Development in the cumulative study area would be similarly subject to existing FAA and ALUCP regulations, and risk due to noise or safety would not increase with each project. As such, the Proposed Project’s impacts related to safety hazards resulting from airport adjacency would not be cumulatively considerable.
Threshold 4.8-6 All cumulative projects listed in Table 5-1 are within San Diego County and are within the jurisdiction of the County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan and EOP. The EOP identifies the major interstates and highways within San Diego County that will serve as primary transportation routes in the case of an evacuation. The cumulative study area is located within an urbanized environment, which has access to all necessary public serving infrastructure, including road and highway infrastructure. The cumulative study area is serviced by local fire agencies and CAL FIRE for fire protection services, and local police departments and the San Diego County Sherriff. Participation in the EOP and mutual aid agreements, allow coordination among emergency responders across various jurisdictions to provide emergency services to service the cumulative impact area.
Traffic control plans are required for any construction activity that will disrupt traffic flow on city streets and must be prepared in accordance with the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and the San Diego Regional Standard Drawings, with the provision that emergency access to all nearby properties shall be maintained at all times, unless the permit allows a temporary restriction. The traffic control plans must be prepared by a licensed traffic control company or a licensed Traffic Engineer. Therefore, with implementation of traffic control plans during construction of development projects or roadway improvements, in addition to congoing coordination between the jurisdictions in the EOP and mutual aid agreements, the Proposed Project would not result in a considerable contribution to potential impacts to an adopted emergency response/ evacuation plan and impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
Threshold 4.8-7 Wildfire risk in the cumulative study area varies by location but does include areas considered to have moderate, high, and very high hazard areas. Areas that have higher risk of wildfires include large concentrations of highly flammable brush located in open space, and wildland/urban interface areas. The Plan Area, including the areas of proposed land use changes, includes lands in or near a Very High FHSZ. The Proposed Project combined with other development in San Diego County, would contribute to an increase in population that could lead to an increase in exposure to wildfire risk to 5 – CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 5-15
residents and structures. Adherence to the California Fire Code would ensure that current and future projects include modern fire safety design features that can minimize risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. Development within the cumulative study area, similar to future development under the Proposed Project, would be subject to the same fire safety design requirements that would be effective in reducing the potential risks. Therefore, although wildfire risks cannot be entirely avoided, adherence to fire safety regulations would reduce potential impacts. As a result, the Proposed Project would not result in a considerable contribution to an increase in wildfire exposure and impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
5.2.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
The cumulative context for hydrology and water quality includes the San Diego River Watershed and the San Diego River Valley Groundwater Basin Therefore, the geographic scope for cumulative impacts considers buildout the future buildout of applicable local and regional plans. The full list of related plans applicable to the cumulative analyses is provided in Table 5-1.
Threshold 4.9-1 The San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Basin Plan includes the regulatory authority to enforce the implementation of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), the adoption of waste discharge requirements to ensure compliance with surface Water Quality Objectives (WQOs), and groundwater management. All future projects would also be subject to post-construction drainage control requirements of the Municipal Storm Water Permit and the City’s BMP Design Manual. These requirements include standards for implementation of low-impact-development (LID) stormwater features to minimize potential impacts from pollutants being discharged off site. The San Diego RWQCB Basin Plan, in combination with other local and state regulations and plans, provide a regulatory framework and policies for cumulatively addressing water quality issues throughout the San Diego Hydrologic Unit. Implementation of cumulative development would be required to comply with all pertinent regulations, such as the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit (CGP) and San Diego RWQCB Municipal Storm Water Permit, which are designed to reduce adverse water quality impacts, reduce incrementally contributing pollution to already impaired water bodies, attain WQOs, and protect beneficial uses of water bodies. Compliance with these regulations would reduce impacts on water quality, such that impacts would be less than cumulatively significant. Because development completed under the Proposed Project would similarly be required to implement NPDES CGP and San Diego RWQCB Municipal Storm Water Permit requirements, the Proposed Project would minimize its impact on water quality. Therefore, the Proposed Project’s contribution to cumulative water quality impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
Threshold 4.9-2 The San Diego River Valley Groundwater Basin a low priority basin and is not required by the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act to develop groundwater sustainability agencies, develop groundwater sustainability plans and manage groundwater for long-term sustainability (SDCWA 2025). Future development or redevelopment facilitated by the Proposed Project would not extract or result in the use of groundwater. Future cumulative development occurring within the basin is anticipated to both increase water demand and 5 – CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 5-16
introduce impervious features with potential to impair groundwater recharge. However, future cumulative development would be subject to drainage control requirements, which include measures to require on-site LID features (e.g., retention basins, pervious pavement, and bioswales), which typically require that stormwater be infiltrated on site to the extent feasible. Therefore, cumulative development would result in less-thansignificant impacts on groundwater from the San Diego River Valley Groundwater Basin, and the Project’s incremental contribution would not be cumulatively considerable.
Threshold 4.9-3 The geographic scope considered for cumulative impacts to erosion, runoff, drainage, and flood hazards is the San Diego River Watershed as stormwater runoff from related projects would similarly flow into this watershed. Implementation of cumulative development would be required to comply with all pertinent regulations, such as the CGP and the MS4 NPDES permit. Compliance with these regulations would require the implementation of BMPs to ensure stormwater runoff and flood hazards would be minimized. Therefore, the Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts would not be cumulatively considerable with regulatory compliance and BMP implementation.
Threshold 4.9-4 The geographic scope considered for cumulative impacts to the risk release of pollutants due to project inundation is the San Diego River Watershed as stormwater runoff from related projects would similarly flow into this watershed. Santee contains areas of High Risk Flood Zone and Moderate Risk Flood Zone primarily around the San Diego River and to a lesser extent Forester Creek. Portions of the proposed land use changes are located within the High Risk Flood Zone. Potential future development in the Plam Area would be required to adhere to all state and local development regulations including the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code (Chapter 11.36), which establishes Flood Damage Prevention standards and development prohibitions. The Plan Area is not in a tsunami or seiche zone and, therefore, the Project would not be affected in the event of a tsunami or seiche. Just as with future development or redevelopment under the Project, cumulative projects within the San Diego River Watershed would comply with all pertinent regulations to ensure development within flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, and would not risk the release of pollutants due to project inundation. Implementation of all regulatory requirements would ensure that cumulative impacts related to flood hazards would be less than significant. As such, the Proposed Project’s contribution to impacts related to inundation would not be cumulatively considerable.
Threshold 4.9-5 The Proposed Project would be subject to the requirements of the Basin Plan, which outlines WQOs for all surface water resources within the basin. The City does not have a groundwater management plan as one is not required for the City’s groundwater basins under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. The Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Basin Plan or a groundwater sustainability plan.
Implementation of cumulative development would be required to comply with the requirements of the San Diego RWQCB Basin Plan. Therefore, the Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. 5 – CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 5-17
5.2.10 Land Use and Planning
The cumulative context for land use and planning is regional. Therefore, the geographic scope of this cumulative analysis considers future buildout of local and regional plans. The full list of related plans applicable to the cumulative analyses is provided in Table 5-1.
Threshold 4.10-1 Impacts related to the division of an established community would occur if construction of roadways, structures, or transportation facilities resulted in the demolishment of structures that would physically divide an established community. The Proposed Project does not propose any roadway, structures, or transportation facilities and would not result in the division of an established community. A cumulative impact would occur if the Proposed Project, in combination with future buildout of regional and local plans, would result in the division of an established community. Land use changes associated with the Proposed Project would not contribute to a cumulative impact related to division of established communities outside of the Plan Area. The reasonably foreseeable development of commercial and residential uses under the Proposed Project would be compatible with the existing land uses, as well as the planned uses for the area established by the 2003–2020 General Plan. Therefore, future discretionary actions facilitated by the Proposed Project would not directly or indirectly physically divide an established community, and impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
Threshold 4.10-2 Cumulative land use impacts would occur if the Proposed Project, combined with other projects within the San Diego region, would result in incompatible land uses or result in land uses that are inconsistent with adopted land use planning documents. Generally, land use conflict would be related to noise, traffic, air quality, and hazards/human health and safety issues, which are discussed in the relevant sections of the Draft PEIR. Land use conflicts are typically site-specific and not cumulative in nature; in other words, despite the number of cumulative projects in a given area, they would not necessarily compound to create cumulative land use conflicts. As discussed in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, the Proposed Project would not conflict with any land use plans. Therefore, impacts related to land use and planning would not be cumulatively considerable.
5.2.11 Noise
The cumulative context for noise used to assess potential noise and vibration impacts are local. Therefore, the geographic scope for cumulative impacts related to noise considers buildout the future buildout of applicable local plans. The full list of related plans applicable to the cumulative analyses is provided in Table 5-1.
Threshold 4.11-1 While there are a number of existing and planned development projects, as listed in Table 5-1, in the shared vicinity of the Proposed Project within the City of Santee and surrounding jurisdictions, noise emissions associated with construction of the individual projects included in the Proposed Project are predicted to attenuate to levels compliant with applicable FTA guidance criterion at surrounding noise-sensitive land uses. Additionally, if there are two concurrent projects of similar noise intensity under construction, but the more distant project is at least four times further away from a common receptor location, there would be no cumulatively considerable impact. 5 – CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 5-18
Furthermore, construction noise associated with other cumulative projects would be temporary and subject to the same City noise ordinance requirements and FTA guidance, and such noise attenuates rapidly with distance and intervening terrain or structures. For these reasons, cumulative construction noise impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
Similarly, operational noise from the Proposed Project—including roadway traffic, stationary sources, and light rail activity exposure—would remain below applicable thresholds and diminish with distance and environmental factors. Cumulative contributions to roadway traffic noise from other planned developments are presumably accounted for in the SANDAG Transportation Forecast Information Center (TFIC) traffic growth projections. This data is used in the future year noise modeling for traffic noise analysis, and therefore, such cumulative or future traffic noise effects have, in conjunction with those attributed to the Proposed Project, been considered in this program-level assessment. For stationary sources such as HVAC equipment, if two projects with similar aggregate operational noise emissions were located near a common noise-sensitive receptor, the combined sound level would either equal the louder source or increase by no more than 3 dBA above the louder source, assuming similar stationary-source noise from other projects are sufficiently more distant (e.g., at least four times farther away). Given these attenuation characteristics and applicable regulatory standards, cumulative operational noise impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
Threshold 4.11-2 Potential cumulative construction vibration impacts to sensitive receptors would occur at separate sites specific to a proposed project included in one of the Land Use Planning documents listed in Table 5-1. Groundborne vibration attenuates rapidly over short distances, and the likelihood of two projects generating overlapping vibration levels at a common receptor is unlikely. Furthermore, all projects would be subject to applicable regulations that limit vibration impacts. For these reasons, cumulative vibration impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
Threshold 4.11-3 The Project parcels are located within the Gillespie Field Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan area; however, the Proposed Project does not include uses that would conflict with airport noise exposure standards, and future development would be subject to applicable land use compatibility requirements. No private airstrips are located within 2 miles of the Community Hub Overlay, Community Corridor Overlay, or APN 378-160-25-00. Future development or redevelopment facilitated by the Proposed Project, in combination with future development or redevelopment facilitated by cumulative planning documents in Santee (City of Santee 2021–2029 Housing Element, TCSP) would be regulated under the City’s Noise and Land Use Elements. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to airport noise exposure would be less than significant and not cumulatively considerable.
5.2.12 Population and Housing
The cumulative context for population and housing is regional. Therefore, the geographic scope used to assess potential cumulative population and housing impacts considers future buildout of local and regional plans. The full list of related plans applicable to the cumulative analyses is provided in Table 5-1. 5 – CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 5-19
Threshold 4.12-1 As discussed in Section 4.12, Population and Housing, implementation of the Project would facilitate a realistic buildout of an additional 5,687 new dwelling units by 2045 and population increase of up to approximately 16,151 people by 2045. The Proposed Project is providing the planning framework, by way of land use designations, development standards, goals, policies, and implementation actions, to accommodate an increased projected population growth. Further this PEIR is analyzing and providing mitigation for potential environmental impacts of the projected population growth. As such, the Proposed Project includes plans for the anticipated growth, and it is therefore not unplanned. The estimated buildout of the Proposed Project would exceed SANDAG’s Series 15 Regional Forecast for the City of Santee. The 2025 Regional Plan PEIR determined that implementation of the 2025 Regional Plan would induce unplanned growth in some areas of the San Diego region and concluded this impact would be significant and unavoidable (SANDAG 2025), which could result in a cumulative impact related to unplanned population growth. Regional planning associations such as SANDAG are required by law to update the RTP/SCS every 4 years and the potential impact associated with inconsistent population growth projections would be resolved when the update cycle has been completed. As such, regional plans would undergo mandatory updates/revisions to reflect the anticipated growth from the Proposed Project. Impacts from the Proposed Project would be less than significant and would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to substantial unplanned population growth. The impact would be not cumulatively considerable.
Threshold 4.12-2 Buildout of the General Plan population projections within the Plan Area would require the demolition and construction, or renovation, of existing residential properties that are occupied. The temporary displacement of some residents due to redevelopment of residential properties would occur throughout the Plan Area, as is to be expected in urban areas that would be subject to infill development. However, the City will be required to implement housing in accordance with their respective RHNA allocations, which would include the provision of various housing types, including low- and very low-income housing, in accordance with the anticipated demands for these housing types as allocated by the state. As such, any temporary impacts associated with displacement would be offset by the anticipated increases in housing production. Therefore, permanent displacement of housing and people is not anticipated to occur in the Plan Area. The 2025 Regional Plan PEIR determined that implementation of the 2025 Regional Plan would displace a substantial number of residences, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere, and concluded this impact would be significant and unavoidable (SANDAG 2025). Existing policies and regulations would require and/or incentivize many future development projects in the Plan Area to provide market rate and affordable units (consistent with the RHNA goals). Impacts from the Proposed Project would be less than significant and would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the substantial displacement of existing housing and people. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to the substantial displacement of existing housing and people would be less than significant and not cumulatively considerable.
5 – CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 5-20
5.2.13 Public Services
The cumulative context for public services is local. Therefore, the geographic scope used to assess potential cumulative impacts related to public services considers future buildout of local plans. The full list of related plans applicable to the cumulative analyses is provided in Table 5-1.
Threshold 4.13-1 Fