.31753 Regiona l
Shoppin g
Center
——————————— 40.8879 218.225 259.113 4.20593 0.10123— 394.428 Strip
Mall
——————————— 183.233 977.942 1,161.17 18.8482 0.45365— 1,767.57 Place of
Worship
——————————— 6.47785 35.3053 41.7832 0.66639 0.01604— 63.2238 Govern
ment
(Civic
Center)
——————————— 18.7614 99.1600 117.921 1.92983 0.04644— 180.007 Total——————————— 322.809 1,738.25 2,061.06 33.2067 0.79933— 3,129.43 Annual——————————————————
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
——————————— 12.1158 66.1399 78.2557 1.24638 0.03001— 118.358 Single
Family
Housing
——————————— 0.04458 1.34635 1.39093 0.00465 0.00012— 1.54262 Regiona l
Shoppin g
Center
——————————— 6.76946 36.1297 42.8992 0.69634 0.01676— 65.3021 Strip
Mall
——————————— 30.3363 161.909 192.246 3.12053 0.07511— 292.641 Santee Land Use Element Update Existing Scenario Detailed Report, 1/23/2026 19 / 42
Place of
Worship
— — — — — — — — — — — 1.07248 5.84520 6.91768 0.11033 0.00266 — 10.4674 Govern
ment
(Civic
Center)
— — — — — — — — — — — 3.10616 16.4171 19.5232 0.31950 0.00769 — 29.8022 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 53.4448 287.788 341.232 5.49774 0.13234 — 518.113
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 433.238 0.00000 433.238 43.3006 0.00000 — 1,515.75 Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 1.40545 0.00000 1.40545 0.14047 0.00000 — 4.91720 Regiona
l
Shoppin
g
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — 163.011 0.00000 163.011 16.2924 0.00000 — 570.321 Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — — 730.509 0.00000 730.509 73.0118 0.00000 — 2,555.80 Place of
Worship
— — — — — — — — — — — 331.899 0.00000 331.899 33.1721 0.00000 — 1,161.20 Govern
ment
(Civic
Center)
— — — — — — — — — — — 151.398 0.00000 151.398 15.1317 0.00000 — 529.690 Santee Land Use Element Update Existing Scenario Detailed Report, 1/23/2026 20 / 42
Total——————————— 1,811.46 0.00000 1,811.46 181.049 0.00000— 6,337.69 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
——————————— 433.238 0.00000 433.238 43.3006 0.00000— 1,515.75 Single
Family
Housing
——————————— 1.40545 0.00000 1.40545 0.14047 0.00000— 4.91720 Regiona l
Shoppin g
Center
——————————— 163.011 0.00000 163.011 16.2924 0.00000— 570.321 Strip
Mall
——————————— 730.509 0.00000 730.509 73.0118 0.00000— 2,555.80 Place of
Worship
——————————— 331.899 0.00000 331.899 33.1721 0.00000— 1,161.20 Govern
ment
(Civic
Center)
——————————— 151.398 0.00000 151.398 15.1317 0.00000— 529.690 Total——————————— 1,811.46 0.00000 1,811.46 181.049 0.00000— 6,337.69 Annual——————————————————
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
——————————— 71.7275 0.00000 71.7275 7.16891 0.00000— 250.950 Single
Family
Housing
——————————— 0.23269 0.00000 0.23269 0.02326 0.00000— 0.81410 Regiona l
Shoppin g
Center
——————————— 26.9884 0.00000 26.9884 2.69739 0.00000— 94.4232 Santee Land Use Element Update Existing Scenario Detailed Report, 1/23/2026 21 / 42
Strip — — — — — — — — — — — 120.944 0.00000 120.944 12.0879 0.00000 — 423.142 Mall
Place of
Worship
— — — — — — — — — — — 54.9497 0.00000 54.9497 5.49202 0.00000 — 192.250 Govern
ment
(Civic
Center)
— — — — — — — — — — — 25.0657 0.00000 25.0657 2.50522 0.00000 — 87.6963 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 299.908 0.00000 299.908 29.9747 0.00000 — 1,049.28
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 7.47369 7.47369
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.05586 0.05586
Regiona
l
Shoppin
g
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.38289 1.38289
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 8.04010 8.04010
Place of
Worship
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.41735 0.41735
Santee Land Use Element Update Existing Scenario Detailed Report, 1/23/2026 22 / 42
Govern———————————————— 0.11986 0.11986
ment
Total———————————————— 17.4898 17.4898
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
———————————————— 7.47369 7.47369
Single
Family
Housing
———————————————— 0.05586 0.05586
Regiona l
Shoppin g
Center
———————————————— 1.38289 1.38289
Strip
Mall
———————————————— 8.04010 8.04010
Place of
Worship
———————————————— 0.41735 0.41735
Govern
ment
(Civic
Center)
———————————————— 0.11986 0.11986
Total———————————————— 17.4898 17.4898
Annual——————————————————
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
———————————————— 1.23736 1.23736
Single
Family
Housing
———————————————— 0.00925 0.00925
Santee Land Use Element Update Existing Scenario Detailed Report, 1/23/2026 23 / 42
Regiona — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.22895 0.22895 l
Shoppin
g
Center
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.33113 1.33113
Place of
Worship
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.06910 0.06910
Govern
ment
(Civic
Center)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01984 0.01984
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.89563 2.89563
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Santee Land Use Element Update Existing Scenario Detailed Report, 1/23/2026 24 / 42
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Santee Land Use Element Update Existing Scenario Detailed Report, 1/23/2026 25 / 42
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetati
on
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Santee Land Use Element Update Existing Scenario Detailed Report, 1/23/2026 26 / 42
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Santee Land Use Element Update Existing Scenario Detailed Report, 1/23/2026 27 / 42
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
5. Activity Data
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Apartments Mid
Rise
4,590.65 4,143.40 3,451.43 1,592,865 55,087.8 49,720.9 41,417.2 19,114,377 Single Family
Housing
17.3283 17.5119 15.6946 6,249.22 207.940 210.143 188.336 74,990.7 Regional Shopping
Center
10,946.8 13,374.0 6,118.64 3,870,402 131,362 160,488 73,423.7 46,444,826 Strip Mall 53,809.4 51,041.3 24,804.3 17,983,689 645,713 612,495 297,652 215,804,266 Place of Worship 318.250 274.290 1,265.22 163,246 3,819.00 3,291.48 15,182.6 1,958,958 Government (Civic
Center)
702.525 0.00000 0.00000 183,158 8,430.30 0.00000 0.00000 2,197,900
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
Santee Land Use Element Update Existing Scenario Detailed Report, 1/23/2026 28 / 42
Land Use Hearth Type Unmitigated (number) Mitigated (number) Apartments Mid Rise Wood Fireplaces 380 380
Apartments Mid Rise Gas Fireplaces 598 598
Apartments Mid Rise Propane Fireplaces 0 0
Apartments Mid Rise Electric Fireplaces 0 0
Apartments Mid Rise No Fireplaces 109 109
Apartments Mid Rise Conventional Wood Stoves 0 0
Apartments Mid Rise Catalytic Wood Stoves 54 54
Apartments Mid Rise Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 54 54
Apartments Mid Rise Pellet Wood Stoves 0 0
Single Family Housing Wood Fireplaces 1 1
Single Family Housing Gas Fireplaces 2 2
Single Family Housing Propane Fireplaces 0 0
Single Family Housing Electric Fireplaces 0 0
Single Family Housing No Fireplaces 0 0
Single Family Housing Conventional Wood Stoves 0 0
Single Family Housing Catalytic Wood Stoves 0 0
Single Family Housing Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0 0
Single Family Housing Pellet Wood Stoves 0 0
Regional Shopping Center Wood Fireplaces 0 0
Regional Shopping Center Gas Fireplaces 0 0
Regional Shopping Center Propane Fireplaces 0 0
Regional Shopping Center Electric Fireplaces 0 0
Regional Shopping Center No Fireplaces 0 0
Regional Shopping Center Conventional Wood Stoves 0 0
Regional Shopping Center Catalytic Wood Stoves 0 0
Regional Shopping Center Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0 0
Regional Shopping Center Pellet Wood Stoves 0 0
Santee Land Use Element Update Existing Scenario Detailed Report, 1/23/2026 29 / 42
Strip Mall Wood Fireplaces00
Strip Mall Gas Fireplaces00
Strip Mall Propane Fireplaces00
Strip Mall Electric Fireplaces00
Strip Mall No Fireplaces00
Strip Mall Conventional Wood Stoves00
Strip Mall Catalytic Wood Stoves00
Strip Mall Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves00
Strip Mall Pellet Wood Stoves00
Place of Worship Wood Fireplaces00
Place of Worship Gas Fireplaces00
Place of Worship Propane Fireplaces00
Place of Worship Electric Fireplaces00
Place of Worship No Fireplaces00
Place of Worship Conventional Wood Stoves00
Place of Worship Catalytic Wood Stoves00
Place of Worship Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves00
Place of Worship Pellet Wood Stoves00
Government (Civic Center) Wood Fireplaces00
Government (Civic Center) Gas Fireplaces00
Government (Civic Center) Propane Fireplaces00
Government (Civic Center) Electric Fireplaces00
Government (Civic Center) No Fireplaces00
Government (Civic Center) Conventional Wood Stoves00
Government (Civic Center) Catalytic Wood Stoves00
Government (Civic Center) Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves00
Government (Civic Center) Pellet Wood Stoves00
Santee Land Use Element Update Existing Scenario Detailed Report, 1/23/2026 30 / 42
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
2,128,923 709,641 2,604,455 868,152 —
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00000
Summer Days day/yr 180.000
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Apartments Mid Rise 3,685,876 539.881 0.0330 0.0040 7,694,260 Single Family Housing 24,565.1 539.881 0.0330 0.0040 114,068 Regional Shopping Center 2,539,157 539.881 0.0330 0.0040 1,246,573 Strip Mall 11,378,828 539.881 0.0330 0.0040 5,586,318
Place of Worship 969,506 539.881 0.0330 0.0040 4,361,035 Government (Civic Center) 817,847 539.881 0.0330 0.0040 1,578,223
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Apartments Mid Rise 38,189,653 1,905,999
Single Family Housing 140,532 855,738
Santee Land Use Element Update Existing Scenario Detailed Report, 1/23/2026 31 / 42
Regional Shopping Center 21,337,627 430,482
Strip Mall 95,621,153 1,929,157
Place of Worship 3,380,508 161,457
Government (Civic Center) 9,790,744 73,644.8
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Apartments Mid Rise 803.872 0.00000
Single Family Housing 2.60781 0.00000
Regional Shopping Center 302.467 0.00000
Strip Mall 1,355.46 0.00000
Place of Worship 615.838 0.00000
Government (Civic Center) 280.919 0.00000
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Apartments Mid Rise Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088.00 0.00225 2.50000 2.50000 10.00000
Apartments Mid Rise Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430.00 0.11538 0.60000 0.00000 1.000000
Single Family Housing Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088.00 0.00225 2.50000 2.50000 10.00000
Santee Land Use Element Update Existing Scenario Detailed Report, 1/23/2026 32 / 42
Single Family Housing Household R-134a 1,430.00 0.11538 0.60000 0.00000 1.000000 refrigerators and/or
freezers
Regional Shopping
Center
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088.00 0.00180 4.00000 4.00000 18.0000
Regional Shopping
Center
Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430.00 0.03750 1.000000 0.00000 1.000000
Strip Mall Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088.00 0.00180 4.00000 4.00000 18.0000
Strip Mall Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430.00 0.03750 1.000000 0.00000 1.000000
Strip Mall Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922.00 0.00040 7.50000 7.50000 20.0000
Place of Worship Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430.00 0.01679 0.60000 0.00000 1.000000
Place of Worship Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088.00 0.00180 4.00000 4.00000 18.0000
Place of Worship Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430.00 0.00004 1.000000 0.00000 1.000000
Place of Worship Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922.00 0.00040 7.50000 7.50000 20.0000
Government (Civic
Center)
Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430.00 0.01679 0.60000 0.00000 1.000000
Government (Civic
Center)
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088.00 0.00180 4.00000 4.00000 18.0000
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
Santee Land Use Element Update Existing Scenario Detailed Report, 1/23/2026 33 / 42
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
5.16.2. Process Boilers
5.17. User Defined
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.
Santee Land Use Element Update Existing Scenario Detailed Report, 1/23/2026 34 / 42
Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 12.3600 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 3.90000 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 7.98000 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 0 0 N/A
Wildfire 1 0 0 N/A
Flooding 0 0 0 N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
Santee Land Use Element Update Existing Scenario Detailed Report, 1/23/2026 35 / 42
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2
Wildfire 1 1 1 2
Flooding 1 1 1 2
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 60.9334
AQ-PM 45.7125
AQ-DPM 37.7598
Drinking Water 10.9279
Lead Risk Housing 49.2250
Santee Land Use Element Update Existing Scenario Detailed Report, 1/23/2026 36 / 42
Pesticides 0.00000
Toxic Releases 25.0313
Traffic 40.2125
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 27.8275
Groundwater 31.1141
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 90.4037
Impaired Water Bodies 77.2995
Solid Waste 55.5097
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 22.9437
Cardio-vascular 12.0638
Low Birth Weights 7.65974
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 36.1807
Housing 83.4981
Linguistic 11.2735
Poverty 62.2487
Unemployment 81.0125
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 38.71423072
Employed 22.93083537
Median HI 44.642628
Education —
Santee Land Use Element Update Existing Scenario Detailed Report, 1/23/2026 37 / 42
Bachelor's or higher 52.99627871
High school enrollment 10.27845502
Preschool enrollment 22.87950725
Transportation —
Auto Access 39.77928911
Active commuting 20.4029257
Social —
2-parent households 68.92082638
Voting 74.24611831
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 52.50866162
Park access 41.99923008
Retail density 50.25022456
Supermarket access 53.41973566
Tree canopy 22.39189016
Housing —
Homeownership 51.98254844
Housing habitability 47.79930707
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 41.98639805 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 21.69896061
Uncrowded housing 65.16104196
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 68.56152958
Arthritis 2.6
Asthma ER Admissions 72.2
High Blood Pressure 16.4
Cancer (excluding skin) 9.7
Asthma 21.6
Santee Land Use Element Update Existing Scenario Detailed Report, 1/23/2026 38 / 42
Coronary Heart Disease 2.9
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 2.8
Diagnosed Diabetes 26.4
Life Expectancy at Birth 19.6
Cognitively Disabled 29.3
Physically Disabled 28.8
Heart Attack ER Admissions 75.5
Mental Health Not Good 30.2
Chronic Kidney Disease 10.6
Obesity 44.4
Pedestrian Injuries 19.6
Physical Health Not Good 27.6
Stroke 8.8
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 54.2
Current Smoker 25.4
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 40.3
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 3.7
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 12.4
Elderly 41.5
English Speaking 74.1
Foreign-born 13.3
Outdoor Workers 21.1
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 45.5
Traffic Density 37.1
Santee Land Use Element Update Existing Scenario Detailed Report, 1/23/2026 39 / 42
Traffic Access 46.1
Other Indices —
Hardship 56.1
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 77.1
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 33.0000 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 40.0000 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) Yes Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.
8. User Changes to Default Data
8.1. Justifications
Screen Justification
Land Use Based on existing data.
Santee Land Use Element Update Existing Scenario Detailed Report, 1/23/2026 40 / 42
Operations: Vehicle Data Adjusted trip rates and lengths to match existing VMT data.
8.3. Land Use
Model Parameter Units Default Value New Value
Lot Area acre 28.6053 0.00000
Landscape Area sq. ft — 104,352
Lot Area acre 1.29870 12.6800
Lot Area acre 6.61304 19.0200
Landscape Area sq. ft — 28,806.0
Lot Area acre 29.6353 198.980
Landscape Area sq. ft — 129,091
Lot Area acre 2.48030 14.5500
Landscape Area sq. ft — 10,804.0
Lot Area acre 1.13140 8.93000
Landscape Area sq. ft — 4,928.00
8.5. Operations
8.5.1. Mobile Sources
8.5.1.1. Vehicle Data
Land Use Model Parameter Units Default Value New Value
Apartments Mid Rise Weekday Trip Rate size/day 5.44000 4.22323 Apartments Mid Rise Saturday Trip Rate size/day 4.91000 3.81178 Apartments Mid Rise Sunday Trip Rate size/day 4.09000 3.17519 Apartments Mid Rise Res H-W Trip Length miles 11.8369 12.0000 Apartments Mid Rise Res H-S Trip Length miles 6.81383 12.0000 Apartments Mid Rise Res H-O Trip Length miles 6.03902 12.0000 Santee Land Use Element Update Existing Scenario Detailed Report, 1/23/2026 41 / 42
Single Family Housing Weekday Trip Rate size/day 9.44000 4.33208 Single Family Housing Saturday Trip Rate size/day 9.54000 4.37797 Single Family Housing Sunday Trip Rate size/day 8.55000 3.92366 Single Family Housing Res H-W Trip Length miles 11.8369 12.0000 Single Family Housing Res H-S Trip Length miles 6.81383 12.0000 Single Family Housing Res H-O Trip Length miles 6.03902 12.0000 Regional Shopping Center Weekday Trip Rate size/day 37.7500 38.0014 Regional Shopping Center Saturday Trip Rate size/day 46.1200 46.4272 Regional Shopping Center Sunday Trip Rate size/day 21.1000 21.2405 Regional Shopping Center Non-Res H-W Trip Length miles 11.6335 12.0000 Regional Shopping Center Non-Res W-O Trip Length miles 7.99667 12.0000 Regional Shopping Center Non-Res O-O Trip Length miles 7.18463 12.0000 Regional Shopping Center Weekday Primary Trip % 37.9200 100.0000 Regional Shopping Center Weekday Divert Trip % 28.0800 0.00000 Regional Shopping Center Weekday Pass-By Trip % 34.0000 0.00000 Regional Shopping Center Saturday Primary Trip % 42.5100 100.0000 Regional Shopping Center Saturday Divert Trip % 31.4900 0.00000 Regional Shopping Center Saturday Pass-By Trip % 26.0000 0.00000 Regional Shopping Center Sunday Primary Trip % 42.5100 100.0000 Regional Shopping Center Sunday Divert Trip % 31.4900 0.00000 Regional Shopping Center Sunday Pass-By Trip % 26.0000 0.00000 Strip Mall Weekday Trip Rate size/day 44.3200 41.6832
Strip Mall Saturday Trip Rate size/day 42.0400 39.5389
Strip Mall Sunday Trip Rate size/day 20.4300 19.2145
Strip Mall Non-Res H-W Trip Length miles 11.6335 12.0000 Strip Mall Non-Res W-O Trip Length miles 7.99667 12.0000 Strip Mall Non-Res O-O Trip Length miles 7.18463 12.0000 Place of Worship Weekday Trip Rate size/day 6.95000 2.94562 Santee Land Use Element Update Existing Scenario Detailed Report, 1/23/2026 42 / 42
Place of Worship Saturday Trip Rate size/day 5.99000 2.53874 Place of Worship Sunday Trip Rate size/day 27.6300 11.7104 Place of Worship Non-Res H-W Trip Length miles 11.6335 12.0000 Place of Worship Non-Res W-O Trip Length miles 7.99667 12.0000 Place of Worship Non-Res O-O Trip Length miles 7.18463 12.0000 Government (Civic Center) Weekday Trip Rate size/day 33.9800 14.2546 Government (Civic Center) Non-Res H-W Trip Length miles 11.6335 12.0000 Government (Civic Center) Non-Res W-O Trip Length miles 7.99667 12.0000 Government (Civic Center) Non-Res O-O Trip Length miles 7.18463 12.0000 Santee Land Use Element Update Proposed Scenario Detailed Report, 1/23/2026 1 / 39
Santee Land Use Element Update Proposed Scenario Detailed Report Table of Contents
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
1.2. Land Use Types
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector
2. Emissions Summary
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.1. Unmitigated
Santee Land Use Element Update Proposed Scenario Detailed Report, 1/23/2026 2 / 39
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.1. Unmitigated
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.1. Unmitigated
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated
5. Activity Data
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
Santee Land Use Element Update Proposed Scenario Detailed Report, 1/23/2026 3 / 39
5.9.1. Unmitigated
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
5.16.2. Process Boilers
Santee Land Use Element Update Proposed Scenario Detailed Report, 1/23/2026 4 / 39
5.17. User Defined
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
Santee Land Use Element Update Proposed Scenario Detailed Report, 1/23/2026 5 / 39
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
8. User Changes to Default Data
8.1. Justifications
8.3. Land Use
8.5. Operations
8.5.1. Mobile Sources
8.5.1.1. Vehicle Data
Santee Land Use Element Update Proposed Scenario Detailed Report, 1/23/2026 6 / 39
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Santee Land Use Element Update Proposed Scenario Operational Year 2045
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.60000
Precipitation (days) 7.60000
Location 32.83840817282021, -116.98464742327751
County San Diego
City Santee
Air District San Diego County APCD
Air Basin San Diego
TAZ 6528
EDFZ 12
Electric Utility San Diego Gas & Electric
Gas Utility San Diego Gas & Electric
App Version 2022.1.1.37
1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Apartments Mid
Rise
5,559.00 Dwelling Unit 245.230 5,336,640 533,664 — 15,510.0 — Santee Land Use Element Update Proposed Scenario Detailed Report, 1/23/2026 7 / 39
Apartments Low 128.000 Dwelling Unit 8.93000 135,680 38,890.0 — 357.000 — Rise
Regional Shopping
Center
1,949.77 1000sqft 0.00000 1,949,767 194,977 — — Neighborhood Shopping Center
Strip Mall 1,320.98 1000sqft 0.00000 1,320,976 132,098 — — — Industrial Park 206.013 1000sqft 0.00000 206,013 20,601.0 — — —
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected
2. Emissions Summary
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 9,640.17 9,438.54 512.780 15,991.3 34.3226 1,487.82 1,623.30 3,111.12 1,480.53 411.424 1,891.95 163,131 1,610,89 0 1,774,02
1 716.993 61.6483 470.708 1,810,78
8 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 9,580.40 9,382.78 541.718 15,074.0 33.6122 1,487.41 1,623.30 3,110.71 1,480.22 411.424 1,891.64 163,131 1,539,88 2 1,703,01
3 718.231 64.3309 119.750 1,740,25
9 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2,670.54 2,592.22 357.941 6,418.09 16.6786 339.161 1,391.87 1,731.03 337.252 352.792 690.044 40,675.3 1,300,98 3 1,341,65
8 598.825 48.2178 244.458 1,371,24
2 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 487.373 473.080 65.3242 1,171.30 3.04384 61.8969 254.016 315.913 61.5485 64.3845 125.933 6,734.27 215,393 222,127 99.1423 7.98300 40.4728 227,025 Santee Land Use Element Update Proposed Scenario Detailed Report, 1/23/2026 8 / 39
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 528.676 479.115 322.615 4,763.36 14.7360 5.99835 1,623.30 1,629.30 5.61478 411.424 417.039 — 1,498,18 4 1,498,18
4 42.9909 47.3772 360.302 1,513,73
8 Area 9,109.67 8,958.51 174.217 11,218.8 19.4869 1,480.56 — 1,480.56 1,473.65 — 1,473.65 157,938 67,344.1 225,282 145.783 11.3452 — 232,307 Energy 1.82702 0.91351 15.9472 9.09617 0.09966 1.26231 — 1.26231 1.26231 — 1.26231 — 43,773.9 43,773.9 6.41416 0.60220 — 44,113.7 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 938.408 1,587.94 2,526.35 96.5319 2.32367 — 5,632.10 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 4,255.01 0.00000 4,255.01 425.273 0.00000 — 14,886.8 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 110.406 110.406 Total 9,640.17 9,438.54 512.780 15,991.3 34.3226 1,487.82 1,623.30 3,111.12 1,480.53 411.424 1,891.95 163,131 1,610,89 0 1,774,02
1 716.993 61.6483 470.708 1,810,78
8 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 525.421 476.235 355.804 4,321.58 14.0486 6.00031 1,623.30 1,629.30 5.61666 411.424 417.041 — 1,428,66 0 1,428,66
0 44.2909 50.0724 9.34351 1,444,69
8 Area 9,053.15 8,905.63 169.966 10,743.3 19.4639 1,480.15 — 1,480.15 1,473.34 — 1,473.34 157,938 65,859.6 223,797 145.721 11.3327 — 230,818 Energy 1.82702 0.91351 15.9472 9.09617 0.09966 1.26231 — 1.26231 1.26231 — 1.26231 — 43,773.9 43,773.9 6.41416 0.60220 — 44,113.7 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 938.408 1,587.94 2,526.35 96.5319 2.32367 — 5,632.10 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 4,255.01 0.00000 4,255.01 425.273 0.00000 — 14,886.8 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 110.406 110.406 Total 9,580.40 9,382.78 541.718 15,074.0 33.6122 1,487.41 1,623.30 3,110.71 1,480.22 411.424 1,891.64 163,131 1,539,88 2 1,703,01
3 718.231 64.3309 119.750 1,740,25
9 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 447.794 405.326 301.713 3,760.94 12.1948 5.16917 1,391.87 1,397.04 4.83864 352.792 357.631 — 1,240,09 3 1,240,09
3 37.8382 42.7398 134.052 1,253,90
9 Santee Land Use Element Update Proposed Scenario Detailed Report, 1/23/2026 9 / 39
Area 2,220.92 2,185.98 40.2806 2,648.06 4.38407 332.729 — 332.729 331.151 — 331.151 35,481.9 15,527.9 51,009.8 32.7680 2.55213 — 52,589.6 Energy 1.82702 0.91351 15.9472 9.09617 0.09966 1.26231 — 1.26231 1.26231 — 1.26231 — 43,773.9 43,773.9 6.41416 0.60220 — 44,113.7 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 938.408 1,587.94 2,526.35 96.5319 2.32367 — 5,632.10 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 4,255.01 0.00000 4,255.01 425.273 0.00000 — 14,886.8 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 110.406 110.406 Total 2,670.54 2,592.22 357.941 6,418.09 16.6786 339.161 1,391.87 1,731.03 337.252 352.792 690.044 40,675.3 1,300,98 3 1,341,65
8 598.825 48.2178 244.458 1,371,24
2 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 81.7223 73.9720 55.0627 686.371 2.22556 0.94337 254.016 254.960 0.88305 64.3845 65.2676 — 205,312 205,312 6.26455 7.07606 22.1938 207,599 Area 405.318 398.941 7.35121 483.271 0.80009 60.7231 — 60.7231 60.4351 — 60.4351 5,874.44 2,570.83 8,445.26 5.42511 0.42253 — 8,706.81 Energy 0.33343 0.16672 2.91036 1.66005 0.01819 0.23037 — 0.23037 0.23037 — 0.23037 — 7,247.27 7,247.27 1.06194 0.09970 — 7,303.53 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 155.364 262.901 418.265 15.9820 0.38471 — 932.458 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 704.465 0.00000 704.465 70.4087 0.00000 — 2,464.68 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 18.2790 18.2790 Total 487.373 473.080 65.3242 1,171.30 3.04384 61.8969 254.016 315.913 61.5485 64.3845 125.933 6,734.27 215,393 222,127 99.1423 7.98300 40.4728 227,025
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
65.5254 59.3827 39.9857 590.382 1.82641 0.74345 201.196 201.939 0.69591 50.9929 51.6888 — 185,689 185,689 5.32840 5.87204 44.6567 187,616 Santee Land Use Element Update Proposed Scenario Detailed Report, 1/23/2026 10 / 39
Apartme 1.92409 1.74372 1.17414 17.3360 0.05363 0.02183 5.90792 5.92975 0.02043 1.49736 1.51779 — 5,452.57 5,452.57 0.15646 0.17243 1.31130 5,509.17 nts
Regiona
l
Shoppin
g
Center
249.428 226.046 152.209 2,247.34 6.95240 2.83001 765.870 768.700 2.64904 194.109 196.758 — 706,840 706,840 20.2830 22.3525 169.990 714,178 Strip
Mall
207.483 188.033 126.613 1,869.42 5.78325 2.35410 637.077 639.431 2.20357 161.467 163.670 — 587,974 587,974 16.8721 18.5936 141.403 594,078 Industria
l
Park
4.31524 3.91071 2.63330 38.8802 0.12028 0.04896 13.2499 13.2989 0.04583 3.35819 3.40402 — 12,228.7 12,228.7 0.35091 0.38671 2.94091 12,355.7 Total 528.676 479.115 322.615 4,763.36 14.7360 5.99835 1,623.30 1,629.30 5.61478 411.424 417.039 — 1,498,18 4 1,498,18
4 42.9909 47.3772 360.302 1,513,73
8 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
65.1219 59.0257 44.0992 535.627 1.74122 0.74369 201.196 201.939 0.69614 50.9929 51.6890 — 177,072 177,072 5.48952 6.20609 1.15806 179,059 Apartme
nts
Low Rise
1.91224 1.73323 1.29493 15.7282 0.05113 0.02184 5.90792 5.92976 0.02044 1.49736 1.51780 — 5,199.54 5,199.54 0.16119 0.18224 0.03401 5,257.91 Regiona
l
Shoppin
g
Center
247.892 224.687 167.868 2,038.91 6.62810 2.83093 765.870 768.701 2.64993 194.109 196.759 — 674,039 674,039 20.8963 23.6241 4.40825 681,606 Strip
Mall
206.206 186.902 139.638 1,696.04 5.51349 2.35487 637.077 639.432 2.20430 161.467 163.671 — 560,689 560,689 17.3823 19.6513 3.66694 566,983 Industria
l
Park
4.28867 3.88719 2.90420 35.2742 0.11467 0.04898 13.2499 13.2989 0.04585 3.35819 3.40403 — 11,661.2 11,661.2 0.36152 0.40871 0.07626 11,792.1 Total 525.421 476.235 355.804 4,321.58 14.0486 6.00031 1,623.30 1,629.30 5.61666 411.424 417.041 — 1,428,66 0 1,428,66
0 44.2909 50.0724 9.34351 1,444,69
8 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Santee Land Use Element Update Proposed Scenario Detailed Report, 1/23/2026 11 / 39
Apartme 11.1749 10.1151 7.52938 93.8557 0.30433 0.12900 34.7347 34.8637 0.12075 8.80408 8.92483 — 28,074.7 28,074.7 0.85663 0.96759 3.03483 28,387.5 nts
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
0.30908 0.27976 0.20825 2.59587 0.00842 0.00357 0.96070 0.96426 0.00334 0.24350 0.24684 — 776.493 776.493 0.02369 0.02676 0.08394 785.145 Regiona
l
Shoppin
g
Center
35.4788 32.1141 23.9048 297.980 0.96620 0.40955 110.278 110.688 0.38337 27.9518 28.3352 — 89,133.6 89,133.6 2.71968 3.07199 9.63519 90,126.7 Strip
Mall
34.0825 30.8503 22.9641 286.253 0.92818 0.39344 105.938 106.332 0.36828 26.8518 27.2201 — 85,625.8 85,625.8 2.61265 2.95109 9.25600 86,579.8 Industria
l
Park
0.67701 0.61281 0.45616 5.68612 0.01844 0.00782 2.10435 2.11217 0.00732 0.53338 0.54070 — 1,700.87 1,700.87 0.05190 0.05862 0.18386 1,719.82 Total 81.7223 73.9720 55.0627 686.371 2.22556 0.94337 254.016 254.960 0.88305 64.3845 65.2676 — 205,312 205,312 6.26455 7.07606 22.1938 207,599
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 8,760.57 8,760.57 1.70423 0.20657 — 8,864.74 Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 207.809 207.809 0.04043 0.00490 — 210.279 Santee Land Use Element Update Proposed Scenario Detailed Report, 1/23/2026 12 / 39
Regiona———————————— 7,987.45 7,987.45 1.55383 0.18834— 8,082.42 l Shoppin g
Center
Strip
Mall
———————————— 5,411.53 5,411.53 1.05273 0.12760— 5,475.88 Industria l
Park
———————————— 1,588.86 1,588.86 0.30909 0.03747— 1,607.75 Total———————————— 23,956.2 23,956.2 4.66031 0.56489— 24,241.1 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
———————————— 8,760.57 8,760.57 1.70423 0.20657— 8,864.74 Apartme
nts
Low Rise
———————————— 207.809 207.809 0.04043 0.00490— 210.279
Regiona l
Shoppin g
Center
———————————— 7,987.45 7,987.45 1.55383 0.18834— 8,082.42 Strip
Mall
———————————— 5,411.53 5,411.53 1.05273 0.12760— 5,475.88 Industria l
Park
———————————— 1,588.86 1,588.86 0.30909 0.03747— 1,607.75 Total———————————— 23,956.2 23,956.2 4.66031 0.56489— 24,241.1 Annual——————————————————
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
———————————— 1,450.41 1,450.41 0.28216 0.03420— 1,467.66 Santee Land Use Element Update Proposed Scenario Detailed Report, 1/23/2026 13 / 39
Apartme — — — — — — — — — — — — 34.4051 34.4051 0.00669 0.00081 — 34.8142 nts
Low Rise
Regiona
l
Shoppin
g
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,322.41 1,322.41 0.25725 0.03118 — 1,338.14 Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — — — 895.941 895.941 0.17429 0.02113 — 906.594 Industria
l
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — 263.054 263.054 0.05117 0.00620 — 266.181 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 3,966.23 3,966.23 0.77157 0.09352 — 4,013.38
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
1.16261 0.58130 9.93502 4.22767 0.06341 0.80326 — 0.80326 0.80326 — 0.80326 — 12,610.8 12,610.8 1.11605 0.02375 — 12,645.8 Apartme
nts
Low Rise
0.05130 0.02565 0.43841 0.18656 0.00280 0.03545 — 0.03545 0.03545 — 0.03545 — 556.482 556.482 0.04925 0.00105 — 558.025 Regiona
l
Shoppin
g
Center
0.24929 0.12465 2.26631 1.90370 0.01360 0.17224 — 0.17224 0.17224 — 0.17224 — 2,704.08 2,704.08 0.23931 0.00509 — 2,711.58 Strip
Mall
0.16890 0.08445 1.53543 1.28976 0.00921 0.11669 — 0.11669 0.11669 — 0.11669 — 1,832.03 1,832.03 0.16213 0.00345 — 1,837.11 Santee Land Use Element Update Proposed Scenario Detailed Report, 1/23/2026 14 / 39
Industria 0.19492 0.09746 1.77200 1.48848 0.01063 0.13467 — 0.13467 0.13467 — 0.13467 — 2,114.29 2,114.29 0.18711 0.00398 — 2,120.16 l
Total 1.82702 0.91351 15.9472 9.09617 0.09966 1.26231 — 1.26231 1.26231 — 1.26231 — 19,817.7 19,817.7 1.75385 0.03732 — 19,872.6 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
1.16261 0.58130 9.93502 4.22767 0.06341 0.80326 — 0.80326 0.80326 — 0.80326 — 12,610.8 12,610.8 1.11605 0.02375 — 12,645.8 Apartme
nts
Low Rise
0.05130 0.02565 0.43841 0.18656 0.00280 0.03545 — 0.03545 0.03545 — 0.03545 — 556.482 556.482 0.04925 0.00105 — 558.025 Regiona
l
Shoppin
g
Center
0.24929 0.12465 2.26631 1.90370 0.01360 0.17224 — 0.17224 0.17224 — 0.17224 — 2,704.08 2,704.08 0.23931 0.00509 — 2,711.58 Strip
Mall
0.16890 0.08445 1.53543 1.28976 0.00921 0.11669 — 0.11669 0.11669 — 0.11669 — 1,832.03 1,832.03 0.16213 0.00345 — 1,837.11 Industria
l
Park
0.19492 0.09746 1.77200 1.48848 0.01063 0.13467 — 0.13467 0.13467 — 0.13467 — 2,114.29 2,114.29 0.18711 0.00398 — 2,120.16 Total 1.82702 0.91351 15.9472 9.09617 0.09966 1.26231 — 1.26231 1.26231 — 1.26231 — 19,817.7 19,817.7 1.75385 0.03732 — 19,872.6 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
0.21218 0.10609 1.81314 0.77155 0.01157 0.14659 — 0.14659 0.14659 — 0.14659 — 2,087.86 2,087.86 0.18477 0.00393 — 2,093.65 Apartme
nts
Low Rise
0.00936 0.00468 0.08001 0.03405 0.00051 0.00647 — 0.00647 0.00647 — 0.00647 — 92.1319 92.1319 0.00815 0.00017 — 92.3875 Regiona
l
Shoppin
g
Center
0.04550 0.02275 0.41360 0.34742 0.00248 0.03143 — 0.03143 0.03143 — 0.03143 — 447.691 447.691 0.03962 0.00084 — 448.933 Strip
Mall
0.03082 0.01541 0.28022 0.23538 0.00168 0.02130 — 0.02130 0.02130 — 0.02130 — 303.313 303.313 0.02684 0.00057 — 304.154 Santee Land Use Element Update Proposed Scenario Detailed Report, 1/23/2026 15 / 39
Industria
Park
0.03557 0.01779 0.32339 0.27165 0.00194 0.02458 — 0.02458 0.02458 — 0.02458 — 350.045 350.045 0.03098 0.00066 — 351.016 Total 0.33343 0.16672 2.91036 1.66005 0.01819 0.23037 — 0.23037 0.23037 — 0.23037 — 3,281.04 3,281.04 0.29037 0.00618 — 3,290.14
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 8,847.84 8,700.32 169.966 10,743.3 19.4639 1,480.15 — 1,480.15 1,473.34 — 1,473.34 157,938 65,859.6 223,797 145.721 11.3327 — 230,818 Consum
er
Product
s
191.510 191.510 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s
13.8003 13.8003 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent
56.5229 52.8782 4.25091 475.486 0.02301 0.41280 — 0.41280 0.31225 — 0.31225 — 1,484.45 1,484.45 0.06214 0.01249 — 1,489.73 Total 9,109.67 8,958.51 174.217 11,218.8 19.4869 1,480.56 — 1,480.56 1,473.65 — 1,473.65 157,938 67,344.1 225,282 145.783 11.3452 — 232,307 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 8,847.84 8,700.32 169.966 10,743.3 19.4639 1,480.15 — 1,480.15 1,473.34 — 1,473.34 157,938 65,859.6 223,797 145.721 11.3327 — 230,818 Consum
er
Product
s
191.510 191.510 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Santee Land Use Element Update Proposed Scenario Detailed Report, 1/23/2026 16 / 39
Architect 13.8003 13.8003 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ural
Total 9,053.15 8,905.63 169.966 10,743.3 19.4639 1,480.15 — 1,480.15 1,473.34 — 1,473.34 157,938 65,859.6 223,797 145.721 11.3327 — 230,818 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 362.761 356.713 6.96863 440.477 0.79802 60.6860 — 60.6860 60.4070 — 60.4070 5,874.44 2,449.62 8,324.06 5.42004 0.42151 — 8,585.17 Consum
er
Product
s
34.9506 34.9506 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s
2.51855 2.51855 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent
5.08706 4.75904 0.38258 42.7937 0.00207 0.03715 — 0.03715 0.02810 — 0.02810 — 121.201 121.201 0.00507 0.00102 — 121.631 Total 405.318 398.941 7.35121 483.271 0.80009 60.7231 — 60.7231 60.4351 — 60.4351 5,874.44 2,570.83 8,445.26 5.42511 0.42253 — 8,706.81
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 374.250 641.935 1,016.18 38.4999 0.92692 — 2,254.90 Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 8.61738 15.9794 24.5968 0.88672 0.02137 — 53.1334 Santee Land Use Element Update Proposed Scenario Detailed Report, 1/23/2026 17 / 39
Regiona——————————— 276.751 464.107 740.858 28.4679 0.68519— 1,656.74 l Strip
Mall
——————————— 187.500 314.435 501.935 19.2871 0.46422— 1,122.45 Industria l
Park
——————————— 91.2904 151.482 242.772 9.39026 0.22598— 544.871 Total——————————— 938.408 1,587.94 2,526.35 96.5319 2.32367— 5,632.10 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
——————————— 374.250 641.935 1,016.18 38.4999 0.92692— 2,254.90 Apartme
nts
Low Rise
——————————— 8.61738 15.9794 24.5968 0.88672 0.02137— 53.1334 Regiona l
Shoppin g
Center
——————————— 276.751 464.107 740.858 28.4679 0.68519— 1,656.74 Strip
Mall
——————————— 187.500 314.435 501.935 19.2871 0.46422— 1,122.45 Industria l
Park
——————————— 91.2904 151.482 242.772 9.39026 0.22598— 544.871 Total——————————— 938.408 1,587.94 2,526.35 96.5319 2.32367— 5,632.10 Annual——————————————————
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
——————————— 61.9613 106.280 168.241 6.37410 0.15346— 373.325 Apartme
nts
Low Rise
——————————— 1.42670 2.64557 4.07227 0.14681 0.00354— 8.79684 Santee Land Use Element Update Proposed Scenario Detailed Report, 1/23/2026 18 / 39
Regiona — — — — — — — — — — — 45.8192 76.8383 122.658 4.71319 0.11344 — 274.292 l
Shoppin
Center
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — — 31.0427 52.0583 83.1010 3.19320 0.07686 — 185.834 Industria
l
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 15.1142 25.0795 40.1937 1.55466 0.03741 — 90.2096 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 155.364 262.901 418.265 15.9820 0.38471 — 932.458
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 2,215.47 0.00000 2,215.47 221.428 0.00000 — 7,751.18 Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 50.9944 0.00000 50.9944 5.09671 0.00000 — 178.412 Regiona
l
Shoppin
g
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — 1,103.35 0.00000 1,103.35 110.275 0.00000 — 3,860.23 Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — — 747.521 0.00000 747.521 74.7121 0.00000 — 2,615.32 Industria
l
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 137.675 0.00000 137.675 13.7601 0.00000 — 481.679 Santee Land Use Element Update Proposed Scenario Detailed Report, 1/23/2026 19 / 39
Total——————————— 4,255.01 0.00000 4,255.01 425.273 0.00000— 14,886.8 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
——————————— 2,215.47 0.00000 2,215.47 221.428 0.00000— 7,751.18 Apartme
nts
Low Rise
——————————— 50.9944 0.00000 50.9944 5.09671 0.00000— 178.412 Regiona l
Shoppin g
Center
——————————— 1,103.35 0.00000 1,103.35 110.275 0.00000— 3,860.23 Strip
Mall
——————————— 747.521 0.00000 747.521 74.7121 0.00000— 2,615.32 Industria l
Park
——————————— 137.675 0.00000 137.675 13.7601 0.00000— 481.679 Total——————————— 4,255.01 0.00000 4,255.01 425.273 0.00000— 14,886.8 Annual——————————————————
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
——————————— 366.796 0.00000 366.796 36.6600 0.00000— 1,283.30 Apartme
nts
Low Rise
——————————— 8.44270 0.00000 8.44270 0.84382 0.00000— 29.5382 Regiona l
Shoppin g
Center
——————————— 182.671 0.00000 182.671 18.2574 0.00000— 639.105 Strip
Mall
——————————— 123.761 0.00000 123.761 12.3694 0.00000— 432.997 Santee Land Use Element Update Proposed Scenario Detailed Report, 1/23/2026 20 / 39
Industria — — — — — — — — — — — 22.7937 0.00000 22.7937 2.27815 0.00000 — 79.7474 l
Park
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 704.465 0.00000 704.465 70.4087 0.00000 — 2,464.68
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 38.2210 38.2210
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.97174 0.97174
Regiona
l
Shoppin
g
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 9.36009 9.36009
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 8.22734 8.22734
Industria
l
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 53.6261 53.6261
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 110.406 110.406
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Santee Land Use Element Update Proposed Scenario Detailed Report, 1/23/2026 21 / 39
Apartme — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 38.2210 38.2210 nts
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.97174 0.97174
Regiona
l
Shoppin
g
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 9.36009 9.36009
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 8.22734 8.22734
Industria
l
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 53.6261 53.6261
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 110.406 110.406
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 6.32793 6.32793
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.16088 0.16088
Regiona
l
Shoppin
g
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.54967 1.54967
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.36213 1.36213
Industria
l
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 8.87841 8.87841
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 18.2790 18.2790
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
Santee Land Use Element Update Proposed Scenario Detailed Report, 1/23/2026 22 / 39
4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Santee Land Use Element Update Proposed Scenario Detailed Report, 1/23/2026 23 / 39
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetati
on
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Santee Land Use Element Update Proposed Scenario Detailed Report, 1/23/2026 24 / 39
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Santee Land Use Element Update Proposed Scenario Detailed Report, 1/23/2026 25 / 39
Remove — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
d
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
5. Activity Data
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
Santee Land Use Element Update Proposed Scenario Detailed Report, 1/23/2026 26 / 39
5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Apartments Mid
Rise
23,780.3 21,463.5 17,879.0 8,251,306 285,364 257,562 214,548 99,015,667 Apartments Low
Rise
627.944 698.287 538.728 228,215 7,535.32 8,379.45 6,464.73 2,738,585 Regional Shopping
Center
74,093.8 90,522.0 41,414.0 26,196,839 889,126 1,086,264 496,968 314,362,073 Strip Mall 75,299.4 71,425.7 34,710.4 25,165,870 903,593 857,108 416,525 301,990,441 Industrial Park 1,566.08 1,180.37 576.243 499,894 18,792.9 14,164.4 6,914.92 5,998,723
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
Land Use Hearth Type Unmitigated (number) Mitigated (number) Apartments Mid Rise Wood Fireplaces 1,946 1,946
Apartments Mid Rise Gas Fireplaces 3,057 3,057
Apartments Mid Rise Propane Fireplaces 0 0
Apartments Mid Rise Electric Fireplaces 0 0
Apartments Mid Rise No Fireplaces 556 556
Apartments Mid Rise Conventional Wood Stoves 0 0
Apartments Mid Rise Catalytic Wood Stoves 278 278
Apartments Mid Rise Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 278 278
Apartments Mid Rise Pellet Wood Stoves 0 0
Apartments Low Rise Wood Fireplaces 45 45
Apartments Low Rise Gas Fireplaces 70 70
Apartments Low Rise Propane Fireplaces 0 0
Apartments Low Rise Electric Fireplaces 0 0
Apartments Low Rise No Fireplaces 13 13
Santee Land Use Element Update Proposed Scenario Detailed Report, 1/23/2026 27 / 39
Apartments Low Rise Conventional Wood Stoves00
Apartments Low Rise Catalytic Wood Stoves66
Apartments Low Rise Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves66
Apartments Low Rise Pellet Wood Stoves00
Regional Shopping Center Wood Fireplaces00
Regional Shopping Center Gas Fireplaces00
Regional Shopping Center Propane Fireplaces00
Regional Shopping Center Electric Fireplaces00
Regional Shopping Center No Fireplaces00
Regional Shopping Center Conventional Wood Stoves00
Regional Shopping Center Catalytic Wood Stoves00
Regional Shopping Center Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves00
Regional Shopping Center Pellet Wood Stoves00
Strip Mall Wood Fireplaces00
Strip Mall Gas Fireplaces00
Strip Mall Propane Fireplaces00
Strip Mall Electric Fireplaces00
Strip Mall No Fireplaces00
Strip Mall Conventional Wood Stoves00
Strip Mall Catalytic Wood Stoves00
Strip Mall Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves00
Strip Mall Pellet Wood Stoves00
Industrial Park Wood Fireplaces00
Industrial Park Gas Fireplaces00
Industrial Park Propane Fireplaces00
Industrial Park Electric Fireplaces00
Industrial Park No Fireplaces00
Industrial Park Conventional Wood Stoves00
Santee Land Use Element Update Proposed Scenario Detailed Report, 1/23/2026 28 / 39
Industrial Park Catalytic Wood Stoves 0 0
Industrial Park Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0 0
Industrial Park Pellet Wood Stoves 0 0
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
11,081,448 3,693,816 5,215,134 1,738,378 —
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00000
Summer Days day/yr 180.000
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Apartments Mid Rise 18,849,846 169.636 0.0330 0.0040 39,349,027 Apartments Low Rise 447,135 169.636 0.0330 0.0040 1,736,373 Regional Shopping Center 17,186,335 169.636 0.0330 0.0040 8,437,454 Strip Mall 11,643,820 169.636 0.0330 0.0040 5,716,413
Industrial Park 3,418,696 169.636 0.0330 0.0040 6,597,160
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
Santee Land Use Element Update Proposed Scenario Detailed Report, 1/23/2026 29 / 39
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Apartments Mid Rise 195,304,764 9,747,420
Apartments Low Rise 4,497,034 710,329
Regional Shopping Center 144,424,158 2,913,768
Strip Mall 97,848,023 1,974,094
Industrial Park 47,640,506 307,865
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Apartments Mid Rise 4,110.80 0.00000
Apartments Low Rise 94.6200 0.00000
Regional Shopping Center 2,047.26 0.00000
Strip Mall 1,387.02 0.00000
Industrial Park 255.456 0.00000
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Apartments Mid Rise Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088.00 0.00225 2.50000 2.50000 10.00000
Apartments Mid Rise Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430.00 0.11538 0.60000 0.00000 1.000000
Apartments Low Rise Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088.00 0.00225 2.50000 2.50000 10.00000
Santee Land Use Element Update Proposed Scenario Detailed Report, 1/23/2026 30 / 39
Apartments Low Rise Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430.00 0.11538 0.60000 0.00000 1.000000
Regional Shopping
Center
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088.00 0.00180 4.00000 4.00000 18.0000
Regional Shopping
Center
Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430.00 0.03750 1.000000 0.00000 1.000000
Strip Mall Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088.00 0.00180 4.00000 4.00000 18.0000
Strip Mall Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430.00 0.03750 1.000000 0.00000 1.000000
Strip Mall Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922.00 0.00040 7.50000 7.50000 20.0000
Industrial Park Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088.00 0.30000 4.00000 4.00000 18.0000
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
5.16.2. Process Boilers
5.17. User Defined
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
Santee Land Use Element Update Proposed Scenario Detailed Report, 1/23/2026 31 / 39
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.
Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 12.3600 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 3.90000 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 7.98000 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Santee Land Use Element Update Proposed Scenario Detailed Report, 1/23/2026 32 / 39
Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 0 0 N/A
Wildfire 1 0 0 N/A
Flooding 0 0 0 N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2
Wildfire 1 1 1 2
Flooding 1 1 1 2
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Santee Land Use Element Update Proposed Scenario Detailed Report, 1/23/2026 33 / 39
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 60.9334
AQ-PM 45.7125
AQ-DPM 37.7598
Drinking Water 10.9279
Lead Risk Housing 49.2250
Pesticides 0.00000
Toxic Releases 25.0313
Traffic 40.2125
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 27.8275
Groundwater 31.1141
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 90.4037
Impaired Water Bodies 77.2995
Solid Waste 55.5097
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 22.9437
Santee Land Use Element Update Proposed Scenario Detailed Report, 1/23/2026 34 / 39
Cardio-vascular 12.0638
Low Birth Weights 7.65974
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 36.1807
Housing 83.4981
Linguistic 11.2735
Poverty 62.2487
Unemployment 81.0125
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 38.71423072
Employed 22.93083537
Median HI 44.642628
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 52.99627871
High school enrollment 10.27845502
Preschool enrollment 22.87950725
Transportation —
Auto Access 39.77928911
Active commuting 20.4029257
Social —
2-parent households 68.92082638
Voting 74.24611831
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 52.50866162
Santee Land Use Element Update Proposed Scenario Detailed Report, 1/23/2026 35 / 39
Park access 41.99923008
Retail density 50.25022456
Supermarket access 53.41973566
Tree canopy 22.39189016
Housing —
Homeownership 51.98254844
Housing habitability 47.79930707
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 41.98639805 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 21.69896061
Uncrowded housing 65.16104196
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 68.56152958
Arthritis 2.6
Asthma ER Admissions 72.2
High Blood Pressure 16.4
Cancer (excluding skin) 9.7
Asthma 21.6
Coronary Heart Disease 2.9
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 2.8
Diagnosed Diabetes 26.4
Life Expectancy at Birth 19.6
Cognitively Disabled 29.3
Physically Disabled 28.8
Heart Attack ER Admissions 75.5
Mental Health Not Good 30.2
Chronic Kidney Disease 10.6
Obesity 44.4
Pedestrian Injuries 19.6
Santee Land Use Element Update Proposed Scenario Detailed Report, 1/23/2026 36 / 39
Physical Health Not Good 27.6
Stroke 8.8
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 54.2
Current Smoker 25.4
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 40.3
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 3.7
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 12.4
Elderly 41.5
English Speaking 74.1
Foreign-born 13.3
Outdoor Workers 21.1
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 45.5
Traffic Density 37.1
Traffic Access 46.1
Other Indices —
Hardship 56.1
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 77.1
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 33.0000 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 40.0000 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Santee Land Use Element Update Proposed Scenario Detailed Report, 1/23/2026 37 / 39
Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) Yes Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.
8. User Changes to Default Data
8.1. Justifications
Screen Justification
Land Use Based on realistic proposed project land use data at 65% buildout.
Operations: Vehicle Data Adjusted trip rates and trip lengths to match proposed project VMT.
8.3. Land Use
Model Parameter Units Default Value New Value
Lot Area acre 146.289 245.230
Landscape Area sq. ft — 533,664
Lot Area acre 8.00000 8.93000
Landscape Area sq. ft — 38,890.0
Lot Area acre 44.7605 0.00000
Landscape Area sq. ft — 194,977
Lot Area acre 30.3254 0.00000
Santee Land Use Element Update Proposed Scenario Detailed Report, 1/23/2026 38 / 39
Landscape Area sq. ft — 132,098
Lot Area acre 4.72941 0.00000
Landscape Area sq. ft — 20,601.0
8.5. Operations
8.5.1. Mobile Sources
8.5.1.1. Vehicle Data
Land Use Model Parameter Units Default Value New Value
Apartments Mid Rise Weekday Trip Rate size/day 5.44000 4.27781 Apartments Mid Rise Saturday Trip Rate size/day 4.91000 3.86104 Apartments Mid Rise Sunday Trip Rate size/day 4.09000 3.21622 Apartments Mid Rise Res H-W Trip Length miles 11.8369 12.0000 Apartments Mid Rise Res H-S Trip Length miles 6.81383 12.0000 Apartments Mid Rise Res H-O Trip Length miles 6.03902 12.0000 Apartments Low Rise Weekday Trip Rate size/day 7.32000 4.90581 Apartments Low Rise Saturday Trip Rate size/day 8.14000 5.45537 Apartments Low Rise Sunday Trip Rate size/day 6.28000 4.20881 Apartments Low Rise Res H-W Trip Length miles 11.8369 12.0000 Apartments Low Rise Res H-S Trip Length miles 6.81383 12.0000 Apartments Low Rise Res H-O Trip Length miles 6.03902 12.0000 Regional Shopping Center Weekday Trip Rate size/day 37.7500 38.0014 Regional Shopping Center Saturday Trip Rate size/day 46.1200 46.4271 Regional Shopping Center Sunday Trip Rate size/day 21.1000 21.2405 Regional Shopping Center Non-Res H-W Trip Length miles 11.6335 12.0000 Regional Shopping Center Non-Res W-O Trip Length miles 7.99667 12.0000 Regional Shopping Center Non-Res O-O Trip Length miles 7.18463 12.0000 Regional Shopping Center Weekday Primary Trip % 37.9200 100.0000 Santee Land Use Element Update Proposed Scenario Detailed Report, 1/23/2026 39 / 39
Regional Shopping Center Weekday Divert Trip % 28.0800 0.00000 Regional Shopping Center Weekday Pass-By Trip % 34.0000 0.00000 Regional Shopping Center Saturday Primary Trip % 42.5100 100.0000 Regional Shopping Center Saturday Divert Trip % 31.4900 0.00000 Regional Shopping Center Saturday Pass-By Trip % 26.0000 0.00000 Regional Shopping Center Sunday Primary Trip % 42.5100 100.0000 Regional Shopping Center Sunday Divert Trip % 31.4900 0.00000 Regional Shopping Center Sunday Pass-By Trip % 26.0000 0.00000 Strip Mall Weekday Trip Rate size/day 44.3200 57.0029
Strip Mall Saturday Trip Rate size/day 42.0400 54.0704
Strip Mall Sunday Trip Rate size/day 20.4300 26.2764
Strip Mall Non-Res H-W Trip Length miles 11.6335 12.0000 Strip Mall Non-Res W-O Trip Length miles 7.99667 12.0000 Strip Mall Non-Res O-O Trip Length miles 7.18463 12.0000 Industrial Park Weekday Trip Rate size/day 3.37000 7.60184 Industrial Park Saturday Trip Rate size/day 2.54000 5.72958 Industrial Park Sunday Trip Rate size/day 1.24000 2.79712 Industrial Park Non-Res H-W Trip Length miles 11.6335 12.0000 Industrial Park Non-Res W-O Trip Length miles 7.99667 12.0000 Industrial Park Non-Res O-O Trip Length miles 7.18463 12.0000 Biological Technical Report
City of Santee Land Use
Element Update
MARCH JUNE 2026
Prepared for:
CITY OF SANTEE, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
10601 Magnolia Avenue
Santee, California 92071
Prepared by:
687 S. Coast Highway, Suite 110
Encinitas, California 92024
Contact: Brock Ortega
17100 i
MARCH JUNE 2026
Table of Contents
SECTION PAGE NO.
Acronyms and Abbreviations............................................................................................................................................ iii 1 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................................1
1.1 Project Location, Description, and Purpose..........................................................................................1 2 Regulatory Setting................................................................................................................................................3
2.1 Federal ....................................................................................................................................................3
2.1.1 Federal Endangered Species Act.............................................................................................3
2.1.2 Migratory Bird Treaty Act..........................................................................................................3
2.1.3 Clean Water Act ........................................................................................................................3
2.2 State........................................................................................................................................................5
2.2.1 California Endangered Species Act..........................................................................................5
2.2.2 California Fish and Game Code ...............................................................................................5
2.2.3 California Environmental Quality Act .......................................................................................6
2.2.4 Porter–Cologne Water Quality Control Act ..............................................................................7
2.3 Regional Resource Planning Context....................................................................................................8
2.3.1 Multiple Species Conservation Program Plan.........................................................................8
2.3.2 Draft Santee Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan....................................8
2.3.3 Santee General Plan.................................................................................................................9 3 Methods............................................................................................................................................................. 11
3.1 Literature Review................................................................................................................................. 11
3.2 Vegetation Communities and Land Covers........................................................................................ 11
3.3 Special-Status Species........................................................................................................................ 11
3.4 Wildlife Corridors and Habitat Linkages............................................................................................. 12 4 Biological Conditions......................................................................................................................................... 13
4.1 Physical Conditions ............................................................................................................................. 13
4.2 Vegetation Mapping and Land Covers ............................................................................................... 14
4.2.1 Disturbed Wetland (11200).................................................................................................. 15
4.2.2 Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh (52410)................................................................... 15
4.2.3 Southern Cottonwood–Willow Riparian Forest (61330) ..................................................... 15
4.2.4 Southern Willow Scrub (63320) ........................................................................................... 15
4.2.5 Tamarisk Scrub (63810)....................................................................................................... 16
4.2.6 Non-Vegetated Channel (64200) ......................................................................................... 16
4.2.7 Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub (32500).................................................................................... 16
4.2.8 Non-Native Grassland (42200)............................................................................................. 16
4.2.9 Non-Native Vegetation (11000)............................................................................................ 16
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 17100 ii
MARCH JUNE 2026
4.2.10 Disturbed Habitat (11300).................................................................................................... 17
4.2.11 Urban/Developed (12000) ................................................................................................... 17
4.2.12 Extensive Agriculture – Field/Pasture, Row Crops (18300) ............................................... 17
4.2.13 Eucalyptus Woodland (79100) ............................................................................................. 17
4.3 Special-Status Plant Species .............................................................................................................. 17
4.4 Special-Status Wildlife Species .......................................................................................................... 18
4.5 Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources........................................................................................................ 18
4.6 Wildlife Corridors and Habitat Linkages............................................................................................. 18 5 Project Impacts ................................................................................................................................................. 21
5.1 Explanation of Findings of Significance ............................................................................................. 21
5.1.1 Threshold 1: Special-Status Species .................................................................................... 21
5.1.2 Threshold 2: Riparian Habitat and Sensitive Natural Communities................................... 26
5.1.3 Threshold 3: State or Federally Protected Wetlands........................................................... 26
5.1.4 Threshold 4: Wildlife Movement ........................................................................................... 27
5.1.5 Threshold 5: Local Policies and Ordinances ........................................................................ 28
5.1.6 Threshold 6: Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, and Other Approved Conservation Plans.............................................................................. 28 6 Mitigation Measure Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 31 7 References ........................................................................................................................................................ 51 TABLES
1 Soils within the Project Site.............................................................................................................................. 13 2 Vegetation Communities and Land Covers within the Project Site and 500-Foot Buffer............................ 14 3 Mitigation Required for Special-Status Wildlife Species with Moderate or High Potential to Occur............ 24
FIGURES
1 Project Location ................................................................................................................................................ 53 2 Biological Resources......................................................................................................................................... 55 3 Soils ................................................................................................................................................................. 57 4 Hydrology ........................................................................................................................................................... 59 5 Biological Resources......................................................................................................................................... 61
APPENDICES
A Project Assessor’s Parcel Numbers
B Special-Status Plant Species Potential to Occur
C Special-Status Wildlife Species Potential to Occur
17100 iii
MARCH JUNE 2026
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Acronym/Abbreviation Definition
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CESA California Endangered Species Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
City City of Santee
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CRPR California Rare Plant Rank
CWA Clean Water Act
dBA A-weighted decibel
FESA federal Endangered Species Act
Leq energy equivalent level
Managed Preserve Draft Santee Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan Managed Preserve
MHPA Multi-Habitat Planning Area
MM Mitigation Measure
MSCP Multiple Species Conservation Program
Porter–Cologne Act Porter–Cologne Water Quality Control Act Project City of Santee Land Use Element Update
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SanGIS San Diego Geographic Information Source
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 17100 iv
MARCH JUNE 2026
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
17100 1
MARCH JUNE 2026
1 Introduction
The City of Santee (City) is updating its 2003 General Plan Land Use Element to create a compatible and balanced mix of land uses. As part of the Land Use Element Update process, the City of Santee Land Use Element Update Program Environmental Impact Report will include an analysis of the 163 parcels proposed for updates to their existing land use designations, land use maps, and goals and policies. The updates are aimed at fulfilling the guiding principles included in the Land Use Element Update by promoting infill and improving land use efficiency in established neighborhoods and districts.
The purpose of this Biological Technical Report is to provide the City a description of the existing biological conditions and potential significant impacts of the proposed City of Santee Land Use Element Update (Project).
Included in this report are a discussion of the potential impacts to vegetation communities and potential specialstatus species evaluated under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Plan (City of San Diego 1998), the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan (City of Santee 2025), and the state and federal Endangered Species Acts. Additionally, measures are recommended to avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential impacts, where feasible, to less-than-significant levels.
1.1 Project Location, Description, and Purpose
The approximately 254.8-acre Project site is located in the southeastern part of the City, which is within the East County region of San Diego County, as shown in Figure 1, Project Location. The Project site comprises 163 Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) slated for land use change, which are listed in Appendix A, Project Assessor’s Parcel Numbers. The Project site is located within the U.S. Geological Survey El Cajon and La Mesa, California, 7.5- minute topographic quadrangle maps.
The majority of the APNs that make up the Project site are currently developed lands with existing infrastructure (e.g., residential homes, commercial buildings, parking lots, etc.). A few of the APNs associated with the Project are undeveloped sites with native vegetation. Although no development is currently proposed, the purpose of the Biological Technical Report 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. This Biological Technical Report will also enable staff to quickly determine the appropriate CEQA process related to biological resources required by each project applicant.
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 17100 2
MARCH JUNE 2026
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
17100 3
MARCH JUNE 2026
2 Regulatory Setting
2.1 Federal
2.1.1 Federal Endangered Species Act
The federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) of 1973 (16 USC 1531 et seq.), as amended, is administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for most plant and animal species and by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service for certain marine species. This legislation is intended to provide a means to conserve the ecosystems upon which endangered and threatened species depend and to provide programs for the conservation of those species, thus preventing the extinction of plants and wildlife.
FESA defines an endangered species as “any species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” A threatened species is defined as “any species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” Under FESA, it is unlawful to “take” any listed species; “take” is defined as, “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.”
FESA allows for the issuance of Incidental Take Permits for listed species under Section 7, which is generally available for projects that also require other federal agency permits or other approvals, and under Section 10, which provides for the approval of habitat conservation plans on private property without any other federal agency involvement.
2.1.2 Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act prohibits the intentional and unintentional take of any migratory bird or any part, nest, or eggs of any such bird. Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, “take” is defined as pursuing, hunting, shooting, capturing, collecting, or killing, or attempting to do so (16 USC 703 et seq.). Currently, the Migratory Birds office considers nests that support eggs, nestlings, or juveniles to be active. Additionally, Executive Order 13186, Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, requires that any project with federal involvement address impacts of federal actions on migratory birds with the purpose of promoting conservation of migratory bird populations (66 FR 3853–3856). Executive Order 13186 requires federal agencies to work with USFWS to develop a memorandum of understanding. USFWS reviews actions that might affect these species.
2.1.3 Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act (CWA) provides guidance for the restoration and maintenance of the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. Section 401 requires a project operator for a federal license or permit that allows activities resulting in a discharge to waters of the United States to obtain state certification, thereby ensuring that the discharge will comply with provisions of the CWA. The Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) administer the certification program in California. Section 402 establishes a permitting system for the discharge of any pollutant (except dredged or fill material) into waters of the United States. Section 404 establishes a permit program administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) that regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands. USACE implementing regulations are found in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 33 CFR Parts 320 to 332. Guidelines for implementation are referred to as the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, which were developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 17100 4
MARCH JUNE 2026
conjunction with USACE (40 CFR 230). The guidelines allow the discharge of dredged or fill material into the aquatic system only if there is no practicable alternative that would have less-adverse impacts.
Wetlands and Other Waters of the United States
Based on a recent court case ordering vacation of the Navigable Waters Protection Rule, USACE and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have halted implementation of the rule and are interpreting waters of the United States consistent with the pre-2015 regulatory regime until further notice. Per 33 CFR 328.3(a), waters of the United States are defined as follows:
1. All waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide;
2. All interstate waters including interstate wetlands;
3. All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such waters:
a. Which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes; or b. From which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce; or c. Which are used or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce;
4. All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under this definition;
5. Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section;
6. The territorial seas;
7. Wetlands adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves wetlands) identified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) of this section; and
8. Waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons designed to meet the requirements of CWA [the Clean Water Act] (other than cooling ponds as defined in 40 CFR 423.11(m) which also meet the criteria of this definition) are not waters of the United States.
The USACE/U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Rapanos Guidance states that USACE will regulate traditional navigable waters and adjacent wetlands, as well as relatively permanent waters tributary to traditional navigable waters and adjacent wetlands. Non-relatively permanent waters (those exhibiting less than 3 months of continuous surface flows) and their adjacent wetlands would be regulated if there is a significant nexus from the site to traditional navigable waters (86 FR 69372-69450).
The State Water Resources Control Board has authority over wetlands through Section 401 of the CWA, the Porter– Cologne Water Quality Control Act (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.
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 17100 5
MARCH JUNE 2026
2.2 State
2.2.1 California Endangered Species Act
The 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 similarly to FESA and is prohibited for both listed and candidate species. Take authorization may be obtained by a project applicant from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (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.
2.2.2 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; the bill 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 CEQA document.
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 17100 6
MARCH JUNE 2026
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 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.
2.2.3 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 California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 1 and 2 by the California Native Plant Society, and potentially some CRPR 3 plants, are covered by CEQA Guidelines Section 15380.
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 17100 7
MARCH JUNE 2026
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.”
2.2.4 Porter–Cologne Water Quality Control Act
Pursuant to provisions of the Porter–Cologne Act, the RWQCBs regulate the discharge or proposed discharge of waste, or proposing to discharge 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 water 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 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:
a. 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. b. Specifically identified in a water quality control plan as a wetland or other water of the state. c. Resulted from historic human activity, is not subject to ongoing operation and maintenance, and has become a relatively permanent part of the natural landscape. d. 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.
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 17100 8
MARCH JUNE 2026
2.3 Regional Resource Planning Context
2.3.1 Multiple Species Conservation Program Plan
The Project site is 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 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).
2.3.2 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, San Diego River conservation opportunities 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
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 17100 9
MARCH JUNE 2026
conservation plan under the MSCP Plan. The Project parcels are located within either Developed and Disturbed Areas or upland habitat with Infill Development Areas and are entirely outside 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 1 and described below:
▪ 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 Project site, 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.
2.3.3 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.
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 17100 10
MARCH JUNE 2026
- 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 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. 17100 11
MARCH JUNE 2026
3 Methods
This document was developed to characterize, at a landscape scale, the existing conditions of the biological resources within the Proposed Project. Biological resource data was ascertained from the best available public information sources to develop a vegetation communities and land cover map, identify special-status species and wildlife corridors and linkages, and provide general information regarding climate, geology and soils, topography, and hydrology occurring within the Proposed Project.
3.1 Literature Review
Dudek biologists reviewed the San Diego Geographic Information Source (SanGIS) database, CDFW’s CNDDB, California Native Plant Society’s Rare Plant Inventory (CNPS 2025), and the USFWS species data (USFWS 2025b) to create an existing biological baseline for the Project. A cursory review of potential jurisdictional waters was completed for the Project site, which included reviewing the mapping in the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (USFWS 2025a) and U.S. Geological Survey National Hydrography Dataset (USGS 2023). This preliminary assessment provides an overview of the potential jurisdictional resources in the Project site and does not constitute a formal jurisdictional delineation.
3.2 Vegetation Communities and Land Covers
Vegetation communities and land cover types used in this document are based on the SanGIS (1998) database, with desktop verification using aerial imagery. Because the SanGIS mapping is originally from 1998, the desktop mapping review was conducted to provide an update to reflect current conditions within the Project parcels.
Because no field surveys were conducted within the parcels, mapping should be assumed to be preliminary.
Vegetation polygons were digitized using ArcGIS, and GIS coverage was created. Vegetation community classifications follow Holland (1986) as revised by Oberbauer et al. (2008). Acreage calculations of vegetation communities and land covers were determined using ArcGIS. Communities listed in Table 5-13 in the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan (City of Santee 2025) are considered sensitive and typically require mitigation for consistency with the provisions of the City’s future MSCP Subarea Plan and Implementing Agreement and applicable state and federal regulations.
3.3 Special-Status Species
Special-status species are defined as follows:
▪ Species classified as endangered or threatened by USFWS under FESA (“federally listed”) ▪ Species classified as endangered, threatened, or rare by CDFW under CESA (“state listed”) ▪ Candidates for future listing under FESA
▪ Plant species designated by CNPS as “rare, threatened, or endangered in California” (CRPR 1B and 2B) ▪ Wildlife species designated as a Species of Special Concern by CDFW ▪ Wildlife species fully protected under California Fish and Game Code Sections 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515 ▪ Species considered a locally significant species; that is, a species that is not rare from a statewide perspective but is rare or uncommon in a local context, such as within a county or region, or is so designated in local or regional plans, policies, or ordinances (i.e., Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan Covered Species)
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 17100 12
MARCH JUNE 2026
Special-status species data were compiled from the following sources: the CNDDB (CDFW 2025a), the CNPS Rare Plant Inventory (CNPS 2025), and the USFWS species occurrence data (USFWS 2025b). The CNDDB and CNPS queries were run using the U.S. Geological Survey 7.5-minute quadrangles that overlap the Project site, El Cajon, and La Mesa, and the seven surrounding quadrangles: National City, Jamul Mountains, El Cajon Mountain, San Vicente Reservoir, Poway, Dulzura, and Alpine. To determine current range and other species-specific parameters, a number of species-specific resources were used, including the Consortium of California Herbarium (2025), California Wildlife Habitat Relationships data (Zeiner et al 1990; CDFW 2025b), California herpetology data (Nafis 2025), and California Bird Species of Special Concern (Shuford and Gardai 2008).
Data Limitations
The species occurrence data and USFWS-designated critical habitat have inherent limitations. For example, occurrence data are from sources collected at different times and spatial scales and for different purposes, which can result in an unsystematic and spatially biased occurrence dataset. Sampling effort is, for example, far greater near population centers or along roadways, as opposed to more remote locations. Additionally, species occurrence records only report positive detections, and a lack of records does not mean the species is absent.
With regard to USFWS-designated critical habitat, this data is only available for federally listed species for which critical habitat has been designated; therefore, this dataset would not address state-listed species or other specialstatus species. Designated critical habitat represents areas critical to the conservation of the species and should not be used to represent the distribution or range known to support the species.
3.4 Wildlife Corridors and Habitat Linkages
Wildlife corridors are linear features that connect large patches of natural open space and provide avenues for the immigration and emigration of animals. Wildlife corridors contribute to population viability by ensuring the continual exchange of genes between populations, which helps maintain genetic diversity; providing access to adjacent habitat areas, representing additional territory for foraging and mating; allowing for greater carrying capacity; and providing routes for colonization of habitat lands following local population extinctions or habitat recovery from ecological catastrophes (e.g., fires). Habitat linkages are landscape-scale open space areas that provide a natural habitat connection between at least two larger adjacent open spaces or habitat areas. Habitat linkages provide a large enough area to support, at a minimum, a natural habitat mosaic and viable populations of smaller terrestrial species and allow for gene flow through diffusion of populations over a period of generations. Habitat linkages also allow for jump dispersal for some species between neighboring habitats. Habitat linkages may be large tracts of natural open space that serve as resident species habitat or they may serve primarily as landscape connections (i.e., for dispersal movements or travel).
The MSCP Plan (City of San Diego 1998) defines core and linkage areas as those maintaining ecosystem function and processes, including large animal movement. Each core area is connected to other core areas or to habitat areas outside of the MSCP study area, either through common boundaries or through linkages. Core areas have multiple connections to help ensure the balance in the ecosystem will be maintained. Biological core and linkage areas are identified in the MSCP Plan (City of San Diego 1998) and used without revision on Figure 2-12 in the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan (City of Santee 2025). Biological core and linkage areas represent the largest remaining habitat blocks with relatively high biological value and include critical linkages connecting the habitat blocks for species dispersal and movement (see Figure 2, Wildlife Corridors and Habitat Linkages). 17100 13
MARCH JUNE 2026
4 Biological Conditions
4.1 Physical Conditions
Physical conditions across the landscape play important roles in the distribution of biological resources. The following provides an overview of some key physical characteristics within the Project site. The majority of the APNs that make up the Project site are currently developed lands with existing infrastructure (e.g., residential homes, commercial buildings, parking lots, etc.). A few of the APNs associated with the Project are undeveloped sites with native vegetation. The Project site occurs both south and north of the San Diego River within relatively flat existing development areas. Elevations within the Project site range from 330 feet above mean sea level within the southernmost parcels to approximately 610 feet above mean sea level in the northernmost parcel. The Project area has a dry climate, with monthly average temperatures near the City ranging from approximately 49°F–80°F. The City generally receives an average annual rainfall of 15.58 inches per year (Western Regional Climate Center 2025).
The Project has 22 soil types that are primarily composed of sand, and a portion (175.9 acres) are considered partially or fully hydric (USDA 2025a, 2025b). Soil types are summarized in Table 1 and depicted on Figure 3, Soils.
Table 1. Soils within the Project Site
Soil Category Soil Description Hydric Rating Acreage
Cieneba Cieneba very rocky coarse sandy loam, 30% to 75% slopes Not Hydric 7.3 Cieneba-Fallbrook rocky sandy loams, 30% to 65% slopes, eroded
Not Hydric 2.5
Diablo Diablo clay, 2% to 9% slopes Not Hydric 6.8
Diablo-Olivenhain complex, 9% to 30% slopes Not Hydric 4.9 Fallbrook Fallbrook sandy loam, 2% to 5% slopes Not Hydric 4.3 Fallbrook sandy loam, 9% to 15% slopes, eroded Not Hydric 1.5 Grangeville Grangeville fine sandy loam, 0% to 2% slopes Partially Hydric 44.6 Placentia Placentia sandy loam, thick surface, 2% to 9% slopes Partially Hydric 122.8 Ramona Ramona sandy loam, 2% to 5% slopes Not Hydric 6.0 Ramona sandy loam, 5% to 9% slopes Not Hydric 14.0
Ramona sandy loam, 9% to 15% slopes, eroded Not Hydric 0.8 Redding Redding gravelly loam, 2% to 9% slopes Partially Hydric 0.4 Redding-Urban land complex, 2% to 9% slopes Not Hydric 0.5 Redding-Urban land complex, 9% to 30% slopes Not Hydric 0.1 Riverwash Riverwash All Hydric 3.0
Salinas Salinas clay loam, 0% to 2% slopes Not Hydric 8.4 Salinas clay loam, 2% to 9% slopes Not Hydric 0.1
Salinas clay, 0% to 2%% slopes Not Hydric 13.7
Tujunga Tujunga sand, 0% to 5% percent slopes Partially Hydric 2.2 Visalia Visalia sandy loam, 0% to 2 percent slopes Partially Hydric 3.0 Visalia sandy loam, 9% to 15% slopes Not Hydric 3.5
Vista Vista coarse sandy loam, 15% to 30% slopes Not Hydric 4.7 Total 254.8
Sources: USDA 2025a, 2025b.
Notes: Shaded rows denote hydric soils. Acreages may not sum due to rounding.
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 17100 14
MARCH JUNE 2026
The Project occurs within the San Diego Hydrologic Unit, the Lower San Diego Hydrologic Area, and the Santee and El Cajon Subareas (Figure 4, Hydrology). The Lower San Diego Hydrologic Area includes the Lower San Diego River Watershed, which extends from the mouth of the San Diego River to Channel Road in Lakeside. The major hydrologic features within the Project site vicinity are the San Diego River and its tributaries, including Forester Creek and Woodglen Vista Creek.
4.2 Vegetation Mapping and Land Covers
Based on species composition and general physiognomy, 6 vegetation communities or land cover types occur within the Project parcels, and 13 vegetation communities or land cover types (including those 6 vegetation communities or land cover types occurring within the Project parcels) occur within the 500-foot buffer surrounding each Project parcel. Acreages for each vegetation community or land cover type are provided in Table 2, and their spatial distribution is shown in Figure 5, Biological Resources. Descriptions for each vegetation community or land cover type are provided below.
Table 2. Vegetation Communities and Land Covers within the Project Site and 500-Foot Buffer
Vegetation Community/Land Cover Type
Holland/Oberbauer
Code
500-Foot Buffer
(acres)
Project Site
(acres)
Riparian/Bottomland Vegetation Communities
Disturbed Wetland1 11200 0.3 0
Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh1 52410 3.0 0
Southern Cottonwood–Willow Riparian Forest1 61330 28.3 0.8 Southern Willow Scrub1 63320 8.1 0
Tamarisk Scrub1,2 63810 0.3 <0.1
Non-Vegetated Floodplain or Channel1 64200 2.2 0
Riparian/Bottomland Vegetation Communities Subtotal 42.2 0.8 Upland Vegetation Communities
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub1 32500 23.8 13.1
Non-Native Communities and Land Cover Types
Non-Native Vegetation 11000 0.7 0
Disturbed Habitat 11300 83.7 1.6
Urban/Development 12000 556.9 228.0
Extensive Agriculture 18300 14.4 0
Non-Native Grassland1 42200 11.4 11.2
Eucalyptus Woodland 79000 2.8 0
Non-Native Communities and Land Cover Types Subtotal 670.0 240.9 Total 736.1 254.8
Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding.
1 This vegetation community is considered sensitive under the Draft Santee Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan (City of Santee 2025), and impacts would require mitigation. 2 Although this community is composed of non-native species, tamarisk scrub could be considered either a riparian scrub or disturbed wetland vegetation type, as presented in Table 5-13 of the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan (City of Santee 2025).
Therefore, to be conservative, it is assumed this community is sensitive.
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 17100 15
MARCH JUNE 2026
4.2.1 Disturbed Wetland (11200)
Disturbed wetlands are areas permanently or periodically inundated by water that have been substantially modified by human activity. Disturbed wetland is often unvegetated but may include some scattered native or non-native vegetation. Some characteristic non-native species that may be associated with disturbed wetlands include giant reed (Arundo donax), tamarisk (Tamarix spp.), palms (Phoenix spp., Washingtonia spp.), and pampas grass (Cortaderia spp.). Native wetland species, such as willows (Salix spp.) and cattails (Typha spp.) may also be present at low cover. Disturbed wetlands include portions of wetlands with obvious artificial structures, such as concrete lining, barricades, riprap, piers, or gates. Therefore, lined channels, Arizona crossings, detention basins, culverts, and ditches would be considered disturbed wetlands. Disturbed wetlands occur throughout San Diego County (Oberbauer et al. 2008). Disturbed wetlands only occur within the Project’s 500-foot buffer and as a wetland community. Disturbed wetlands are typically under the jurisdiction of the aquatic resource agencies and are considered sensitive under the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan (City of Santee 2025).
4.2.2 Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh (52410)
Coastal and valley freshwater marsh is a wetland habitat that is permanently flooded by fresh water lacking a significant current (Oberbauer et al. 2008). Because it is permanently flooded by fresh water, there is an accumulation of deep, peaty soils. Typically, this community is dominated by species such as cattail, sedge (Carex spp.), yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus), and bulrushes (Scirpus spp.). Coastal and valley freshwater marsh only occurs within the Project’s 500-foot buffer and as a wetland community. Coastal and valley freshwater marsh is typically under the jurisdiction of the aquatic resource agencies and is considered sensitive under the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan (City of Santee 2025).
4.2.3 Southern Cottonwood–Willow Riparian Forest (61330) Southern cottonwood–willow riparian forest is described in Oberbauer et al. 2008 as a tall, open, broad-leaved winter-deciduous riparian forest dominated by Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii) or balsam poplar (Populus trichocarpa), and various willow trees. The shrub layer typically includes various willow species, mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia), and California sycamore (Platanus racemosa). This community typically occurs in overflow lands along rivers and streams (Oberbauer et al. 2008). Southern cottonwood–willow riparian forest occurs within the Project site and within the Project’s 500-foot buffer. As a wetland community, southern cottonwood–willow riparian forest is typically under the jurisdiction of the aquatic resource agencies and is considered sensitive under the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan (City of Santee 2025).
4.2.4 Southern Willow Scrub (63320)
Southern willow scrub is a dense, broad-leaved, winter-deciduous riparian thicket dominated by several willow species, with scattered emergent Fremont cottonwood and western sycamore (Oberbauer et al. 2008). Most stands are too dense to allow much understory development. This habitat is considered seral due to repeated disturbance/flooding and is therefore unable to develop into the taller southern cottonwood–willow riparian forest (Oberbauer et al. 2008). Southern willow scrub only occurs within the Project’s 500-foot buffer. As a wetland community, southern willow scrub is typically under the jurisdiction of the aquatic resource agencies and is considered sensitive under the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan (City of Santee 2025).
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 17100 16
MARCH JUNE 2026
4.2.5 Tamarisk Scrub (63810)
Tamarisk scrub is a non-native community consisting almost entirely of a monoculture of tamarisk. Tamarisk scrub supplants native vegetation following a major disturbance and is usually found in sandy, gravelly braided channels, washes, or intermittent streams. Tamarisk is a prolific seeding species and an aggressive competitor to other species in riparian corridors (Oberbauer 2008). A small amount of tamarisk scrub occurs within the Project site and within the Project’s 500-foot buffer. Although this community is composed of non-native species, tamarisk scrub could be considered either a riparian scrub or disturbed wetland vegetation type, as presented in Table 5-13 of the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan (City of Santee 2025). Therefore, to be conservative, it is assumed this community is sensitive and is potentially regulated by the aquatic resource agencies.
4.2.6 Non-Vegetated Channel (64200)
According to Oberbauer et al. (2008), non-vegetated channel is the sandy, gravelly, or rocky fringe of waterways or flood channels that is unvegetated on a relatively permanent basis. Vegetation may be present but is usually less than 10% total cover and grows on the outer edge of the channel. Non-vegetated channel occurs within the Project’s 500-foot buffer. Non-vegetated channel is typically considered a jurisdictional resource by the resource agencies and a sensitive community in the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan (City of Santee 2025).
4.2.7 Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub (32500)
Diegan coastal sage scrub is a native vegetation community. According to Oberbauer et al. (2008), Diegan coastal sage scrub is composed of a variety of soft, low, aromatic shrubs, characteristically dominated by drought-deciduous species, such as California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), and sages (Salvia spp.), with scattered evergreen shrubs, including lemonadeberry (Rhus integrifolia) and laurel sumac (Malosma laurina). Diegan coastal sage scrub occurs within the Project site and the Project’s 500-foot buffer and is considered a sensitive community in the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan (City of Santee 2025).
4.2.8 Non-Native Grassland (42200)
Non-native grassland consists of dense to sparse cover of annual grasses with flowering culms between 0.5 to 3 feet in height (Oberbauer et al. 2008). In some areas, depending on past disturbance and annual rainfall, annual forbs may be the dominant species. However, it is presumed that grasses will dominate. Non-native grassland occurs within the Project site and the Project’s 500-foot buffer and is considered a sensitive community in the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan (City of Santee 2025).
4.2.9 Non-Native Vegetation (11000)
Non-native vegetation includes trees, shrubs, and herbs not native to California. Non-native vegetation typically consists of ornamental plantings along roadways or adjacent to homes and is not usually artificially irrigated, receiving water from precipitation and/or runoff. Non-native vegetation is not considered a sensitive vegetation community by the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan (City of Santee 2025).
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 17100 17
MARCH JUNE 2026
4.2.10 Disturbed Habitat (11300)
Disturbed habitats are areas that have been physically disturbed and are no longer recognizable as a native or naturalized vegetation association (Oberbauer et al. 2008). These areas may continue to retain soil substrate. If vegetation is present, it is almost entirely composed of non-native vegetation, such as ornamentals or ruderal exotic species. Examples of these areas may include graded landscapes, firebreaks, construction pads, or other areas; temporary construction staging areas; off-road-vehicle trails; areas repeatedly cleared for fuel management; or areas that are repeatedly used in ways that prevent revegetation (e.g., parking lots, trails that have persisted for years) (Oberbauer et al. 2008). Disturbed habitat occurs within the Project site and the Project’s 500-foot buffer and is not considered a sensitive vegetation community by the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan (City of Santee 2025).
4.2.11 Urban/Developed (12000)
Urban/developed land consists of buildings, structures, homes, parking lots, paved roads, and maintained areas.
Urban/developed areas do not support vegetation. The majority of the Project is considered existing development, which is not considered a sensitive vegetation community by the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan (City of Santee 2025).
4.2.12 Extensive Agriculture – Field/Pasture, Row Crops (18300) Lands that support an active agricultural operation may be classified as agriculture (Oberbauer 2009). Extensive agriculture refers to frequently maintained and artificially irrigated areas where planted crop species are grown (Oberbauer et al. 2008). This land cover type occurs within the Project’s 500-foot buffer and is not considered a sensitive vegetation community by the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan (City of Santee 2025).
4.2.13 Eucalyptus Woodland (79100)
This “naturalized” vegetation community is fairly widespread in Southern California and is considered a woodland habitat. It typically consists of monotypic stands of introduced Australian eucalyptus trees such as blue gum (E. globulus) and red gum (E. camaldulensis) species. The understory is either depauperate (i.e., lacking species variety) or absent, owing to high leaf litter. Although eucalyptus woodlands are of limited value to most native plants and animals, they frequently provide nesting and perching sites for several raptor species. Eucalyptus woodland occurs within the Project’s 500-foot buffer and is not considered a sensitive vegetation community by the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan (City of Santee 2025).
4.3 Special-Status Plant Species
Appendix B, Special-Status Plant Species Potential to Occur, provides a summary of the 83 special-status plant species that have been documented in the Project’s surrounding vicinity (i.e., CNDDB and CNPS queries) and includes information on status, distribution, and habitat associations. A total of 32 of the 83 species are not expected to occur due to lack of suitable habitat (e.g., the majority of the Project’s parcels are developed lands) or because the area is outside the species’ elevation range. There are 51 species with moderate potential to occur within the Project site. Suitable habitat determinations made for each species were based on the vegetation communities provided in the SanGIS (1998) database; no special-status species surveys were conducted within the Project parcels. Therefore, if vegetation communities occur that are not reflected in the vegetation community mapping data, the potential to occur determinations could be affected. The CNDDB locations for the special-status
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 17100 18
MARCH JUNE 2026
plant species within 1,000 feet of the Project parcels are shown on Figure 5. Additionally, there is no USFWSdesignated critical habitat for any federally listed plant species that overlaps any of the Project parcels.
4.4 Special-Status Wildlife Species
Appendix C, Special-Status Wildlife Species Potential to Occur, provides a summary of the 51 special-status wildlife species that have been documented in the Project’s surrounding vicinity (i.e. CNDDB and CNPS queries) and includes information on status, distribution, and habitat associations. A total of 26 species are not expected to occur due to lack of suitable habitat (i.e., the majority of the Project parcels are developed lands) or because the Project site is outside the species’ known geographic range. There are 24 special-status wildlife species with moderate or high potential to occur based on the presence of suitable habitat and documented occurrences within the Project vicinity. Suitable habitat determinations made for each species were based on the vegetation communities provided in the SanGIS (1998) database; no special-status species surveys were conducted within the Project parcels. Therefore, if vegetation communities occur that are not reflected in the vegetation community mapping data, the potential to occur determinations could be affected. The CNDDB locations for the special-status wildlife species within 1,000 feet of the Project parcels are shown on Figure 5.
There is USFWS-designated critical habitat for three species (least Bell’s vireo [Vireo bellii pusillus], coastal California gnatcatcher [Polioptila californica californica], and Hermes copper butterfly [Lycaena hermes]) that occurs in the Project vicinity, as shown on Figure 5. Project parcel APN 378-160-25 overlaps both coastal California gnatcatcher and Hermes copper butterfly critical habitat, and a small portion of APN 383-121-64 overlaps least Bell’s vireo critical habitat. However, APN 383-121-64 occurs immediately adjacent to Mission Gorge Road and is entirely developed. This parcel does not provide riparian habitat used by least Bell’s vireo; critical habitat designations may be imprecise due to the typically large mapping scales, and they usually include both suitable habitat and unsuitable habitat.
4.5 Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources
As shown on Figure 4, there are U.S. Geological Survey National Hydrography Dataset flowlines and USFWS National Wetlands Inventory features occurring within and immediately adjacent to Project parcels. The major hydrologic features in the Project site vicinity are the San Diego River, which bisects the northern parcels from the southern parcels; Forester Creek, which occurs within the southwestern parcels; and Woodglen Vista Creek, which runs along the northern parcels. The vegetation community mapping data for the Project site includes six vegetation community types (i.e., disturbed wetland, coastal and valley freshwater marsh, southern cottonwood willow riparian forest, southern willow scrub, tamarisk scrub, and non-vegetated channel) that may be considered potentially jurisdictional. 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. It should be noted that this preliminary assessment provides an overview of the potential jurisdictional resources in the Project site and does not constitute a formal jurisdictional delineation.
4.6 Wildlife Corridors and Habitat Linkages
The majority of the Project parcels are existing developed lands, with only a few containing undeveloped areas with natural vegetation communities. A total of five Project parcels (APNs 378-160-25, 383-156-03, 383-450-02, 383-
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 17100 19
MARCH JUNE 2026
450-05, and 383-450-04) partially or completely overlap the established biological core areas located within the City, as shown on Figure 2, and only three of those parcels (378-160-25, 383-450-05, and 383-450-04) contain areas with native vegetation. As shown on Figure 2, the established biological core areas located within the Project site overlap the San Diego River. The San Diego River provides riparian habitat for species dispersal movements and upland areas that connect the City into other open space areas to the north and west. This biological core area provides a habitat mosaic containing viable populations of smaller terrestrial species and allows for gene flow through diffusion of populations over a period of generations. the Project parcels do not function as wildlife corridors or habitat linkages due to the limited amount of undeveloped areas within the parcels and the surrounding buffer. However, the undeveloped areas of the Project site could potentially function as wildlife habitat for local populations of common species. Species most likely to use the undeveloped areas of the Project parcels include coyote (Canis latrans), raccoon (Procyon lotor), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), and Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana). Larger species, like mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), bobcat (Lynx rufus), and mountain lion (Puma concolor), are not expected to use this highly urbanized vicinity of the San Diego River corridor due to the amount of adjacent commercial and industrial uses, large presence of human encampments, and general lack of connectivity to larger core areas of suitable habitat.
However, these species may use the upland areas within and adjacent to parcel 378-160-25.
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 17100 20
MARCH JUNE 2026
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
17100 21
MARCH JUNE 2026
5 Project Impacts
This section addresses potential direct and indirect impacts to special-status biological resources that could result from future projects implemented under the Proposed Project. Direct impacts are defined as the loss of individual species and/or their habitats through the alteration, disturbance, or destruction of biological resources. This includes both temporary impacts, which would replace the vegetation removed during construction, and permanent impacts, which would result in a complete loss of the resource. Indirect impacts occur outside the direct area of impact and include increased human activity; decreased water quality and altered hydrology; soil compaction; elevated noise, light, and dust levels; and the introduction of invasive species.
5.1 Explanation of Findings of Significance
Individual projects are required to analyze potential impacts and avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate impacts to special-status biological resources. The significance criteria used to evaluate potential project impacts to biological resources are based on CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. According to Appendix G, a significant impact related to biological resources would occur if the 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 Game 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 Game 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.
5.1.1 Threshold 1: Special-Status Species
Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 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), potential 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 potential future
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 17100 22
MARCH JUNE 2026
development sites in the Project parcels, and potential to occur was based, in part, on the vegetation communities occurring within the SanGIS database. The vegetation mapping was conducted at a landscape level, and there is potential for vegetation communities 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 special-status species within a potential 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 site, 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 specialstatus 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 occurs within potentially suitable habitat for special-status plant species, then implementation of MM-BIO-2 would occur. Mitigation measure 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.
Potential future development within the Project site has potential to result in indirect impacts to specialstatus 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. Long-term 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 site, there are 24 special-status wildlife species with moderate or high potential to occur (Table 3). Although potential future development is not anticipated to result in impacts to special-status species, verification of the potential for special-status 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 site 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 3). Mitigation measures 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
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 17100 23
MARCH JUNE 2026
and implementation of appropriate compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts to special-status wildlife species prior to Project implementation. Specifically, mitigation measures 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 if impacts to individuals or habitat cannot be avoided, mitigation for impacts would be required as directed by these mitigation measures. 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.
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 specialstatus 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 site, but the Project site 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 the City’s Urban Forestry Ordinance trees at a 1:1 ratio.
Potential future development within the Project site has potential to result in indirect impacts to specialstatus 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.
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 17100 24
MARCH JUNE 2026
Table 3. 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
Birds
Athene cunicularia
(burrow sites and
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 Pre-Construction
Nesting Bird Survey
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 17100 25
MARCH JUNE 2026
Table 3. 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
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 Pre-Construction
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 Butterfly Survey
and Mitigation
Notes: MSCP = Multiple Species Conservation Plan; Recon = reconnaissance. If the general biological reconnaissance survey determines there is no potential for special-status species occurrences, 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: USFWS—Birds of Conservation Concern
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
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 17100 26
MARCH JUNE 2026
5.1.2 Threshold 2: Riparian Habitat and Sensitive
Natural Communities
Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or 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 4.2, 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 listed would be significant under CEQA. It should be noted that the vegetation communities listed in Section 4.2 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 site would be avoided through implementation of MM-BIO-3, which would minimize the potential effects of constructionrelated 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-thansignificant levels through compliance with MM-BIO-4, which includes measures that would prevent indirect effects associated with drainage, invasive species, and barriers.
5.1.3 Threshold 3: State or Federally Protected Wetlands 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 provided an overview of the potential jurisdictional resources within the Project site, shown on Figure 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-
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 17100 27
MARCH JUNE 2026
1616 of the California Fish and Game Code. Therefore, 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 would 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 site 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.
5.1.4 Threshold 4: Wildlife Movement
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. Overall, the Project site does not function as wildlife corridors or habitat linkages due to the limited number of undeveloped areas both within and surrounding the Project parcels. 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 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 site 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.
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 17100 28
MARCH JUNE 2026
5.1.5 Threshold 5: Local Policies and Ordinances
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 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 of Santee 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.
5.1.6 Threshold 6: Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, and Other Approved
Conservation Plans
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 site is 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 1 and discussed in Section
2.3.2, the Project site is 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 overlap 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. Implementation of the Project’s mitigation measures MM-BIO-1 through MM-BIO-16 are in compliance with the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 17100 29
MARCH JUNE 2026
Plan (City of Santee 2025) and 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.
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 17100 30
MARCH JUNE 2026
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
17100 31
MARCH JUNE 2026
6 Mitigation Measure Recommendations
As stated in the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan (City of Santee 2025), future Covered Activities occurring within 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 site to special-status biological resources to reduce the impacts to less-than-significant levels 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 site 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 4.2 are mapped at a landscape level and are not based on field surveys, there is potential for special-status wildlife species that were not captured by this 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 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
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 17100 32
MARCH JUNE 2026
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).
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
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 17100 33
MARCH JUNE 2026
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 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 special-status 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.
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 17100 34
MARCH JUNE 2026
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 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
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 17100 35
MARCH JUNE 2026
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 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.
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 17100 36
MARCH JUNE 2026
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, 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
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 17100 37
MARCH JUNE 2026
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. Project-related 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 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: Potential 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.
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 17100 38
MARCH JUNE 2026
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 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
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 17100 39
MARCH JUNE 2026
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 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
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 17100 40
MARCH JUNE 2026
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 CDFWapproved 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 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.
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 17100 41
MARCH JUNE 2026
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.
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
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 17100 42
MARCH JUNE 2026
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.
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 MMBIO-1. If there is suitable habitat for coastal California gnatcatcher present, a focused protocol-level 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:
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
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 17100 43
MARCH JUNE 2026
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 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.
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 17100 44
MARCH JUNE 2026
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 to 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 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
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 17100 45
MARCH JUNE 2026
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 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.
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 17100 46
MARCH JUNE 2026
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 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
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 17100 47
MARCH JUNE 2026
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.
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
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 17100 48
MARCH JUNE 2026
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:
1. 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, 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.
2. 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
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 17100 49
MARCH JUNE 2026
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 MMBIO-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 on-site 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 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.
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 17100 50
MARCH JUNE 2026
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
17100 51
MARCH JUNE 2026
7 References
CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2025a. Rarefind 5: Commercial version. Online database.
California Natural Diversity Database. Sacramento: CDFW, Biogeographic Data Branch. https://wildlife.ca.gov/ Data/CNDDB/Maps-and-Data.
CDFW. 2025b. “California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR)” [information system]. Version 9.0. Sacramento, California: CDFW, Biogeographic Data Branch. https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/Analysis/CWHR.
City of San Diego. 1998. Final MSCP Plan. Multiple Species Conservation Program. Prepared by MSCP Policy Committee and MSCP Working Group. San Diego, California: MSCP Policy Committee and MSCP Working Group. August 1998. http://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/pds/mscp/docs/SCMSCP/ FinalMSCPProgramPlan.pdf.
City of Santee. 2003. Santee General Plan. https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/departments/city-clerk/ document-central/planning-building/general-plan.
City of Santee. 2025. Santee MSCP Subarea Plan. Public Review Draft. August 2025. https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/documents/planning-building/active-projects/mscp-subarea-plan/ santee-subarea-plan-prd.pdf.
City of Santee. 2020. Santee Municipal Code. https://library.qcode.us/lib/santee_ca/pub/municipal_code/ item/title_8-chapter_8_06.
CNPS (California Native Plant Society). 2023. “Rare Plant Inventory.” Online edition, v-9.5. Sacramento: CNPS, Rare Plant Program. https://rareplants.cnps.org/.
Consortium of California Herbaria. 2025. CCH2 Portal. Accessed September 2025. https://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/consortium/.
Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California.
Nongame-Heritage Program, California Department of Fish and Game. October 1986.
Nafis, G. 2025. “A Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of California.” Accessed September 2025. http://www.californiaherps.com/.
Oberbauer, T., M. Kelly, and J. Buegge. 2008. Draft Vegetation Communities of San Diego County. March 2008. https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/pds/ceqa/Soitec-Documents/Final-EIR-Files/ references/rtcref/ch9.0/rtcrefaletters/O14%202014-12-19_OberbauerTM2008.pdf.
SanGIS (San Diego Geographic Information Source). 1998. “Vegetation (County).” SANDAG/SanGIS Regional GIS Data Warehouse Open Data Portal. https://gis-sangis1.hub.arcgis.com/pages/download-data.
SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT PROJECT / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 17100 52
MARCH JUNE 2026
Shuford, W.D., and T. Gardali, eds. 2008. California Bird Species of Special Concern: A Ranked Assessment of Species, Subspecies, and Distinct Populations of Birds of Immediate Conservation Concern in California.
Studies of Western Birds, No. 1. Camarillo, California: Western Field Ornithologists, and Sacramento, California: California Department of Fish and Game. February 4, 2008. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/ FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=84247&inline.
SWRCB (State Water Resources Control Board). 2021. State Policy for Water Quality Control: State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State. Adopted April 2, 2019; revised April 6, 2021. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/ cwa401/docs/2021/procedures.pdf.
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2025a. “Web Soil Survey.” USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Web Soil Survey Staff. Accessed October 2025. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/.
USDA. 2025b. “State Soil Data Access (SDA) Hydric Soils List.” Accessed October 2025. https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx.
USFWS. 2025a. “National Wetlands Inventory.” Accessed September 2025. fws.gov/wetlands/NWI/index.html.
USFWS. 2025b. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serve Species Occurrence Data. Accessed September 2025. https://www.fws.gov/media/gis-species-occurrence-data-0 USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2023. “National Hydrography Dataset” [online GIS data]. http://nhd.usgs.gov/.
Western Regional Climate Center. 2025. “Lakeside 2 E: Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary.” Accessed September 2025. https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca4710.
Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer Jr., K.E. Mayer, and M. White, eds. 1988–1990. California’s Wildlife, Vol. 1:
Amphibians and Reptiles; Vol. 2: Birds; and Vol. 3: Mammals. California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationships System. Sacramento, California: California Department of Fish and Game. April 1990.
WoodsideAve
MissionGorge Rd
Fanita Dr
Halberns
Blvd
Woodglen Vista Dr
Town Center Pkwy
Graves
Ave
N
M
a
g
n
olia
Av
e
C
v
i
c
i
Center Rd
N
Cuy
a
m
a
c
a
S
t
Prospect Ave
Olive
Ln
Mission Creek Dr
R iver Park Dr
Carlton
Hills
Blvd
El Nopal
Mast Blvd
C
u
y
amaca
St
Lake Canyon Rd
Carlton Oaks Dr
Fanita Pkwy
Ä67
Ä Ä52
125
APN 378-160-25
APN 383-124-18
APN 383-124-20
Project Boundary
Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan
Existing Protected Open Space
Hardline Conservation Lands
0 1,000 2,000
n Feet Date: 10/6/2025 User: cbattle Path: Z:\Projects\j1710001\MAPDOC\BTR\BTR.aprx Map: Project Location Layout: Figure 1 Project Location Portrait Chula Vista
Solana
Beach
Encinitas
San Diego
San Diego
Lemon Grove
La Mesa
El Cajon
Santee
Poway
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: USGS National Map 2025 FIGURE 1
Project Location
Biological Technical Report for the City of Santee Land Use Element Update
SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT PROJECT / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 17100 54
MARCH JUNE 2026
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
APN 378-160-25
APN 383-156-03
APN 383-450-02
APN 383-450-05
APN 383-450-04
Project Boundary
City of Santee
Biological Core and Linkage Areas
Date: 10/6/2025 User: cbattle Path: Z:\Projects\j1710001\MAPDOC\BTR\BTR.aprx Map: Wildlife Corridors and Habitat Linkages Layout: Figure 2 Wildlife Corridors and Habitat Linkages 0 1,000 2,000
n Feet
SOURCE:
Wildlife Corridors and Habitat Linkages
FIGURE 2
Biological Technical Report for the City of Santee Land Use Element Update
SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT PROJECT / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 17100 56
MARCH JUNE 2026
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Date: 10/6/2025 User: cbattle Path: Z:\Projects\j1710001\MAPDOC\BTR\BTR.aprx Map: Soils Layout: Figure 3 Soils 0 1,000 2,000
n Feet
SOURCE:
Soils
FIGURE 3
Project Boundary
Soils
Cieneba very rocky coarse sandy loam, 30 to 75
percent slopes
Cieneba-Fallbrook rocky sandy loams, 30 to 65
percent slopes, 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
Biological Technical Report for the City of Santee Land Use Element Update
SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT PROJECT / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 17100 58
MARCH JUNE 2026
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
Project Boundary
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
Southern Willow Scrub
Tamarisk Scrub
Date: 10/6/2025 User: cbattle Path: Z:\Projects\j1710001\MAPDOC\BTR\BTR.aprx Map: Hydrology Layout: Figure 4 Hydrology 0 1,050 2,100
n Feet
SOURCE:
Hydrology
FIGURE 4
Non-Vegetated Floodplain or Channel
Southern Cottonwood-Willow Riparian
Forest
Biological Technical Report for City of Santee Land Use Element Update
SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT PROJECT / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 17100 60
MARCH JUNE 2026
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
APN 378-160-25
APN 383-121-64
Date: 10/6/2025 User: cbattle Path: Z:\Projects\j1710001\MAPDOC\BTR\BTR.aprx Map: Biological Resources Layout: Figure 5 Biological Resources 0 1,125 2,250
n Feet
.
# 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:
Biological Resources
FIGURE 5
Project Boundary
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)
Biological Technical Report for the City of Santee Land Use Element Update
SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT PROJECT / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 17100 62
MARCH JUNE 2026
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Appendix A
Project Assessor’s Parcel Numbers
APPENDIX A / PROJECT ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBERS
17100 A-1
MARCH 2026
Object ID APN APN 8
1 3811902000 38119020
2 3811902100 38119021
3 3811902200 38119022
4 3810322300 38103223
5 3812003700 38120037
6 3810316400 38103164
7 3810321100 38103211
8 3810320900 38103209
9 3810321700 38103217
10 3810322800 38103228
11 3810316200 38103162
12 3810321400 38103214
13 3811902500 38119025
14 3811902600 38119026
15 3781602500 37816025
16 3810316100 38103161
17 3810316300 38103163
18 3810316000 38103160
19 3810315900 38103159
20 3811903300 38119033
21 3810322400 38103224
22 3840430900 38404309
23 3840414200 38404142
24 3840414800 38404148
25 3840414900 38404149
26 3840415400 38404154
27 3840415300 38404153
28 3840410700 38404107
29 3840431000 38404310
30 3840807300 38408073
31 3840805100 38408051
32 3840807400 38408074
33 3840805200 38408052
34 3840811400 38408114
35 3840811500 38408115
36 3843302800 38433028
37 3840410100 38404101
38 3840414400 38404144
39 3840415500 38404155
40 3840410400 38404104
41 3840810100 38408101
42 3841083000 38410830
43 3841072900 38410729
APPENDIX A / PROJECT ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBERS
17100 A-2
MARCH 2026
Object ID APN APN 8
44 3844703200 38447032
45 3844702900 38447029
46 3844700100 38447001
47 3844701300 38447013
48 3844701400 38447014
49 3841124300 38411243
50 3841124800 38411248
51 3841124900 38411249
52 3841061200 38410612
53 3841061300 38410613
54 3841061400 38410614
55 3841061500 38410615
56 3841200200 38412002
57 3841204800 38412048
58 3841092100 38410921
59 3841091900 38410919
60 3841092200 38410922
61 3841083300 38410833
62 3841083400 38410834
63 3840910800 38409108
64 3840910500 38409105
65 3840915100 38409151
66 3840917000 38409170
67 3840911200 38409112
68 3842801300 38428013
69 3810404500 38104045
70 3831560500 38315605
71 3831560400 38315604
72 3831560300 38315603
73 3831560200 38315602
74 3831560100 38315601
75 3841071400 38410714
76 3840916700 38409167
77 3840917500 38409175
78 3811903400 38119034
79 3831241100 38312411
80 3831241000 38312410
81 3831241200 38312412
82 3831241300 38312413
83 3831245000 38312450
84 3831245100 38312451
85 3831244700 38312447
86 3831245200 38312452
APPENDIX A / PROJECT ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBERS
17100 A-3
MARCH 2026
Object ID APN APN 8
87 3831241800 38312418
88 3831242000 38312420
89 3831245600 38312456
90 3831246700 38312467
91 3843301000 38433010
92 3843301100 38433011
93 3843300500 38433005
94 3843302200 38433022
95 3843303700 38433037
96 3843303300 38433033
97 3843303500 38433035
98 3843302600 38433026
99 3843303400 38433034
100 3843402200 38434022
101 3843403600 38434036
102 3843403700 38434037
103 3843403500 38434035
104 3843402900 38434029
105 3843503900 38435039
106 3843504000 38435040
107 3831216300 38312163
108 3831214900 38312149
109 3843402600 38434026
110 3843403200 38434032
111 3843503000 38435030
112 3843403300 38434033
113 3834500100 38345001
114 3834500300 38345003
115 3834500200 38345002
116 3834500500 38345005
117 3834500400 38345004
118 3831245400 38312454
119 3843303600 38433036
120 3844703300 38447033
121 3810404700 38104047
122 3810321800 38103218
123 3811902900 38119029
124 3840916600 38409166
125 3842801700 38428017
126 3810506400 38105064
127 3810506600 38105066
128 3831246300 38312463
129 3831246800 38312468
APPENDIX A / PROJECT ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBERS
17100 A-4
MARCH 2026
Object ID APN APN 8
130 3843201500 38432015
131 3843202100 38432021
132 3843202200 38432022
133 3843202000 38432020
134 3843201900 38432019
135 3843201700 38432017
136 3843201600 38432016
137 3843201800 38432018
138 3810404600 38104046
139 3810404800 38104048
140 3840917100 38409171
141 3840806700 38408067
142 3840430700 38404307
143 3840807600 38408076
144 3841124700 38411247
145 3831246900 38312469
146 3841122900 38411229
147 3843301900 38433019
148 3843300600 38433006
149 3843302900 38433029
150 3840414300 38404143
151 3840917900 38409179
152 3840918000 38409180
153 3840918100 38409181
154 3840430501 38404305
155 3831216400 38312164
156 3844703404 38447034
157 3810506704 38105067
158 3843300808 38433008
159 3810317002 38103170
160 3810317110 38103171
161 3810316949 38103169
162 3840430810 38404308
163 3810317215 38103172
Appendix B
Special-Status Plant Species Potential to Occur
APPENDIX B / SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR 17100 B-1
MARCH 2026
Scientific Name Common Name Status (Federal/State/CRPR) Santee MSCP Draft
Subarea Plan
Primary Habitat Associations/ Life Form/ Blooming Period/ Elevation Range (feet) Potential to Occur
Acanthomintha ilicifolia San Diego thorn-mint FT/SE/1B.1 Covered, Narrow Endemic
Chaparral, Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland, Vernal pools; Clay, Openings/annual herb/Apr–June/
35–3,150
Moderate potential to occur in parcels containing suitable habitat.
Not expected to occur in parcels with developed lands.
Acmispon prostratus Nuttall's acmispon None/None/1B.1 None Coastal dunes, Coastal scrub (sandy)/annual herb/ Mar–June(July)/0–35
Not expected to occur. The site is outside of the species’ known elevation range and this species has not been observed within the vicinity (i.e. El Cajon USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle).
Adolphia californica California adolphia None/None/2B.1 None Chaparral, Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland; Clay/perennial deciduous shrub/Dec–May/35–2,430
Moderate potential to occur in parcels containing suitable habitat.
Not expected to occur in parcels with developed lands.
Allium marvinii Yucaipa onion None/None/1B.2 None Chaparral (clay, openings)/perennial bulbiferous herb/ Apr–May/2,495–3,495
Not expected to occur. The site is outside of the species’ known elevation range and this species has not been observed within the vicinity (i.e. El Cajon USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle).
Ambrosia chenopodiifolia San Diego bur-sage None/None/2B.1 None Coastal scrub/perennial shrub/Apr–June/180–510 Moderate potential to occur in parcels containing suitable habitat.
Not expected to occur in parcels with developed lands.
Ambrosia monogyra singlewhorl burrobrush None/None/2B.2 None Chaparral, Sonoran desert scrub; Sandy/perennial shrub/Aug–Nov/35–1,640
Not expected to occur. Project does not contain chaparral or Sonroan desert scrub and this species has not been observed within the vicinity (i.e. El Cajon USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle).
Ambrosia pumila San Diego ambrosia FE/None/1B.1 Covered, Narrow Endemic
Chaparral, Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland, Vernal pools; Alkaline (sometimes), Clay (sometimes),
Disturbed areas (often), Loam (sometimes), Sandy
(sometimes)/perennial rhizomatous herb/Apr–Oct/
65–1,360
Moderate potential to occur in parcels containing suitable habitat.
Not expected to occur in parcels with developed lands.
Aphanisma blitoides aphanisma None/None/1B.2 None Coastal bluff scrub, Coastal dunes, Coastal scrub; Gravelly (sometimes), Sandy (sometimes)/annual herb/ Feb–
June/5–1,000
Moderate potential to occur in parcels containing suitable habitat.
Not expected to occur in parcels with developed lands.
Arctostaphylos glandulosa ssp.
crassifolia
Del Mar manzanita FE/None/1B.1 None Chaparral (maritime, sandy)/perennial evergreen shrub/ June–Apr/0–1,200
Not expected to occur. Project does not contain chaparral and this species has not been observed within the vicinity (i.e. El Cajon USGS
7.5-minute quadrangle).
Arctostaphylos otayensis Otay manzanita None/None/1B.2 None Chaparral, Cismontane woodland/perennial evergreen shrub/Jan–Apr/900–5,580
Not expected to occur. The site is outside of the species’ known elevation range and this species has not been observed within the vicinity (i.e. El Cajon USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle).
Astragalus deanei Dean's milk-vetch None/None/1B.1 None Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub, Riparian forest/perennial herb/Feb–May/245–2,280
Moderate potential to occur in parcels containing suitable habitat.
Not expected to occur in parcels with developed lands.
Astragalus oocarpus San Diego milk-vetch None/None/1B.2 None Chaparral (openings), Cismontane woodland/perennial herb/May–Aug/1,000–5,000
Not expected to occur. The site is outside of the species’ known elevation range and this species has not been observed within the vicinity (i.e. El Cajon USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle).
Atriplex coulteri Coulter's saltbush None/None/1B.2 None Coastal bluff scrub, Coastal dunes, Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland; Alkaline (sometimes), Clay
(sometimes)/perennial herb/Mar–Oct/10–1,510
Moderate potential to occur in parcels containing suitable habitat.
Not expected to occur in parcels with developed lands.
Atriplex pacifica south coast saltscale None/None/1B.2 None Coastal bluff scrub, Coastal dunes, Coastal scrub, Playas/annual herb/Mar–Oct/0–460
Moderate potential to occur in parcels containing suitable habitat.
Not expected to occur in parcels with developed lands.
Baccharis vanessae Encinitas baccharis FT/SE/1B.1 None Chaparral (maritime), Cismontane woodland; Sandstone/ perennial deciduous shrub/Aug–Nov/195–2,360
Not expected to occur. Project does not contain chaparral or cismontane woodland and this species has not been observed within the vicinity (i.e. El Cajon USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle).
Bergerocactus emoryi golden-spined cereus None/None/2B.2 None Chaparral, Closed-cone coniferous forest, Coastal scrub; Sandy/perennial stem/May–June/10–1,295
Not expected to occur. Project does not contain chaparral or coniferous forests and this species has not been observed within the vicinity (i.e. El Cajon USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle).
APPENDIX B / SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR 17100 B-2
MARCH 2026
Scientific Name Common Name Status (Federal/State/CRPR) Santee MSCP Draft
Subarea Plan
Primary Habitat Associations/ Life Form/ Blooming Period/ Elevation Range (feet) Potential to Occur
Bloomeria clevelandii San Diego goldenstar None/None/1B.1 Covered Chaparral, Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland, Vernal pools; Clay/perennial bulbiferous herb/
Apr–May/165–1,525
Moderate potential to occur in parcels containing suitable habitat.
Not expected to occur in parcels with developed lands.
Brodiaea filifolia thread-leaved brodiaea FT/SE/1B.1 None Chaparral (openings), Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub, Playas, Valley and foothill grassland, Vernal pools; Clay (often)/perennial bulbiferous herb/Mar–June/
80–3,675
Moderate potential to occur in parcels containing suitable habitat.
Not expected to occur in parcels with developed lands.
Brodiaea orcuttii Orcutt's brodiaea None/None/1B.1 None Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Closed-cone coniferous forest, Meadows and seeps, Valley and foothill grassland, Vernal pools; Clay, Mesic/perennial bulbiferous herb/May– July/100–5,550
Moderate potential to occur in parcels containing suitable habitat.
Not expected to occur in parcels with developed lands.
Calochortus dunnii Dunn's mariposa-lily None/SR/1B.2 None Chaparral, Closed-cone coniferous forest, Valley and foothill grassland; Gabbroic (sometimes), Rocky/ perennial
bulbiferous herb/(Feb)Apr–June/605–6,005
Moderate potential to occur in parcels containing suitable habitat.
Not expected to occur in parcels with developed lands.
Carex obispoensis San Luis Obispo sedge None/None/1B.2 None Chaparral, Closed-cone coniferous forest, Coastal prairie, Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland; Clay (often), Gabbroic (sometimes), Seeps (often), Serpentine (often)/ perennial cespitose herb/Apr–June/35–2,690
Moderate potential to occur in parcels containing suitable habitat.
Not expected to occur in parcels with developed lands.
Ceanothus cyaneus Lakeside ceanothus None/None/1B.2 None Chaparral, Closed-cone coniferous forest/perennial evergreen shrub/Apr–June/770–2,475
Not expected to occur. Project does not contain chaparral or coniferous forests and this species has not been observed within the vicinity (i.e. El Cajon USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle).
Ceanothus otayensis Otay Mountain
ceanothus
None/None/1B.2 None Chaparral (gabbroic, metavolcanic)/perennial evergreen shrub/Jan–Apr/1,970–3,610
Not expected to occur. The site is outside of the species’ known elevation range and this species has not been observed within the vicinity (i.e. El Cajon USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle).
Ceanothus verrucosus wart-stemmed
ceanothus
None/None/2B.2 None Chaparral, Coastal scrub/perennial evergreen shrub/ Dec– May/5–1,245
Moderate potential to occur in parcels containing suitable habitat.
Not expected to occur in parcels with developed lands.
Centromadia pungens ssp. laevis smooth tarplant None/None/1B.1 None Chenopod scrub, Meadows and seeps, Playas, Riparian woodland, Valley and foothill grassland; Alkaline/annual herb/Apr–Sep/0–2,100
Moderate potential to occur in parcels containing suitable habitat.
Not expected to occur in parcels with developed lands.
Chloropyron maritimum ssp.
maritimum
salt marsh bird's-beak FE/SE/1B.2 None Coastal dunes, Marshes and swamps (coastal salt)/ annual herb (hemiparasitic)/May–Oct(Nov)/0–100
Not expected to occur. The site is outside of the species’ known elevation range and this species has not been observed within the vicinity (i.e. El Cajon USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle).
Chorizanthe polygonoides var.
longispina
long-spined spineflower None/None/1B.2 None Chaparral, Coastal scrub, Meadows and seeps, Valley and foothill grassland, Vernal pools; Clay (often)/annual
herb/Apr–July/100–5,020
Moderate potential to occur in parcels containing suitable habitat.
Not expected to occur in parcels with developed lands.
Clarkia delicata delicate clarkia None/None/1B.2 None Chaparral, Cismontane woodland; Gabbroic (often)/ annual herb/Apr–June/770–3,280
Not expected to occur. Project does not contain chaparral or cismontane woodland.
Clinopodium chandleri San Miguel savory None/None/1B.2 None Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub, Riparian woodland, Valley and foothill grassland; Gabbroic
(sometimes), Rocky (sometimes)/perennial shrub/Mar–
July/395–3,525
Moderate potential to occur in parcels containing suitable habitat.
Not expected to occur in parcels with developed lands.
Comarostaphylis diversifolia ssp.
diversifolia
summer holly None/None/1B.2 None Chaparral, Cismontane woodland/perennial evergreen shrub/Apr–June/100–2,590
Not expected to occur. Project does not contain chaparral or cismontane woodland and this species has not been observed within the vicinity (i.e. El Cajon USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle).
Corethrogyne filaginifolia var.
incana
San Diego sand aster None/None/1B.1 None Chaparral, Coastal bluff scrub, Coastal scrub/perennial herb/June–Sep/10–375
Moderate potential to occur in parcels containing suitable habitat.
Not expected to occur in parcels with developed lands.
Cylindropuntia californica var.
californica
snake cholla None/None/1B.1 None Chaparral, Coastal scrub/perennial stem/Apr–May/ 100–490
Moderate potential to occur in parcels containing suitable habitat.
Not expected to occur in parcels with developed lands.
APPENDIX B / SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR 17100 B-3
MARCH 2026
Scientific Name Common Name Status (Federal/State/CRPR) Santee MSCP Draft
Subarea Plan
Primary Habitat Associations/ Life Form/ Blooming Period/ Elevation Range (feet) Potential to Occur
Deinandra conjugens Otay tarplant FT/SE/1B.1 None Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland; Clay/annual herb/(Apr)May–June/80–985
Moderate potential to occur in parcels containing suitable habitat.
Not expected to occur in parcels with developed lands.
Deinandra floribunda Tecate tarplant None/None/1B.2 None Chaparral, Coastal scrub/annual herb/Aug–Oct/ 230–4,005
Moderate potential to occur in parcels containing suitable habitat.
Not expected to occur in parcels with developed lands.
Dicranostegia orcuttiana Orcutt's bird's-beak None/None/2B.1 None Coastal scrub/annual herb (hemiparasitic)/ (Mar)Apr–July(Sep)/35–1,150
Moderate potential to occur in parcels containing suitable habitat.
Not expected to occur in parcels with developed lands.
Dudleya variegata variegated dudleya None/None/1B.2 Covered, Narrow Endemic
Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland, Vernal pools; Clay/perennial herb/ Apr– June/10–1,905
Moderate potential to occur in parcels containing suitable habitat.
Not expected to occur in parcels with developed lands.
Ericameria palmeri var. palmeri Palmer's goldenbush None/None/1B.1 None Chaparral, Coastal scrub; Mesic/perennial evergreen shrub/(July)Sep–Nov/100–1,970
Moderate potential to occur in parcels containing suitable habitat.
Not expected to occur in parcels with developed lands.
Eriodictyon sessilifolium sessile-leaved yerba
santa
None/None/2B.1 None Coastal scrub; Volcanic/perennial shrub/July/560–560 Moderate potential to occur in parcels containing suitable habitat.
Not expected to occur in parcels with developed lands.
Eriogonum evanidum vanishing wild
buckwheat
None/None/1B.1 None Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Lower montane coniferous forest, Pinyon and juniper woodland; Gravelly (sometimes), Sandy (sometimes)/annual herb/July–Oct/
3,610–7,300
Not expected to occur. The site is outside of the species’ known elevation range and this species has not been observed within the vicinity (i.e. El Cajon USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle).
Eryngium aristulatum var.
parishii
San Diego button-celery FE/SE/1B.1 Covered Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland, Vernal pools; Mesic/annual/perennial herb/Apr–June/65–2,035
Moderate potential to occur in parcels containing suitable habitat.
Not expected to occur in parcels with developed lands.
Euphorbia abramsiana Abrams' spurge None/None/2B.2 None Mojavean desert scrub, Sonoran desert scrub; Sandy/ annual herb/(Aug)Sep–Nov/-15–4,300
Not expected to occur. Project does not contain desert scrub and this species has not been observed within the vicinity (i.e. El Cajon USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle).
Euphorbia misera cliff spurge None/None/2B.2 None Coastal bluff scrub, Coastal scrub, Mojavean desert scrub; Rocky/perennial shrub/(Oct)Dec–Aug/35–1,640
Moderate potential to occur in parcels containing suitable habitat.
Not expected to occur in parcels with developed lands.
Ferocactus viridescens San Diego barrel cactus None/None/2B.1 Covered Chaparral, Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland, Vernal pools/perennial stem/May–June/10–1,475
Moderate potential to occur in parcels containing suitable habitat.
Not expected to occur in parcels with developed lands.
Frankenia palmeri Palmer's frankenia None/None/2B.1 None Coastal dunes, Marshes and swamps (coastal salt), Playas/perennial herb/May–July/0–35
Not expected to occur. The site is outside of the species’ known elevation range and this species has not been observed within the vicinity (i.e. El Cajon USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle).
Fraxinus parryi chaparral ash None/None/2B.2 None Chaparral/perennial shrub/Mar–May/700–2,035 Not expected to occur. Project does not contain chaparral and this species has not been observed within the vicinity (i.e. El Cajon USGS
7.5-minute quadrangle).
Fremontodendron mexicanum Mexican flannelbush FE/SR/1B.1 None Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Closed-cone coniferous forest; Gabbroic, Serpentine/perennial evergreen
shrub/Mar–June/35–2,350
Not expected to occur. Project does not contain chaparral, cismontane woodland, or coniferous forest and this species has not been observed within the vicinity (i.e. El Cajon USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle).
Galium proliferum desert bedstraw None/None/2B.2 None Joshua tree "woodland", Mojavean desert scrub, Pinyon and juniper woodland; Carbonate, Rocky/annual herb/
Mar–June/3,905–5,350
Not expected to occur. The site is outside of the species’ known elevation range and this species has not been observed within the vicinity (i.e. El Cajon USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle).
Geothallus tuberosus Campbell's liverwort None/None/1B.1 None Coastal scrub (mesic), Vernal pools/ephemeral liverwort/ N.A./35–1,970
Moderate potential to occur in parcels containing suitable habitat.
Not expected to occur in parcels with developed lands.
Grindelia hallii San Diego gumplant None/None/1B.2 None Chaparral, Lower montane coniferous forest, Meadows and seeps, Valley and foothill grassland/perennial herb/ May– Oct/605–5,725
Moderate potential to occur in parcels containing suitable habitat.
Not expected to occur in parcels with developed lands.
Hesperocyparis forbesii Tecate cypress None/None/1B.1 None Chaparral, Closed-cone coniferous forest; Clay, Gabbroic (sometimes)/perennial evergreen tree/N.A./260–4,920
Not expected to occur. Project does not contain chaparral or coniferous forest and this species has not been observed within the vicinity (i.e. El Cajon USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle).
APPENDIX B / SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR 17100 B-4
MARCH 2026
Scientific Name Common Name Status (Federal/State/CRPR) Santee MSCP Draft
Subarea Plan
Primary Habitat Associations/ Life Form/ Blooming Period/ Elevation Range (feet) Potential to Occur
Heterotheca sessiliflora ssp.
sessiliflora
beach goldenaster None/None/1B.1 None Chaparral (coastal), Coastal dunes, Coastal scrub/ perennial herb/Mar–Dec/0–4,020
Moderate potential to occur in parcels containing suitable habitat.
Not expected to occur in parcels with developed lands.
Horkelia truncata Ramona horkelia None/None/1B.3 None Chaparral, Cismontane woodland; Clay, Gabbroic/ perennial herb/May–June/1,310–4,265
Not expected to occur. The site is outside of the species’ known elevation range and this species has not been observed within the vicinity (i.e. El Cajon USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle).
Isocoma menziesii var.
decumbens
decumbent goldenbush None/None/1B.2 None Chaparral, Coastal scrub (often disturbed areas, sandy)/ perennial shrub/Apr–Nov/35–820
Moderate potential to occur in parcels containing suitable habitat.
Not expected to occur in parcels with developed lands.
Iva hayesiana San Diego marsh-elder None/None/2B.2 None Marshes and swamps, Playas/perennial herb/Apr–Oct/ 0– 1,640
Moderate potential to occur in parcels containing suitable habitat.
Not expected to occur in parcels with developed lands.
Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri Coulter's goldfields None/None/1B.1 None Marshes and swamps (coastal salt), Playas, Vernal pools/annual herb/Feb–June/5–4,005
Moderate potential to occur in parcels containing suitable habitat.
Not expected to occur in parcels with developed lands.
Lepechinia cardiophylla heart-leaved pitcher
sage
None/None/1B.2 None Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Closed-cone coniferous forest/perennial shrub/Apr–July/
1,705–4,495
Not expected to occur. The site is outside of the species’ known elevation range and this species has not been observed within the vicinity (i.e. El Cajon USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle).
Lepechinia ganderi Gander's pitcher sage None/None/1B.3 None Chaparral, Closed-cone coniferous forest, Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland; Gabbroic (sometimes)/
perennial shrub/June–July/1,000–3,295
Not expected to occur. The site is outside of the species’ known elevation range and this species has not been observed within the vicinity (i.e. El Cajon USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle).
Leptosyne maritima sea dahlia None/None/2B.2 None Coastal bluff scrub, Coastal scrub/perennial herb/ Mar–May/15–490
Moderate potential to occur in parcels containing suitable habitat.
Not expected to occur in parcels with developed lands.
Monardella breweri ssp.
microcephala
small-headed
monardella
None/None/2B.2 None Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Lower montane coniferous forest; Disturbed areas (sometimes), Granitic, Openings/annual herb/May–Aug/755–3,935
Not expected to occur. Project does not contain chaparral, cismontance woodland, or coniferous forest and this species has not been observed within the vicinity (i.e. El Cajon USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle).
Monardella hypoleuca ssp.
lanata
felt-leaved monardella None/None/1B.2 — Chaparral, Cismontane woodland/perennial rhizomatous herb/June–Aug/985–5,170
Not expected to occur. The site is outside of the species’ known elevation range and this species has not been observed within the vicinity (i.e. El Cajon USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle).
Monardella viminea willowy monardella FE/SE/1B.1 Covered Chaparral, Coastal scrub, Riparian forest, Riparian scrub, Riparian woodland; Alluvial Terraces, Washes/perennial
herb/June–Aug/165–740
Moderate potential to occur in parcels containing suitable habitat.
Not expected to occur in parcels with developed lands.
Nama stenocarpa mud nama None/None/2B.2 None Marshes and swamps (lake margins, riverbanks)/ annual/perennial herb/Jan–July/15–1,640
Moderate potential to occur in parcels containing suitable habitat.
Not expected to occur in parcels with developed lands.
Navarretia fossalis spreading navarretia FT/None/1B.1 None Chenopod scrub, Marshes and swamps (shallow freshwater), Playas, Vernal pools/annual herb/Apr–June/ 100–2,150
Moderate potential to occur in parcels containing suitable habitat.
Not expected to occur in parcels with developed lands.
Navarretia prostrata prostrate vernal pool
navarretia
None/None/1B.2 None Coastal scrub, Meadows and seeps, Valley and foothill grassland (alkaline), Vernal pools; Mesic/annual herb/
Apr–July/10–3,970
Moderate potential to occur in parcels containing suitable habitat.
Not expected to occur in parcels with developed lands.
Nemacaulis denudata var.
denudata
coast woolly-heads None/None/1B.2 None Coastal dunes/annual herb/Apr–Sep/0–330 Not expected to occur. Project does not contain coastal dunes and this species has not been observed within the vicinity (i.e. El Cajon USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle).
Nolina interrata Dehesa nolina None/SE/1B.1 None Chaparral (gabbroic, metavolcanic, serpentinite)/ perennial herb/June–July/605–2,805
Not expected to occur. Project does not contain chaparral and this species has not been observed within the vicinity (i.e. El Cajon USGS
7.5-minute quadrangle).
Orcuttia californica California Orcutt grass FE/SE/1B.1 None Vernal pools/annual herb/Apr–Aug/50–2,165 Moderate potential to occur in parcels containing suitable habitat.
Not expected to occur in parcels with developed lands.
APPENDIX B / SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR 17100 B-5
MARCH 2026
Scientific Name Common Name Status (Federal/State/CRPR) Santee MSCP Draft
Subarea Plan
Primary Habitat Associations/ Life Form/ Blooming Period/ Elevation Range (feet) Potential to Occur
Packera ganderi Gander's ragwort None/SR/1B.2 None Chaparral (burned areas, gabbroic outcrops)/perennial herb/Apr–June/1,310–3,935
Not expected to occur. The site is outside of the species’ known elevation range and this species has not been observed within the vicinity (i.e. El Cajon USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle).
Pentagramma rebmanii Rebman's silverback
fern
None/None/1B.3 None Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Riparian woodland; Clay (sometimes), Decomposed granitic (sometimes), Gabbroic
(sometimes), Granitic (often), Mesic, Rock crevices
(sometimes), Rocky (often), Seeps, Slopes,
Streambanks/perennial rhizomatous herb/N.A./
575–5,775
Moderate potential to occur in parcels containing suitable habitat.
Not expected to occur in parcels with developed lands.
Pogogyne abramsii San Diego mesa mint FE/SE/1B.1 Covered Vernal pools/annual herb/Mar–July/295–655 Moderate potential to occur in parcels containing suitable habitat.
Not expected to occur in parcels with developed lands.
Pogogyne nudiuscula Otay Mesa mint FE/SE/1B.1 None Vernal pools/annual herb/May–July/295–820 Moderate potential to occur in parcels containing suitable habitat.
Not expected to occur in parcels with developed lands.
Pseudognaphalium
leucocephalum
white rabbit-tobacco None/None/2B.2 None Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub, Riparian woodland; Gravelly, Sandy/perennial herb/ (July)Aug–
Nov(Dec)/0–6,890
Moderate potential to occur in parcels containing suitable habitat.
Not expected to occur in parcels with developed lands.
Quercus cedrosensis Cedros Island oak None/None/2B.2 None Chaparral, Closed-cone coniferous forest, Coastal scrub/ perennial evergreen tree/Apr–May/835–3,150
Not expected to occur. The site is outside of the species’ known elevation range and this species has not been observed within the vicinity (i.e. El Cajon USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle).
Quercus dumosa Nuttall's scrub oak None/None/1B.1 None Chaparral, Closed-cone coniferous forest, Coastal scrub; Clay, Loam, Sandy/perennial evergreen shrub/
Feb–Apr(May–Aug)/50–1,310
Moderate potential to occur in parcels containing suitable habitat.
Not expected to occur in parcels with developed lands.
Ribes canthariforme Moreno currant None/None/1B.3 None Chaparral, Riparian scrub/perennial deciduous shrub/ Feb–Apr/1,115–3,935
Not expected to occur. The site is outside of the species’ known elevation range and this species has not been observed within the vicinity (i.e. El Cajon USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle).
Salvia munzii Munz's sage None/None/2B.2 None Chaparral, Coastal scrub/perennial evergreen shrub/ Feb– Apr/375–3,495
Moderate potential to occur in parcels containing suitable habitat.
Not expected to occur in parcels with developed lands.
Senecio aphanactis chaparral ragwort None/None/2B.2 None Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub; Alkaline (sometimes)/annual herb/Jan–Apr(May)/50–2,625
Moderate potential to occur in parcels containing suitable habitat.
Not expected to occur in parcels with developed lands.
Sphaerocarpos drewiae bottle liverwort None/None/1B.1 None Chaparral, Coastal scrub; Openings/ephemeral liverwort/ N.A./295–1,970
Moderate potential to occur in parcels containing suitable habitat.
Not expected to occur in parcels with developed lands.
Stemodia durantifolia purple stemodia None/None/2B.1 None Sonoran desert scrub (often mesic, sandy)/perennial herb/(Jan)Apr–Dec/590–985
Not expected to occur. Project does not contain desert scrub and this species has not been observed within the vicinity (i.e. El Cajon USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle).
Stylocline citroleum oil neststraw None/None/1B.1 None Chenopod scrub, Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland; Clay/annual herb/Mar–Apr/165–1,310
Moderate potential to occur in parcels containing suitable habitat.
Not expected to occur in parcels with developed lands.
Suaeda esteroa estuary seablite None/None/1B.2 None Marshes and swamps (coastal salt)/perennial herb/ (Jan– May)July–Oct/0–15
Not expected to occur. The site is outside of the species’ known elevation range and this species has not been observed within the vicinity (i.e. El Cajon USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle).
Tetracoccus dioicus Parry's tetracoccus None/None/1B.2 None Chaparral, Coastal scrub/perennial deciduous shrub/ Apr– May/540–3,280
Moderate potential to occur in parcels containing suitable habitat.
Not expected to occur in parcels with developed lands.
Triquetrella californica coastal triquetrella None/None/1B.2 None Coastal bluff scrub, Coastal scrub/moss/N.A./35–330 Moderate potential to occur in parcels containing suitable habitat.
Not expected to occur in parcels with developed lands.
Notes: MSCP = Multiple Species Conservation Plan.
Status Legend:
FE: Federally listed as endangered
FT: Federally listed as threatened
FC: Federal Candidate for listing
APPENDIX B / SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR 17100 B-6
MARCH 2026
FD: Federally delisted
SE: State listed as endangered
ST: State listed as threatened
SC: State Candidate for listing
SR: State Rare
CRPR 1A: Plants presumed extirpated in California and either rare or extinct elsewhere CRPR 1B: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere CRPR 2A: Plants presumed extirpated in California but common elsewhere CRPR 2B: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere CRPR 3: Review List: Plants about which more information is needed CRPR 4: Watch List: Plants of limited distribution
.1 Seriously threatened in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened / high degree and immediacy of threat) .2 Moderately threatened in California (20–80% occurrences threatened / moderate degree and immediacy of threat) .3 Not very threatened in California (<20% of occurrences threatened / low degree and immediacy of threat or no current threats known) Appendix C
Special-Status Wildlife Species Potential to Occur
APPENDIX C / SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR 17100 C-1
MARCH 2026
Scientific Name Common Name
Status
(Federal/ State)
Santee
MSCP Draft
Subarea Plan Habitat Potential to Occur
Amphibians
Anaxyrus californicus arroyo toad FE/SSC None Semi-arid areas near washes, sandy riverbanks, riparian areas, palm oasis, Joshua tree, mixed chaparral and
sagebrush; stream channels for breeding (typically third order); adjacent stream terraces and uplands for foraging and wintering
Not expected to occur. No suitable stream channels present and Project occurs outside of known range (USFWS 2009).This species has not been observed within the vicinity (i.e. El Cajon USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle).
Spea hammondii western spadefoot FPT/PL, SSC Covered Primarily grassland and vernal pools, but also in ephemeral wetlands that persist at least 3 weeks in chaparral, coastal scrub, valley–foothill woodlands, pastures, and other
agriculture
Moderate potential to occur in parcels containing suitable habitat. Not expected to occur in parcels with developed lands.
Reptiles
Anniella stebbinsi southern California legless
lizard
None/SSC None Coastal dunes, stabilized dunes, beaches, dry washes, valley–foothill, chaparral, and scrubs; pine, oak, and riparian woodlands; associated with sparse vegetation and moist
sandy or loose, loamy soils
Moderate potential to occur in parcels containing suitable habitat. Not expected to occur in parcels with developed lands.
Arizona elegans occidentalis California glossy snake None/SSC None Arid scrub, rocky washes, grasslands, chaparral, open areas with loose soil
Moderate potential to occur in parcels containing suitable habitat. Not expected to occur in parcels with developed lands.
Aspidoscelis hyperythra orange-throated whiptail None/WL Covered Low-elevation coastal scrub, chaparral, and valley–foothill hardwood
Moderate potential to occur in parcels containing suitable habitat. Not expected to occur in parcels with developed lands.
Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri San Diegan tiger whiptail None/SSC None Hot and dry areas with sparse foliage, including chaparral, woodland, and riparian areas.
Moderate potential to occur in parcels containing suitable habitat. Not expected to occur in parcels with developed lands.
Chelonia mydas green sea turtle FT/None None Shallow waters of lagoons, bays, estuaries, mangroves, eelgrass, and seaweed beds
Not expected to occur. No suitable vegetation present.
Coleonyx variegatus abbotti San Diego banded gecko None/SSC None Rocky areas within coastal scrub and chaparral Moderate potential to occur in parcels containing suitable habitat. Not expected to occur in parcels with developed lands.
Crotalus ruber red diamondback rattlesnake None/SSC None Coastal scrub, chaparral, oak and pine woodlands, rocky grasslands, cultivated areas, and desert flats
Moderate potential to occur in parcels containing suitable habitat. Not expected to occur in parcels with developed lands.
Masticophis fuliginosus Baja California coachwhip None/SSC None In California restricted to southern San Diego County, where it is known from grassland and coastal sage scrub. Open areas in grassland and coastal sage scrub.
Not expected to occur. The majority of the parcels are
developed and surrounded by existing development and this species has not been observed within the vicinity (i.e. El Cajon USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle)
Phrynosoma blainvillii coast horned lizard None/SSC Covered Open areas of sandy soil in valleys, foothills, and semi-arid mountains including coastal scrub, chaparral, valley–foothill hardwood, conifer, riparian, pine–cypress, juniper, and annual grassland habitats
Moderate potential to occur in parcels containing suitable habitat. Not expected to occur in parcels with developed lands.
Salvadora hexalepis virgultea coast patch-nosed snake None/SSC None Brushy or shrubby vegetation; requires small mammal burrows for refuge and overwintering sites
Moderate potential to occur in parcels containing suitable habitat. Not expected to occur in parcels with developed lands.
Thamnophis hammondii two-striped gartersnake None/SSC None Streams, creeks, pools, streams with rocky beds, ponds, lakes, vernal pools
Moderate potential to occur in parcels adjacent to the San Diego River. Not expected to occur in parcels with developed lands.
Actinemys pallida southwestern pond turtle FPT/SSC None Slow-moving permanent or intermittent streams, ponds, small lakes, and reservoirs with emergent basking sites; adjacent uplands used for nesting and during winter
Not expected to occur. Southwestern pond turtle is not known to occur within the San Diego River in the City of Santee. This species has not been observed within the vicinity (i.e. El Cajon USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle).
APPENDIX C / SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR 17100 C-2
MARCH 2026
Scientific Name Common Name
Status
(Federal/ State)
Santee
MSCP Draft
Subarea Plan Habitat Potential to Occur
Birds
Agelaius tricolor (nesting colony) tricolored blackbird BCC/SSC, ST None Nests near freshwater, emergent wetland with cattails or tules, but also in Himalayan blackberrry; forages in
grasslands, woodland, and agriculture
Not expected to occur. The majority of the parcels are
developed and surrounded by existing development, therefore Project site lacks suitable nesting and foraging habitat. This species has not been observed within the vicinity (i.e. El Cajon USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle) since 2009.
Ammodramus savannarum (nesting) grasshopper sparrow None/SSC None Nests and forages in moderately open grassland with tall forbs or scattered shrubs used for perches
Not expected to occur due to poor habitat suitabilty and surrounding developed lands.
Aquila chrysaetos (nesting & wintering) golden eagle None/FP, WL None Nests and winters in hilly, open/semi-open areas, including shrublands, grasslands, pastures, riparian areas,
mountainous canyon land, open desert rimrock terrain;
nests in large trees and on cliffs in open areas and forages in open habitats
Not expected to occur. The majority of the parcels are
developed and surrounded by existing development, therefore Project site lacks suitable nesting and foraging habitat. This species has not been observed within the vicinity (i.e. El Cajon USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle).
Athene cunicularia (burrow sites & some
wintering sites)
burrowing owl BCC/SSC, SC Covered Nests and forages in grassland, open scrub, and agriculture, particularly with ground squirrel burrows
Moderate potential to occur in parcels containing suitable habitat. Not expected to occur in parcels with developed lands.
Buteo swainsoni (nesting) Swainson's hawk None/ST None Nests in open woodland and savanna, riparian, and in isolated large trees; forages in nearby grasslands and
agricultural areas such as wheat and alfalfa fields and pasture
Not expected to nest. This species no longer nests in southern California and this species has not been observed within the vicinity (i.e. El Cajon USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle) since 1921.
Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus
sandiegensis (San Diego & Orange Counties
only)
coastal cactus wren None/SSC Covered Southern cactus scrub patches Not extected to occur due to poor habitat quality.
Coccyzus americanus occidentalis (nesting) western yellow-billed cuckoo FT/SE None Nests in dense, wide riparian woodlands and forest with well-developed understories
Not expected to occur. Limited suitable nesting vegetation present and this species has not been observed within the vicinity (i.e. El Cajon USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle).
Coturnicops noveboracensis yellow rail BCC/SSC None Nesting requires wet marsh/sedge meadows or coastal marshes with wet soil and shallow, standing water
Not expected to occur. Limited suitable nesting vegetation present and this species has not been observed within the vicinity (i.e. El Cajon USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle) since 1998.
Elanus leucurus (nesting) white-tailed kite None/FP None Nests in woodland, riparian, and individual trees near open lands; forages opportunistically in grassland, meadows, scrubs, agriculture, emergent wetland, savanna, and
disturbed lands
Moderate potential to occur in parcels containing suitable habitat. Not expected to occur in parcels with developed lands.
Empidonax traillii extimus (nesting) southwestern willow flycatcher
FE/SE None Nests in dense riparian habitats along streams, reservoirs, or wetlands; uses variety of riparian and shrubland habitats during migration
Not expected to occur. Limited suitable nesting vegetation present and this species has not been observed within the vicinity (i.e. El Cajon USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle).
Icteria virens (nesting) yellow-breasted chat None/SSC None Nests and forages in dense, relatively wide riparian woodlands and thickets of willows, vine tangles, and dense brush
High potential to occur in or adjacent to parcels with suitable riparian habitat. Not expected to occur in parcels with developed lands.
Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus California black rail None/FP, ST None Tidal marshes, shallow freshwater margins, wet meadows, and flooded grassy vegetation; suitable habitats are often supplied by canal leakage in Sierra Nevada foothill
populations
Not expected to occur. Limited suitable nesting vegetation present and this species has not been observed within the vicinity (i.e. El Cajon USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle).
Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi Belding's savannah sparrow BCC/SE None Nests and forages in coastal saltmarsh dominated by pickleweed (Salicornia spp.)
Not expected to occur. No suitable nesting vegetation present and this species has not been observed within the vicinity (i.e.
El Cajon USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle).
Polioptila californica californica coastal California gnatcatcher FT/SSC Covered Nests and forages in various sage scrub communities, often dominated by California sagebrush and buckwheat;
High potential to occur in parcels containing suitable habitat.
Not expected to occur in parcels with developed lands.
APPENDIX C / SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR 17100 C-3
MARCH 2026
Scientific Name Common Name
Status
(Federal/ State)
Santee
MSCP Draft
Subarea Plan Habitat Potential to Occur
generally avoids nesting in areas with a slope of greater than 40%; majority of nesting at less than 1,000 feet above mean sea level
Rallus obsoletus levipes light-footed Ridgway's rail FE/FP, SE None Coastal wetlands, brackish areas, coastal saline emergent wetlands
Not expected to occur. No suitable nesting vegetation present and this species has not been observed within the vicinity (i.e.
El Cajon USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle).
Setophaga petechia (nesting) yellow warbler None/SSC None Nests and forages in riparian and oak woodlands, montane chaparral, open ponderosa pine, and mixed-conifer habitats High potential to occur in or adjacent to parcels with suitable riparian habitat. Not expected to occur in parcels with developed lands.
Sternula antillarum browni (nesting colony) California least tern FE/FP, SE None Forages in shallow estuaries and lagoons; nests on sandy beaches or exposed tidal flats
Not expected to occur. No suitable nesting vegetation present and this species has not been observed within the vicinity (i.e.
El Cajon USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle).
Vireo bellii pusillus (nesting) least Bell's vireo FE/SE Covered Nests and forages in low, dense riparian thickets along water or along dry parts of intermittent streams; forages in riparian and adjacent shrubland late in nesting season
High potential to occur in or adjacent to parcels with suitable riparian habitat. Not expected to occur in parcels with developed lands.
Anarhynchus nivosus nivosus (nesting) western snowy plover FT, BCC/SSC None On coasts nests on sandy marine and estuarine shores; in the interior nests on sandy, barren or sparsely vegetated flats near saline or alkaline lakes, reservoirs, and ponds Not expected to occur. No suitable nesting vegetation present and this species has not been observed within the vicinity (i.e.
El Cajon USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle).
Botaurus exilis (nesting) least bittern None/SSC None Nests in freshwater and brackish marshes with dense, tall growth of aquatic and semi-aquatic vegetation
Not expected to occur. Limited suitable habitat present and this species has not been observed within the vicinity (i.e. El Cajon USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle).
Mammals
Antrozous pallidus pallid bat None/SSC None Grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, forests; most common in open, dry habitats with rocky outcrops for roosting, but also roosts in man-made structures and trees
Moderate potential to occur in parcels containing or adajcent to suitable habitat. Not expected to occur in parcels with developed lands.
Choeronycteris mexicana Mexican long-tongued bat None/SSC None Desert and montane riparian, desert succulent scrub, desert scrub, and pinyon–juniper woodland; roosts in caves, mines, and buildings
Not expected to occur. No suitable desert habitat and this species is only occasionally found in San Diego County, which is on the periphery of their range (CDFW 2025).
Corynorhinus townsendii Townsend's big-eared bat None/SSC None Mesic habitats characterized by coniferous and deciduous forests and riparian habitat, but also xeric areas; roosts in limestone caves and lava tubes, man-made structures, and tunnels
Not expected to occur. Limited suitable habitat and this species is extremely sensitive to human disturbance (CDFW 2025).
Dasypterus xanthinus western yellow bat None/SSC None Valley–foothill riparian, desert riparian, desert wash, and palm oasis habitats; below 2,000 feet above mean sea
level; roosts in riparian and palms
Moderate potential to occur in parcels containing suitable habitat. Not expected to occur in parcels with developed lands.
Eumops perotis californicus western mastiff bat None/SSC None Chaparral, coastal and desert scrub, coniferous and deciduous forest and woodland; roosts in crevices in rocky canyons and cliffs where the canyon or cliff is vertical or nearly vertical, trees, and tunnels
Moderate potential to occur in parcels containing suitable habitat. Not expected to occur in parcels with developed lands.
Neotoma lepida intermedia San Diego desert woodrat None/SSC None Coastal scrub, desert scrub, chaparral, cacti, rocky areas Moderate potential to occur in parcels containing suitable habitat. Not expected to occur in parcels with developed lands.
Nyctinomops femorosaccus pocketed free-tailed bat None/SSC None Pinyon–juniper woodlands, desert scrub, desert succulent shrub, desert riparian, desert wash, alkali desert scrub, Joshua tree, and palm oases; roosts in high cliffs or rock outcrops with drop-offs, caverns, and buildings
Not expected to occur. No suitable desert habitat.
Nyctinomops macrotis big free-tailed bat None/SSC None Rocky areas; roosts in caves, holes in trees, buildings, and crevices on cliffs and rocky outcrops; forages over water Moderate potential to occur in parcels containing suitable habitat. Not expected to occur in parcels with developed lands.
APPENDIX C / SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR 17100 C-4
MARCH 2026
Scientific Name Common Name
Status
(Federal/ State)
Santee
MSCP Draft
Subarea Plan Habitat Potential to Occur
Puma concolor mountain lion - Southern
California/Central Coast ESU
None/SC None Scrubs, chaparral, riparian, woodland, and forest; rests in rocky areas and on cliffs and ledges that provide cover; most abundant in riparian areas and brushy stages of most habitats throughout California, except deserts
Not expected to occur. The site is located within an urban setting and this species typically avoids areas with human presence.
Taxidea taxus American badger None/SSC None Dry, open, treeless areas; grasslands, coastal scrub, agriculture, and pastures, especially with friable soils Not expected to occur. Limited suitable open habitat and the majority of the parcels are developed and surrounded by existing development.
Lasiurus frantzii western red bat None/SSC None Forest, woodland, riparian, mesquite bosque, and orchards, including fig, apricot, peach, pear, almond, walnut, and orange; roosts in tree canopy
Moderate potential to occur in parcels containing suitable habitat. Not expected to occur in parcels with developed lands.
Invertebrates
Bombus crotchii Crotch's bumble bee None/SCE Covered Open grassland and scrub communities supporting suitable floral resources.
Moderate potential to occur in parcels containing suitable habitat. Not expected to occur in parcels with developed lands.
Branchinecta sandiegonensis San Diego fairy shrimp FE/None Covered Vernal pools, non-vegetated ephemeral pools Not expected to occur due to poor habitat suitability.
Euphydryas editha quino quino checkerspot butterfly FE/SC Covered Annual forblands, grassland, open coastal scrub and chaparral; often soils with cryptogamic crusts and finetextured clay; host plants include Plantago erecta, P. patagonica, and Antirrhinum coulterianum, among others
Moderate potential to occur inparcels containing suitable habitat. Not expected to occur in parcels with developed lands.
Lycaena hermes Hermes copper FT/None Covered Mixed woodlands, chaparral, and coastal scrub Not expected to occur due to lack of host plants.
Streptocephalus woottoni Riverside fairy shrimp FE/None Covered Vernal pools, non-vegetated ephemeral pools Not expected to occur. This species has not been observed within the vicinity (i.e. El Cajon USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle).
Danaus plexippus plexippus pop. 1 monarch - California
overwintering population
FPT/None None Wind-protected tree groves with nectar sources and nearby water sources
Moderate potential to forage or fly through the City of Santee.
However, the City of Santee does not contain any established overwintering area for this species (Xerces Society 2025).
Therefore, overwintering within the project area is not expected to occur.
Notes: MSCP = Multiple Species Conservation Plan.
Status Legend
Federal
BCC: USFWS—Birds of Conservation Concern
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
Appendix E
Cultural Resources Report
Cultural Resources Technical Report
Santee Land Use Element Update
San Diego County, California
FEBRUARY 2026
Prepared for:
CITY OF SANTEE, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
10601 Magnolia Avenue
Santee, California 92071
Prepared by:
Matthew DeCarlo, MA, RPA;
Keshia Montifolca, MA, RPA; and
Micah Hale, PhD, RPA
687 South Coast Highway 101, Suite 110
Encinitas, California 92024
Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material.
17100 i
FEBRUARY 2026
National Archaeological Database
(NADB) Information
Authors: Matthew DeCarlo, MA, RPA, Keshia Montifolca, MA, RPA, and Micah J. Hale, PhD, RPA Firm: Dudek
Project Proponent: City of Santee
Report Date: February 2026
Report Title: Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Santee Land Use Element Update, San Diego County, California
Type of Study: Cultural Resources Technical Report
New Sites: None
Updated Sites: None
USGS Quads: La Mesa, and El Cajon USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles Acreage: 254.8 acres
Permit Numbers: N/A
Keywords: City of Santee; Land Use Element Update
SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE/ CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT 17100 ii FEBRUARY 2026
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
17100 iii FEBRUARY 2026
Table of Contents
SECTION PAGE NO.
National Archaeological Database (NADB) Information .................................................................................................... i Acronyms and Abbreviations............................................................................................................................................... v Management Summary..................................................................................................................................................... vii 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................1
1.1 Project Description...................................................................................................................................1
1.1.1 Project Area of Potential Effects ...............................................................................................2
1.2 Applicable Regulations ............................................................................................................................3
1.2.1 California Register of Historical Resources (California Public Resources Code Section 5020 et seq.)..............................................................................................................................3
1.2.2 Native American Historic Cultural Sites (California Public Resources Code Section 5097 et seq.).........................................................................................................................................4
1.2.3 California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.....................................4
1.2.4 California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98......................................................................................................................................4
1.2.5 California Environmental Quality Act ........................................................................................5
1.2.6 Assembly Bill 52.........................................................................................................................8
1.2.7 Senate Bill 18.............................................................................................................................8
1.2.8 City of Santee General Plan.......................................................................................................9 2 Background ......................................................................................................................................................... 11
2.1 Environmental Background.................................................................................................................. 11
2.2 Cultural Setting...................................................................................................................................... 11
2.2.1 Tribal Cultural Context............................................................................................................. 12
2.2.2 Paleoindian (Pre-5500 BC)..................................................................................................... 12
2.2.3 Archaic (8000 BC – AD 500).................................................................................................. 13
2.2.4 Late Prehistoric (AD 500 – 1769) ......................................................................................... 14
2.2.5 Ethnohistoric (post-AD 1769)................................................................................................. 14
2.2.6 Historic Period (post-AD 1542) .............................................................................................. 17 3 Methods............................................................................................................................................................... 19
3.1 Records Search ..................................................................................................................................... 19
3.2 Aerial Photograph Analysis ................................................................................................................... 19
3.3 Native American Heritage Commission Search and Tribal Consultation ......................................... 19 4 Results ................................................................................................................................................................. 21
4.1 SCIC Records Search Results............................................................................................................... 21
SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT 17100 iv FEBRUARY 2026
4.2 NAHC Sacred Lands File Search .......................................................................................................... 22
4.3 Assembly Bill 52 and Senate Bill 18 Consultation............................................................................. 22 5 Project Impact Potential ..................................................................................................................................... 25
5.1 Cultural Resource Sensitivity................................................................................................................ 25 6 Management Considerations............................................................................................................................. 27
6.1 Impact Analysis...................................................................................................................................... 27
6.1.1 Cultural Resources Impact Analysis....................................................................................... 27 7 References........................................................................................................................................................... 29 8 List of Preparers and Persons and Organizations Contacted ..................................................................... 33 TABLES
Table 1. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within the APE............................................................................... 19
FIGURES
Figure 1 Project Location..................................................................................................................................... 35 Figure 2 Project APE............................................................................................................................................. 37
APPENDICES
A (Confidential) SCIC Records Search Results
B (Confidential) Archaeological Sensitivity Map
C NAHC Correspondence
17100
v
FEBRUARY 2026
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Acronym Abbreviation
AB Assembly Bill
APN Accessor Parcel Number
AMSL Above Mean Sea Level
APE Area of Potential Effects
BERD Built Environment Resource Directory
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
City City of Santee
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
DPR California Department of Parks and Recreation
I-15 Interstate 15
I-805 Interstate 805
KCRC Kumeyaay Cultural Repatriation Committee
MLD Most Likely Descendant
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
OHP Office of Historic Preservation
Project Santee Land Use Element Update
RPA Register of Professional Archaeologists
SB Senate Bill
SCIC South Coastal Information Center
SLF Sacred Lands File
SR-52 State Route 52
SR-67 State Route
TCR Tribal Cultural Resource
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT 17100 vi FEBRUARY 2026
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
17100 vii FEBRUARY 2026
Management Summary
Dudek was retained by the City of Santee (City) to complete a cultural resources technical report for the Santee Land Use Element Update (Project) in the City of Santee, San Diego County, California. The City of Santee (City) is updating its 2003 General Plan Land Use Element to create a compatible and balanced mix of land uses. uses. The Land Use Element is the central organizing component of the General Plan. It establishes the community’s vision for future growth and ensures consistency with the goals and policies of all the other elements. The proposed Project would refresh background information, goals, and policies, and revise the land use map to align the City’s current vision for both present and future development.
The Project area of potential effects (APE) comprises approximately 254.8 acres within the City of Santee in eastern San Diego County. The City is the lead agency responsible for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The goal of this cultural resources technical report is to identify potential cultural resource constraints for the Project by analyzing the cultural resource sensitivity throughout the APE. This report meets the format and content guidelines for the City.
The search of the South Coastal Information Center records identified four archaeological resources within the APE.
The prehistoric sites intersecting the APE include bedrock milling stations (P-37-026520 and P-37-026521), and 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, National Register of Historic Places, or significant under CEQA, and the remaining resources intersecting the APE have not been evaluated.
The results of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) search for the Project and surrounding area are positive, however the NAHC did not provide details on what the resource(s) are or where they are located. Letters were sent to all tribes included on the NAHC 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.
Dudek has analyzed the Project and reviewed the cultural sensitivity of the APE to identify areas with increased potential to impact cultural resources during future Project implementation. Since much of the APE has undergone extensive earth-moving disturbances and consists largely of artificial fill or engineered earth, much of the APE is considered to have a Low Archaeological Sensitivity (Confidential Figure 3 in Confidential Appendix B). Future developments under in the Project located within Low Archaeological Sensitivity areas will have a low potential to impact archaeological resources. Assessment of impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources requires consultation between the City and regionally affiliated tribal representatives.
Ground disturbing activities within or adjacent to previously identified cultural resources have a heightened potential of impacting cultural resources. 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 implemented under the Project within these Moderate Archaeological Sensitivity areas may impact buried significant cultural resources.
SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT 17100 viii FEBRUARY 2026
Cultural resource inventories will be required prior to implementation of future projects within the Project APE.
Dudek recommends that part of those inventories include a qualified archaeologist’s review of the Cultural Sensitivity Map (Confidential Figure 3 in Confidential Appendix B). In addition to Project specific measures to mitigate potential impacts to cultural resources, Dudek recommends cultural resources monitoring of any project implemented under the Project proposing excavations within Moderate Archaeological Sensitivity areas. 14501 1
FEBRUARY 2026
1 Introduction
1.1 Project Description
Dudek was retained by the City of Santee (City) to complete a cultural resources technical report for the Santee Land Use Element Update (Project) in the City of Santee, San Diego County, California. The City is updating its 2003 General Plan Land Use Element to create a compatible and balanced mix of land uses. As part of the Land Use Element Update process, the Proposed Land Use Element Update Program Environmental Impact Report will include updates to existing land use designations, land use maps, and goals and policies. The updates are aimed at fulfilling the guiding principles included in the Land Use Element Update by promoting infill and improving land use efficiency in established neighborhoods and districts.
The Land Use Element is the central organizing component of the General Plan. It establishes the community’s vision for future growth and ensures consistency with the goals and policies of all the other elements. The proposed Project would refresh background information, goals, and policies, and revise the land use map to align the City’s current vision for both present and future development.
A general plan is a state-required legal document, prepared in accordance with California Government Code Section 65300 et seq. A general plan is a broad, long-range policy document that guides future development and local land use decision-making through a comprehensive collection of goals and policies related to various aspects of community life. California law requires that General Plans include a Land Use Element to identify the planned distribution, location, and extent of various land uses. The Land Use Element is the central organizing component of the General Plan. It establishes the community’s vision for future growth and ensures consistency with the goals and policies of all the other elements. The proposed Land Use Element Update would refresh background information, goals, and policies, and revise the land use map to align the City’s current vision for both present and future development.
The Project would establish three updates to the existing land use designations; the Project would add the new Community Hub Overlay, the new Community Corridor Overlay, and would change the land use designation of parcel Accessor Parcel Number (APN) 378-160-25-00, from Neighborhood Commercial to Medium-High Residential (R14). The Project includes specific land use changes which would be focused on specific opportunity areas. Proposed Land Use Changes where two new land use overlays would be applied. Overlay zones are special districts that are layered on top of the base land use designation and base zone to allow different types of development. The two overlay zones, to be called the Community Hub Overlay and the Community Corridor Overlay, would allow increased land use intensity and mixed-use development that are not allowed by the base zones. Both overlays would allow increased density and height limits and have corresponding Supplemental Design Standards. The land use designations updates are described below.
Community Hub Overlay
The Community Hub Overlay is intended for mixed-use development, or the development of both residential and commercial uses within the same building, with commercial uses on the first floor and residential uses on the floors above. The Community Hub Overlay allows a density of 30 dwelling units per acre (du/acre) and a maximum height of 45 feet or 4 stories. The locations chosen for this overlay were selected due to their proximity to major
SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT 17100 2
FEBRUARY 2026
intersections where there is existing access to amenities and supportive community infrastructure. The Community Hub Overlay would apply to select parcels at the intersections of Magnolia Avenue and Mast Boulevard; Cuyamaca Street and Mast Boulevard; Cuyamaca Street and Town Center Parkway; and Carlton Hills Boulevard and Carlton Oaks Drive. The Community Hub Overlay would overlay existing zones of Neighborhood Commercial, Medium Density Residential, Medium-High Density Residential, and Office Professional. The existing land use designations and zoning would remain, and the allowable uses of the proposed overlay would be added.
Community Corridor Overlay
The Community Corridor Overlay is intended to encourage the growth of mixed-use development along multimodal corridors, specifically, along Mission Gorge Road, the City’s gateway corridor. The selection of parcels on which to apply the Community Corridor Overlay focused on vacant and underdeveloped properties primarily on the south side of the roadway. These parcels have underlying base zones of General Commercial, Neighborhood Commercial, Office Professional, Medium Density Residential, Medium-High Density Residential, and Light Industrial/ General Industrial. The Community Corridor Overlay allows a density of 45 du/ac and a maximum height of 55 feet or 5 stories. As with the Community Hub Overlay, development consistent with the underlying base zoning district of each parcel is allowed, so long as it conforms to all applicable requirements and development standards per that zoning district.
Supplemental Design Standards
The Land Use Element Update would include Supplemental Design Standards that would be applied to any mixeduse development project within the Community Hub Overlay or Community Corridor Overlay. Development projects that do not include mixed-use shall remain subject to the standards of the underlying base zone. Where there is a conflict between the Supplemental Design Standards and the development standards of the underling base zone, the Supplemental Design Standards apply. The Supplemental Design Standards concern developmental standards such as frontages, setbacks, and parking requirements.
Medium-High Residential (R-14)
The Project would redesignate one property, parcel APN 378-160-25-00, from Neighborhood Commercial to Medium-High Residential (R-14). Parcel 378-160-25-00 is split into two zoning designations, Neighborhood Commercial and Open Space. The portion of the parcel designated as Neighborhood Commercial will be designated as R-14, and the portion designated Open Space would remain designated as Open Space. The density for R-14 is 14-22 du/acre.
The City is the lead agency responsible for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The goal of this cultural resources report is to identify potential cultural resource constraints for the Project by analyzing the cultural resource sensitivity throughout the City. All cultural resources personnel that participated in this Project exceeded the Secretary of Interior’s standards for their respective roles.
1.1.1 Project Area of Potential Effects
The Project falls within Sections 15, 20, 21, 22, 26, 27, 28, 29, 33, 34, and 35 of the El Cajon and La Mesa, U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute Series Quadrangle Maps (Figure 1, Project Location). The Project area of potential effect (APE) is approximately 254.8 acres encompassing 31 areas within the land area of the City of
SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT 17100 3
FEBRUARY 2026
Santee municipal boundaries that have a proposed zoning use change planned (Figure 2, Project Area of Potential Effect). The majority of the APNs that make up the Project APE are currently developed lands with existing infrastructure (e.g., residential homes, commercial buildings, parking lots, etc.). A few of the APNs associated with the Project are undeveloped sites with native vegetation.
The Project is located approximately 18 miles east of downtown San Diego. The City is bordered on the east by primarily residential development in the unincorporated San Diego communities of Lakeside and Eucalyptus Hills, and to the northeast by vacant land and active mining operations in Slaughterhouse Canyon. To the south, the City shares boundaries with the City of El Cajon, unincorporated areas of the County of San Diego, and the Gillespie Field Airport. Further to the southwest, the City is bordered by Mission Trails Regional Park property, located within the City of San Diego.
The City is bisected by the San Diego River, running from east to west, which includes parks, tails, and natural habitat. The primary highway that runs through the City of Santee is State Route 52 (SR-52). This east-west freeway connects Santee to other parts of San Diego County, providing a vital link to Interstate 15 (I-15) and Interstate 805 (I-805) to the west. Additionally, State Route 67 (SR-67) runs along the eastern edge of Santee, connecting the City to the northern and southern regions of the county. Public transit in the City includes local bus routes, including bus connections to Kearny Mesa, a local employment hub and the Copper Line Trolley, which connects Santee to key areas such as San Diego State University, Mission Valley, and Old Town San Diego.
1.2 Applicable Regulations
The Project is subject to state and local cultural resource regulations.
1.2.1 California Register of Historical Resources (California Public Resources Code Section 5020 et seq.)
In California, the term “cultural 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” (California Public Resources Code Section 5020.1[j]). In 1992, the California legislature established the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) “to be used by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify the state’s cultural resources and to indicate what properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change” (California Public Resources Code Section 5024.1[a]). A resource is eligible for listing in the CRHR if the State Cultural Resources Commission determines that it is a significant resource and that it meets any of the following National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) criteria (California Public Resources Code Section 5024.1[c]):
1. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage.
2. 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.
SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT 17100 4
FEBRUARY 2026
Resources less than 50 years old are not considered for listing in the CRHR, but may be considered if it can be demonstrated that sufficient time has passed to understand the historical importance of the resource (see 14 CCR, Section 4852[d][2]).
The CRHR protects cultural resources by requiring evaluations of the significance of prehistoric and historic resources. The criteria for the CRHR are nearly identical to those for the NRHP, and properties listed or formally designated as eligible for listing on the NRHP are automatically listed on the CRHR, as are the state landmarks and points of interest. The CRHR also includes properties designated under local ordinances or identified through local cultural resource surveys. The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) maintains the CRHR.
1.2.2 Native American Historic Cultural Sites (California Public Resources Code Section 5097 et seq.)
The Native American Historic Resources Protection Act (Public Resources Code Section 5097, et seq.) addresses the disposition of Native American burials in archaeological sites and protects such remains from disturbance, vandalism, or inadvertent destruction; establishes procedures to be implemented if Native American skeletal remains are discovered during construction of a project; and establishes the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to resolve disputes regarding the disposition of such remains. In addition, the Native American Historic Resources Protection Act makes it a misdemeanor punishable by up to 1 year in jail to deface or destroy an Indian historic or cultural site that is listed or may be eligible for listing in the CRHR.
1.2.3 California Native American Graves Protection and
Repatriation Act
The California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (California Repatriation Act), enacted in 2001, requires all state agencies and museums that receive state funding and that have possession or control over collections of human remains or cultural items, as defined, to complete an inventory and summary of these remains and items on or before January 1, 2003, with certain exceptions. The California Repatriation Act also provides a process for the identification and repatriation of these items to the appropriate tribes.
1.2.4 California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 assigns special importance to human remains and specifies procedures to be used when Native American remains are discovered. As described below, the procedures are detailed in California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.
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. 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 (California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5[b]).
PRC Section 5097.98 also outlines the process to be followed in the event that remains are discovered. If the coroner determines or has reason to believe the remains are those of a Native American, the coroner must contact
SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT 17100 5
FEBRUARY 2026
the NAHC within 24 hours (California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5[c]). In accordance with California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(a), the NAHC will 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 treatment or disposition, with appropriate dignity, of the human remains and associated grave goods.
1.2.5 California Environmental Quality Act
As lead agency, the City is responsible for the Project’s compliance with CEQA. As described further below, the following CEQA statutes (PRC Section 21000 et seq.) and CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.) are relevant to the analysis of archaeological, tribal cultural, and historic resources:
1. California PRC Section 21083.2(g): Defines “unique archaeological resource.”
2. California PRC Section 21084.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a): Defines historical 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.
3. California PRC Section 21074 (a): defines “Tribal cultural resources” and Section 21074(b): defines a “cultural landscape.”
4. California PRC Section 5097.98 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e): These statutes set forth standards and steps to be employed following the accidental discovery of human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery.
5. California PRC Sections 21083.2(b)-(c) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4: These statutes and regulations provide information regarding the mitigation framework for archaeological and historic resources, including options of preservation-in-place mitigation measures; identifies preservation-in-place as the preferred manner of mitigating impacts to significant archaeological sites.
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 [sic] historical resource” (California PRC Section 21084.1; CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)). A “historical resource” is any site listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR. The CRHR listing criteria are intended to examine whether the resource in question: (a) is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage; (b) is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; (c) embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or (d) has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in pre-history or history.
The term “cultural resource” also includes any site described in a local register of historic resources, or identified as significant in a cultural resources survey (meeting the requirements of California PRC Section 5024.1(q)).
CEQA also applies to “unique archaeological resources.” California PRC Section 21083.2(g) defines a “unique archaeological resource” as any 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:
SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT 17100 6
FEBRUARY 2026
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.
All cultural resources and unique archaeological resources, as defined by statute, are presumed to be historically or culturally significant for purposes of CEQA (California PRC Section 21084.1; 14 CCR 15064.5(a)). The lead agency is not precluded from determining that a resource is a cultural resource even if it does not fall within this presumption (California PRC Section 21084.1; 14 CCR 15064.5(a)). A site or resource that does not meet the definition of “cultural resource” or “unique archaeological resource” is not considered significant under CEQA and need not be analyzed further (California PRC Section 21083.2(a); 14 CCR 15064.5(c)(4)).
Under CEQA and significant cultural impact results from a “substantial adverse change in the significance of an [sic] historical resource [including a unique archaeological resource]” due to the “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); California PRC Section 5020.1(q)). In turn, according to 14 CCR 15064.5(b)(2), the significance of a cultural resource is materially impaired when a project results in the following impacts:
1. Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an cultural resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register; or
2. Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register of cultural resources pursuant to Section 5020.1(k) of the PRC or its identification in an cultural resources survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the PRC, 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
3. Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of a cultural 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 first evaluates evaluating whether a project site contains any “cultural resources,” then assesses whether that project will cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a cultural resource such that the resource’s historical significance is materially impaired.
SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT 17100 7
FEBRUARY 2026
When a project significantly affects a unique archaeological resource, CEQA imposes special mitigation requirements. Specifically, California PRC Sections 21083.2(b)(1)–21083.2(b)(4) states:
If it can be demonstrated that a project will cause damage to a unique archaeological resource, the lead agency may require reasonable efforts to be made to permit any or all of these resources to be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state. Examples of that treatment, in no order of preference, may include, but are not limited to, any of the following:
1. Planning construction to avoid archaeological sites.
2. Deeding archaeological sites into permanent conservation easements.
3. Capping or covering archaeological sites with a layer of soil before building on the sites.
4. Planning parks, greenspace, or other open space to incorporate archaeological sites.
If these “preservation-in-place” options are not feasible, mitigation may be accomplished through data recovery (California PRC Section 21083.2(d); 14 CCR 15126.4(b)(3)(C)). California PRC Section 21083.2(d) states that:
Excavation as mitigation shall be restricted to those parts of the unique archaeological resource that would be damaged or destroyed by the project. Excavation as mitigation shall not be required for a unique archaeological resource if the lead agency determines that testing or studies already completed have adequately recovered the scientifically consequential information from and about the resource, if this determination is documented in the environmental impact report.
These same requirements are set forth in slightly greater detail in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3), as follows:
A. Preservation in place is the preferred manner of mitigating impacts to archaeological sites.
Preservation in place maintains the relationship between artifacts and the archaeological context.
Preservation may also avoid conflict with religious or cultural values of groups associated with the site.
B. Preservation in place may be accomplished by, but is not limited to, the following:
1. Planning construction to avoid archaeological sites;
2. Incorporation of sites within parks, greenspace, or other open space;
3. Covering the archaeological sites with a layer of chemically stable soil before building tennis courts, parking lots, or similar facilities on the site[; and]
4. Deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement.
C. When data recovery through excavation is the only feasible mitigation, a data recovery plan, which makes provision for adequately recovering the scientifically consequential information from and about the historical resource, shall be prepared and adopted prior to any excavation being undertaken.
Note that, when conducting data recovery, “[i]f an artifact must be removed during project excavation or testing, curation may be an appropriate mitigation.” (14 CCR 15126.4(b)(3)) However, “[d]ata recovery shall not be required
SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT 17100 8
FEBRUARY 2026
for ahistorical resource if the lead agency determines that testing or studies already completed have adequately recovered the scientifically consequential information from and about the archaeological or historic resource, provided that determination is documented in the EIR and that the studies are deposited with the California Cultural resources Regional Information Center” (14 CCR 15126.4(b)(3)(D)).
Finally, 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 set forth in California PRC Section 5097.98.
1.2.6 Assembly Bill 52
In 2014, CEQA was amended through Assembly Bill (AB) 52 to apply to “tribal culture resources” (TCR) as well.
Specifically, California PRC Section 21074 provides guidance for defining tribal cultural resources as either of the following:
1. Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following: (A) Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Cultural Resources. (B) Included in a local register of cultural resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1.
2. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1 for the purposes of this paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. Section 21074(b) A cultural landscape that meets the criteria of subdivision (a) is a tribal cultural resource to the extent that the landscape is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape.
AB 52 requires that the lead agency begin consultation with a California native tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of a proposed project within 14 days of determining that an application for the project is complete if the project may have a substantial adverse change in the significance of a TCR. The lead agency is only required to notify tribes per AB 52 if the tribe has previously requested that the lead agency send it AB 52 notifications for CEQA projects. AB 52 applies to Notices of Preparation filed on or after July 1, 2015.
It is the practice of the City to conduct all tribal consultations consistent with the government-to-government consultation specified in AB 52.
1.2.7 Senate Bill 18
Senate Bill (SB) 18 amended Section 65351 of the Government Code and dictates the following:
During the preparation or amendment of the general plan, the planning agency shall provide opportunities for the involvement of citizens California Native American Indian tribes, public agencies, public utility companies, and civic, education, and other community groups, through public hearings and any other means the city or county deems appropriate.
SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT 17100 9
FEBRUARY 2026
This requires that lead agencies contact California Native American tribes regionally associated with the project area as indicated by the Native American Heritage Commission’s Tribal Consultation List. Upon receipt of public notices, California Native American tribes have 90 days to indicate whether they desire consultation.
1.2.8 City of Santee General Plan
Divided into nine elements, the Santee General Plan is a statement of intent by the City as to the future development of the community. This is accomplished through objectives and policies that serve as a long-term policy guide for physical, economic, and environmental growth. The Conservation Element of the Santee General Plan discusses water resources, land resources, archaeological and cultural resources, biological resources, and open space.
Section 4.3 of the Conservation Element discusses archaeological, cultural, and historic resources known to be within the City. The goal of the Conservation Element is to conserve open space, natural, and cultural resources.
The following objective and policies contained in the Conservation Element of the Santee ▪ General Plan are relevant to the analysis found in this section:
- Objective 8.0: Preserve significant cultural resources. - Policy 8.1. The City shall require either the preservation of significant historic or prehistoric sites, or the professional retrieval of artifacts prior to the development of a site, consistent with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. Preservation may include various measures including avoidance, preservation in place, incorporation into open space, or covering or capping.
The type of preservation would depend upon the nature and significance of the archaeological resource and the practical requirements of the proposed land use. - Policy 8.2. The City should require curation of any recovered artifacts as a condition of any cultural resources mitigation program.
SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT 17100 10 FEBRUARY 2026
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
17100 11 FEBRUARY 2026
2 Background
2.1 Environmental Background
The APE is located in eastern San Diego County, California. Geographically, the APE 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. 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 (City of Santee 2025).
The majority of the parcels that make up the Project APE are currently developed lands with existing infrastructure (e.g., residential homes, commercial buildings, parking lots, etc.). A few of the parcels associated with the Project are undeveloped sites with native vegetation. The Project APE occurs both south and north of the San Diego River within relatively flat existing development areas. Elevations within the Project APE range from 330 feet above mean sea level (amsl) within the southernmost parcels, to approximately 610 feet amsl at the northernmost parcel. The APE is in a dry climate with monthly average temperatures near the City ranging from approximately 49°F–80°F.
The City generally receives an average annual rainfall of 15.58 inches per year (Western Regional Climate Center 2025).
Common animals within this area may include coyote (Canis latrans), California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi), cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonit), black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus bennettii), deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus), sparrow (Melospiza melodia), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), kit fox (Vulpes macrotis), bobcat (Lynx rufus), woodrat (Neotoma macrotis), numerous species of rattlesnakes and lizards, redtailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis), eagles, and numerous other birds and reptiles.
2.2 Cultural Setting
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.
SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT 17100 12 FEBRUARY 2026
2.2.1 Tribal Cultural Context
The Kumeyaay have roots that extend thousands of years in what is now San Diego County, including the APE. The precontact 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.
2.2.2 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 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 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 km 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 8520–9520 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,
SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT 17100 13 FEBRUARY 2026
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).
2.2.3 Archaic (8000 BC – AD 500)
The more than 1500-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, complimented only by the addition of the bow and ceramics.
SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT 17100 14 FEBRUARY 2026
2.2.4 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 (M. 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.
2.2.5 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, p. 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, p. 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.
SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT 17100 15 FEBRUARY 2026
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 which 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:
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. [1993 summarized by the San Diego County Board of Supervisors 2007:6.]
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, p. 34). The distribution of recorded Native American languages has been dispersed as a geographic mosaic across California through six primary language families (Golla 2007, p. 71). The Native American inhabitants of the region 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, p. 80). A large amount of variation within the language of a group represents a greater time depth then a group’s language with less internal diversity. One method that he 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, p. 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, p. 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 ca. 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
SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT 17100 16 FEBRUARY 2026
Native American tribal groups in 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, p. 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, 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; Shipek 1985; Spier 1923). Each autonomous triblet was internally socially stratified, commonly including higher status 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.
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, Saxidomas, 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
SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT 17100 17 FEBRUARY 2026
buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), Agave, Yucca, lemonade berry (Rhus integrifolia), sugar brush (Rhus ovata), sage scrub (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).
2.2.6 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 Luiseno 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 four 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 an Indian 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 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 Indians, 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 Indians 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
SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT 17100 18 FEBRUARY 2026
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 (1841-48) included the ranchos of Pauma, Rincon del Dablo, 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 of these to remain in-tact.
In 1851, a group of Cahuilla and Cupeño Indians attacked American settlers in Warner’s Hot Spring, hoping to unite Indian 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. 17100 19 FEBRUARY 2026
3 Methods
To determine the cultural resource sensitivity of the APE, this study reviewed previously conducted cultural resource studies concerning the APE. The analysis of this information has enabled Dudek to make recommendations for the Project that will reduce possible impacts to cultural resources. Since a majority of the APE have been highly developed, the APE has previously been inventoried for cultural resources. Below is a description of how the current study analyzed previous records, spatial information, and historic aerial photographs to determine cultural resource sensitivity within the APE.
3.1 Records Search
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 ¼-mile buffer (Confidential Appendix A). The purpose of the records search is to identify any previously recorded resources that may be located within the APE and to identify previous studies in the vicinity. In addition to a review of previously prepared site records and reports, the records search also reviewed historical maps of the APE, ethnographies, the NRHP, the CRHR, the California Historic Property Data File, and the lists of California State Historical Landmarks, California Points of Historical Interest, and Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility.
3.2 Aerial Photograph Analysis
Dudek conducted an examination of the APE on historical aerial photographs and satellite images. This analysis showed the current level of development and enabled a review of the development history of the APE. The level of development contributes to the cultural sensitivity of the APE. Areas that are undeveloped or located near water resources are considered to be culturally sensitive. Completely developed areas do not have cultural resources on the surface, however, there may be cultural resource deposits below the surface. Dudek consulted historical aerial photographs from Historicaerials.com to determine the level of development before and after the recordation of the resource. In some cases, these aerial maps show that the resource has been completely destroyed or overlain by developments.
Dudek analyzed cultural resources records search data obtained from SCIC, historical aerial photographs, and land features and waterways to identify known cultural resources and determine the probability of encountering buried cultural deposits throughout the APE. This analysis was used to inform the Cultural Sensitivity Map (Confidential Figure 3 in Confidential Appendix B).
3.3 Native American Heritage Commission Search and
Tribal Consultation
Dudek requested a NAHC search of their Sacred Lands File (SLF) on July 7, 2025, for the APE. The SLF consists of a database of known Native American resources. These resources may not be included in the SCIC database. The City also sent out notifications as part of the AB 52 and SB 18 consultation process. This outreach is to gain tribal perspective and inform the Project with cultural resources knowledge passed down generationally with local Native
SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT 17100 20 FEBRUARY 2026
American communities. TCRs encompass a broad and diverse range of elements that reflect the heritage, identity, and lifeways of Native American Tribes. The significance of TCRs is derived from the Tribe's history, language, beliefs, and practices—often passed down through generations and understood through oral tradition and experiential knowledge. This significance may not be apparent or accessible through conventional archaeological or historical methods.
17100 21 FEBRUARY 2026
4 Results
This section describes the results of the cultural resources review for the Project.
4.1 SCIC Records Search Results
The 2025 search of the SCIC records identified four resources intersecting the APE, and an additional 19 resources within ¼-mile of the APE (Table 1). The prehistoric sites interesting the APE include bedrock milling stations (P-37- 026520 and P-37-026521), and 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 CRHR, NRHP, or significant under CEQA, and the remaining resources within the APE have not been evaluated.
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 ¼-mile of the APE. The 36 previous cultural resources studies cover approximately 90% of the APE, though not all studies include pedestrian survey.
Table 1. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within 1/4-mile 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 ¼-mile 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
SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT 17100 22 FEBRUARY 2026
Primary No. Trinomial No. Description Evaluation
Results
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 Evaluation results: NE = not evaluated; NS = not significant; S = significant
4.2 NAHC Sacred Lands File Search
Dudek requested a NAHC search of their SLF on July 7, 2025, for the APE. The SLF 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 SLF for this area but did not provide details on what the resource(s) are or where they are located in relation to the APE (Appendix C).
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 (Appendix C).
Clint Linton of the Kumeyaay Cultural Repatriation Committee (KCRC) was contacted via phone call on December 25, 2025. Mr. Linton representing the KCRC 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 Land Use Plan Update 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. A response was received by the Manzanita Band of the Kumeyaay Nation on January 30, 2026, stating that the Project is not within the boundaries of the recognized Manzanita Indian Reservation, however, it is within the territory boundaries that the tribe considers its Traditional Use Area (TUA). They request to be kept in the information loop as the project progresses, on the receiving list for project updates, reports and/or any documentation that may be generated regarding previously recorded or newly discovered sites, and recommend Archaeological and Tribal Cultural monitoring on all ground disturbing activities given the proximity of known cultural and historic resources.
4.3 Assembly Bill 52 and Senate Bill 18 Consultation
The Project is subject to compliance with AB 52 (California Public Resources Code [PRC], Section 21074) and SB 18 (Section 65351 of the Government Code), which requires that the lead agency conduct Native American consultation. The City sent letters on September 19, 2025, to all tribes included on the previously referenced NAHC list notifying them of the Project and inquiring whether the tribal representatives sought consultation under AB 52 or SB 18. The letters contained the following information: a project description and location description, a request
SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT 17100 23 FEBRUARY 2026
for input relative to tribal cultural resources in the area, an outline of timing relative to both the AB 52 and SB 18 process, an opportunity for consultation, and contact information for the appropriate tribal representative. The Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians sent a request to consult on the Project on September 23, 2025. The City followed up with the Viejas Band to initiate consultation, however, the City received a voicemail from Mr. Ray Teran, Resource Management Director of the Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians on February 20, 2026, stating that since the Project is a plan amendment, and as long as there is no ground disturbance activities proposed, the Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians would no longer need to consult on the Project. Since the Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians no longer wished to consult on the Project, no consultation occurred on the Project.
SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT 17100 24 FEBRUARY 2026
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
17100 25 FEBRUARY 2026
5 Project Impact Potential
The potential for the Project to impact cultural resources depends on the cultural sensitivity of the APE.
5.1 Cultural Resource Sensitivity
The Project proposes updates to existing land use designations, land use maps, and goals and policies. The updates are aimed at fulfilling the guiding principles included in the Land Use Element Update by promoting infill and improving land use efficiency in established neighborhoods and districts. The Project would establish three updates to the existing land use designations; the Project would add the new Community Hub Overlay, the new Community Corridor Overlay, and would change the land use designation of parcel APN 378-160-25-00, from Neighborhood Commercial to Medium-High Residential (R-14)..
The Community Hub Overlay is intended for mixed-use development, or the development of both residential and commercial uses within the same building, with commercial uses on the first floor and residential uses on the floors above. The Community Hub Overlay would overlay existing zones of Neighborhood Commercial, Medium Density Residential, Medium-High Density Residential, and Office Professional. The existing land use designations and zoning would remain, and the allowable uses of the proposed overlay would be added. The change in the existing land use designation to include both residential and commercial uses would not change the cultural resource sensitivity within the APE.
The Community Corridor Overlay is intended to encourage the growth of mixed-use development along multimodal corridors, focused on vacant and underdeveloped properties primarily on the south side of the roadway. These parcels have underlying base zones of General Commercial, Neighborhood Commercial, Office Professional, Medium Density Residential, Medium-High Density Residential, and Light Industrial/ General Industrial. As with the Community Hub Overlay, development consistent with the underlying base zoning district of each parcel is allowed, so long as it conforms to all applicable requirements and development standards per that zoning district. The change in the existing land use designation to include both residential and commercial uses would not change the cultural resource sensitivity within the APE.
Medium-High Residential (R-14) would redesignate one property, parcel APN 378-160-25-00, from Neighborhood Commercial to R-14. Parcel 378-160-25-00 is split into two zoning designations, Neighborhood Commercial and Open Space, the portion of the parcel designated as Neighborhood Commercial will be designated as R-14, and the portion designated Open Space would remain designated as Open Space. The change in the existing land use designation from Neighborhood Commercial to R-14 would not change the cultural resource sensitivity 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 resources sensitivity within the APE. Archaeological sensitivity varies throughout the APE based on previous development, known cultural resource locations, and topography. TCR sensitivity varies throughout the APE and requires input from culturally affiliated tribal representatives to determine.
Previously developed portions of the APE have undergone development or other ground disturbances in the past such that they preclude the existence of intact archaeological deposits. Significant previous disturbances include
SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT 17100 26 FEBRUARY 2026
the development of residential homes, commercial buildings, and parking lots. This is particularly true where natural terrain has been greatly modified. Grading within the APE to accommodate the construction of commercial centers, and housing tracts, likely displaced any cultural resources and native soils that may have been present. If future development under the involves ground-disturbance within artificial fill or engineered matrix, then these developments would not impact cultural resources. In summary, since much of the APE has undergone extensive earth-moving and consists of largely artificial fill or engineered earth, many future developments under the will have a low potential to impact archaeological resources (Confidential Figure 3 in Confidential Appendix B, Archaeological Sensitivity Map).
Previous developments such as parking lots, or public landscaping may not have required extensive earthmoving and may have only disturbed the immediate ground surface. Future development within or adjacent to previously identified cultural resources within the APE have a moderate potential of impacting cultural resources (Confidential Figure 3 in Confidential Appendix B, Archaeological Sensitivity Map).
Outside the developed areas, there are a few parcels within the APE that are undeveloped areas with native vegetation. These undeveloped areas are scattered throughout the City and their terrain has changed little since prehistory. These undeveloped areas have an increased potential of containing surface or subsurface cultural deposits. Future development of these previously undisturbed areas has moderate potential to impact archaeological resources. Additionally, some areas of the APE that do not have defined cultural resource boundaries but are known to have a heightened cultural sensitivity include creeks and other water sources as they have always been epicenters of human activity. Future development under the adjacent to waterways such as the San Diego River have an increased potential of encountering buried sites during construction-related excavations (Confidential Figure 3 in Confidential Appendix B, Archaeological Sensitivity Map). 17100 27 FEBRUARY 2026
6 Management Considerations
6.1 Impact Analysis
6.1.1 Cultural Resources Impact Analysis
The Project proposes updates to existing land use designations, land use maps, and goals and policies. The updates are aimed at fulfilling the guiding principles included in the Land Use Element Update by promoting infill and improving land use efficiency in established neighborhoods and districts. The Project would establish three updates to the existing land use designations; the Project would add the new Community Hub Overlay, the new Community Corridor Overlay, and would change the land use designation of parcel APN 378-160-25-00, from Neighborhood Commercial to R-14.
The change in the existing land use designations of overlaying existing zones of General Commercial, Neighborhood Commercial, Office Professional, Medium Density Residential, Medium-High Density Residential, and Light Industrial/ General Industrial with the Community Hub Overlay or the Community Corrido Overlay would not impact cultural resources within the APE. The change in the existing land use designation from Neighborhood Commercial to R-14 would not 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 resources sensitivity within the APE. Archaeological sensitivity varies throughout the APE based on previous development, known cultural resource locations, and topography. TCR sensitivity varies throughout the APE and requires input from culturally affiliated tribal representatives to determine.
Dudek has analyzed the Project and 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 the City have undergone development or other ground disturbances in the past that they 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 under the 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 earth-moving 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).
Future developments under the 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 implemented under the have the potential to impact buried cultural resources (Confidential Figure 3 in Confidential Appendix B). 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
SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT 17100 28 FEBRUARY 2026
projects implemented under the within these Moderate Archaeological Sensitivity areas may impact buried significant cultural resources.
Cultural resource inventories will be required prior to implementation of future projects within the Project APE.
Dudek recommends that part of those inventories include a qualified archaeologist’s review of the Cultural Sensitivity Map (Confidential Figure 3 in Confidential Appendix B). In addition to project specific measures to mitigate potential impacts to cultural resources, Dudek recommends cultural resources monitoring of any project implemented under the proposing excavations within Moderate Archaeological Sensitivity areas. 17100 29 FEBRUARY 2026
7 References
Basgall, M.E., and M. Hall. 1990. “Adaptive Variation in the North-Central Mojave Desert.” Paper presented at the 55th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Basgall, M.E., and M. Hall. 1993. Adaptive Variation in the North-Central Mojave Desert. Paper Presented at the 55th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Las Vegas.
Basgall, M.E., L. Johnson, and M.J. Hale. 2002. “An Evaluation of Four Archaeological Sites in the Lead Mountain Training Area, Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center, Twentynine Palms, California.” Submitted to U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth, Texas.
Bean, L.J., and F.C. Shipek. 1978.“Luiseño.” In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, California, edited by Robert F. Heizer550–563. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.
Bibb, L.E. 1991. “Pablo Apis and Temecula.” Journal of San Diego History 37(4):256–271.
Boscana, G. 1846. “Chinigchinich; A Historical Account of the Origin, Customs, and Traditions of the Indians at the Missionary Establishment of St. Juan Capistrano, Alta California.” In Life in California, by Alfred Robinson, 227–341. New York, New York: Wiley & Putnam.
Byrd, B.F., and S.N. Reddy. 2002. “Late Holocene Adaptations along the Northern San Diego Coastline: New Perspectives on Old Paradigms.” In Cultural Complexity on the California Coast: Late Holocene Archaeological and Environmental Records, edited by J.M. Erlandson and T.L. Jones, 41–62. Los Angeles, California: University of California–Los Angeles Press.
Carrico, R.L. 2008. Strangers in a Stolen Land: Indians of San Diego County from Prehistory to the New Deal.
Adventures in the Natural History and Cultural Heritage of the Californias.
City of Santee. 2003. Santee General Plan. Adopted August 27, 2003. https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/services/ development-services/planning-and-zoning-services/general-plan.
City of Santee. 2025. Santee General Plan, Safety and Environmental Justice Element. Adopted May 2025.
Accessed September 2025. https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/documents/planning-building/generalplan/gp-safety-element.pdf County of San Diego. 2007. Ordinance No. 9890 (N/S). County of San Diego Board of Supervisors. San Diego, California.
CSP (California State Parks). 2009. “Preservation Matters.” The Newsletter of the California Office of Historic Preservation 2(3):3–21.
Davis, E.L. 1978. The Ancient Californians: Rancholabrean Hunters of the Mojave Lakes Country. Los Angeles, California: Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County.
SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT 17100 30 FEBRUARY 2026
Fages, P. 1937. A Historical, Political, and Natural Description of California (1775). Translated by Herbert Ingram Priestly. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.
Gallegos, D.R. 1987. “San Dieguito-La Jolla: Chronology and Controversy.” San Diego County Archaeological Society, Research Paper No. 1.
Gallegos, D., and C. Kyle. 1988. Five Thousand Years of Maritime Subsistence at Ballast Point Prehistoric Site SDI-48 (W-164), San Diego, California. San Diego, California: WESTEC Services.
Garrahy, S.T. and D.J. Weber. 1971. “Francisco de Ulloa, Joseph James Markey, and the Discovery of Upper California.” California Historical Quarterly 50.1: 73-77.
Geiger, M., and C. W. Meighan. 1976. As the Padres Saw Them: California Indian Life and Customs as Reported by the Franciscan Missionaries, 1813–1815. Santa Barbara, California: Santa Barbara Mission Archive Library.
Golla, V. 2007. “Linguistic Prehistory.” In California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by T.L.
Jones and K.A. Klar, 71–82. New York, New York: Altamira Press.
Griset, S. 1996. “Southern California Brown Ware.” Unpublished PhD dissertation; University of California, Riverside.
Hale, M. 2001. “Technological Organization of the Millingstone Pattern in Southern California.” Master’s thesis; California State University, Sacramento.
Hale, M. 2009. “San Diego and Santa Barbara: Socioeconomic Divergence in Southern California.” PhD dissertation; University of California, Davis.
Harrington, J.P. 1934. “A New Original Version of Boscana’s Historical Account of the San Juan Capistrano Indians of Southern California.” Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 92(4).
Hector, S.M. 2007. “Archaeological Investigations at University House Meeting Center and Chancellor Residence, CA-SDI-4669 (SDM-W-12), University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, California.” ASM Affiliates.
Johnson, J.R., and J.G. Lorenz. 2006. “Genetics, Linguistics, and Prehistoric Migrations: An Analysis of California Indian Mitochondrial DNA Lineages.” Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 26:33–64.
Kroeber, A. 1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.
Laylander, D. 2000. Early Ethnography of the Californias, 1533–1825. Salinas, California: Coyote Press Archives of California Prehistory.
Laylander, D. 2010. “Linguistic Prehistory.” Research Issues in San Diego Prehistory. Accessed August 31, 2012. http://www.sandiegoarchaeology.org/Laylander/Issues /index.htm Lightfoot, K.G. 2005. Indians, Missionaries, and Merchants: The Legacy of Colonial Encounters on the California Frontiers. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Luomala, K. 1978. “Tipai and Ipai.” In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, 592-609. Handbook of the North American Indians, Vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.
SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT 17100 31 FEBRUARY 2026
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). 1985. “National Register of Historic Places Inventory – Nomination Form for the Charles A. Braun House.” November 21, 1985. https://catalog.archives.gov/id/123860823.
Owen, R.C. 1965. “The Patrilineal Band: A Linguistically and Culturally Hybrid Social Unit.” American Anthropologist 67:675–690.
Pigniolo, A.R. 2004. “Points, Patterns, and People: Distribution of the Desert Side-Notched Point in San Diego.” Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology 14:27–39.
Pigniolo, A.R. 2005. “Subsistence, Settlement, and Environmental Change at San Diego Bay.” Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology 18:255–259.
Pourade, R.F. 1961. Time of the Bells. Vol. 2. Union-Tribune Publishing Company.
Preston, W.L. 2002. “Portents of Plague from California’s Protohistoric Period.” Ethnohistory 49:69–121.
Rogers, M.J. 1929. “The Stone Art of the San Dieguito Plateau.” American Anthropologist 31:454–467.
Rogers, M.J. 1945. “An Outline of Yuman Prehistory.” Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 1:167–198.
Shipek, F.C. 1982. “Kumeyaay Socio-Political Structure.” Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 4:296–303.
Shipek, F.C. 1985. “Kuuchamaa: The Kumeyaay Sacred Mountain.” Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 7(1):67–74.
Spier, L. 1923. “Southern Diegueño Customs.” University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 20:295–358.
True, D.L. 1966. “Archaeological Differentiation of Shoshonean and Yuman Speaking Groups in Southern California.” Unpublished PhD dissertation; University of California, Los Angeles.
True, D.L. 1980. “The Pauma Complex in Northern San Diego County: 1978.” Journal of New World Archaeology 3(4):1–39.
Van Horn, K. 1974. “Tempting Temecula: The Making and Unmaking of a Southern California Community.” Journal of San Diego History 20:26–38.
Wallace, W.J. 1955. “A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology.” Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11:214–230.
Warren, C.N. 1964. “Cultural Change and Continuity on the San Diego Coast.” Unpublished PhD dissertation; University of California, Los Angeles.
Warren, C.N. 1968. “Cultural Tradition and Ecological Adaptation on the Southern California Coast.” In Archaic Prehistory in the Western United States, edited by C. Irwin-Williams, 1–14. Portales, New Mexico:
Eastern New Mexico University Contributions in Anthropology.
SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT 17100 32 FEBRUARY 2026
Warren, C.N., and Max G. Pavesic. 1963. “Shell Midden Analysis of Site SDi-603 and Ecological Implications for Cultural Development of Batiquitos Lagoon, San Diego County, California.” University of California Archaeological Survey Annual Report 1962-1963:407-438. Los Angeles.
Warren, C.N., G. Siegler, and F. Dittmer. 2004. “Paleoindian and Early Archaic Periods.” In Prehistoric and Historic Archaeology of Metropolitan San Diego: A Historic Properties Background Study. Prepared for the Metropolitan Wastewater Department, City of San Diego. Encinitas, California: ASM Affiliates.
Western Regional Climate Center. 2025. “Historical Climate Information: Lakeside 2 E.” Accessed September 2025: https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca4710.
Wilken, M. 2012. “An Ethnobotany of Baja California’s Kumeyaay Indians.” Master’s thesis; San Diego State University.
17100 33 FEBRUARY 2026
8 List of Preparers and Persons and
Organizations Contacted
Micah Hale (Dudek): Acted as Principal Investigator and approved the technical report.
Matthew DeCarlo (Dudek): Acted as Project Archaeologist and authored the technical report.
Keshia Montifolca (Dudek): Authored the technical report.
SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT 17100 34 FEBRUARY 2026
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Project Boundary
0 1,000 2,000
n Feet Date: 12/22/2025 User: cbattle Path: Z:\Projects\j1710001\MAPDOC\PD\PD.aprx Map: Project Location Layout: Figure 1 Project Location SOURCE: USGS 7.5-Minute Series El Cajon & La Mesa Quadrangles Township 15S; Range 1W; Sections 15, 20, 21, 22, 26, 27, 28, 29, 33, 34, 35 Santee Land Use Element Update
Project Location
FIGURE 1
SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT 17100 36 FEBRUARY 2026
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Project Area of Potential Effect (APE)
0 1,000 2,000
n Feet Date: 12/29/2025 User: cbattle Path: Z:\Projects\j1710001\MAPDOC\Cultural\Cultural.aprx Map: Project Area Layout: Figure 2 Project Area SOURCE: Esri 2025
Santee Land Use Element
FIGURE 2
Project APE
SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE / CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT 17100 38 FEBRUARY 2026
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Appendix A (Confidential)
SCIC Records Search Results
Appendix B (Confidential)
Confidential Archaeological Sensitivity Map
Appendix C
NAHC Correspondence
SLF&Contactsform: rev: 05/07/14
Sacred Lands File & Native American Contacts List Request
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
1550 Harbor Blvd, Suite 100
West Sacramento, CA 95501
(916) 373-3710
(916) 373-5471 – Fax
[email protected]
Information Below is Required for a Sacred Lands File Search Project:
County:
USGS Quadrangle
Name:
Township: Range: Section(s):
Company/Firm/Agency:
Contact Person:
Street Address:
City: Zip:
Phone: Extension:
Fax:
Email:
Project Description:
Project Location Map is attached
Santee Land Use Element Update - Dudek No. 17100
San Diego
Poway, San Vicente Reservoir, La Mesa, El Cajon
see below see below see below
Dudek
Matthew DeCarlo
605 Third Street
Encinitas, CA 92024
(760) 815-7067
(760) 632-0164
[email protected]
The City of Santee is updating its Land Use Element.
Poway Quadrangle - T 15S R 1W S 8;
San Vicente Reservoir Quadrangle - T 15S R 1W S 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11; La Mesa Quadrangle - T 15S R 1W S 17, 19, 20, 29, 30, 31, 32 and T 16S RW1 S 5; El Cajon Quadrangle T 15S R 1W S 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 Poway
San Vicente
Reservoir
La Mesa
Project Boundary
USGS Quads
0 300 600
Meters
0 1,000 2,000
n
Feet
Date: 7/3/2025 User: cgardner Path: Z:\Projects\j1710001\MAPDOC\SanteeLandUseElement\SanteeLandUseElement.aprx Map: Records Search Layout: Records Search SOURCE: USGS 7.5-Minute Series Poway Quadrangle - T 15S R 1W S 8; San Vicente Reservoir Quadrangle - T 15S R 1W S 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11; La Mesa Quadrangle - T 15S R 1W S 17, 19, 20, 29, 30, 31, 32 and T 16S RW1 S 5; El Cajon Quadrangle T 15S R 1W S 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 Santee Land Use Element Update Program EIR
Records Search
San Vicente
Reservoir
El Cajon
Project Boundary
USGS Quads
0 300 600
Meters
0 1,000 2,000
n
Feet
Date: 7/3/2025 User: cgardner Path: Z:\Projects\j1710001\MAPDOC\SanteeLandUseElement\SanteeLandUseElement.aprx Map: Records Search Layout: Records Search SOURCE: USGS 7.5-Minute Series Poway Quadrangle - T 15S R 1W S 8; San Vicente Reservoir Quadrangle - T 15S R 1W S 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11; La Mesa Quadrangle - T 15S R 1W S 17, 19, 20, 29, 30, 31, 32 and T 16S RW1 S 5; El Cajon Quadrangle T 15S R 1W S 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 Santee Land Use Element Update Program EIR
Records Search
La Mesa
Project Boundary
USGS Quads
0 300 600
Meters
0 1,000 2,000
n
Feet
Date: 7/3/2025 User: cgardner Path: Z:\Projects\j1710001\MAPDOC\SanteeLandUseElement\SanteeLandUseElement.aprx Map: Records Search Layout: Records Search SOURCE: USGS 7.5-Minute Series Poway Quadrangle - T 15S R 1W S 8; San Vicente Reservoir Quadrangle - T 15S R 1W S 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11; La Mesa Quadrangle - T 15S R 1W S 17, 19, 20, 29, 30, 31, 32 and T 16S RW1 S 5; El Cajon Quadrangle T 15S R 1W S 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 Santee Land Use Element Update Program EIR
Records Search
La
Mesa
El Cajon
Project Boundary
USGS Quads
0 300 600
Meters
0 1,000 2,000
n
Feet
Date: 7/3/2025 User: cgardner Path: Z:\Projects\j1710001\MAPDOC\SanteeLandUseElement\SanteeLandUseElement.aprx Map: Records Search Layout: Records Search SOURCE: USGS 7.5-Minute Series Poway Quadrangle - T 15S R 1W S 8; San Vicente Reservoir Quadrangle - T 15S R 1W S 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11; La Mesa Quadrangle - T 15S R 1W S 17, 19, 20, 29, 30, 31, 32 and T 16S RW1 S 5; El Cajon Quadrangle T 15S R 1W S 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 Santee Land Use Element Update Program EIR
Records Search
El Cajon
Project Boundary
USGS Quads
0 300 600
Meters
0 1,000 2,000
n
Feet
Date: 7/3/2025 User: cgardner Path: Z:\Projects\j1710001\MAPDOC\SanteeLandUseElement\SanteeLandUseElement.aprx Map: Records Search Layout: Records Search SOURCE: USGS 7.5-Minute Series Poway Quadrangle - T 15S R 1W S 8; San Vicente Reservoir Quadrangle - T 15S R 1W S 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11; La Mesa Quadrangle - T 15S R 1W S 17, 19, 20, 29, 30, 31, 32 and T 16S RW1 S 5; El Cajon Quadrangle T 15S R 1W S 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 Santee Land Use Element Update Program EIR
Records Search
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION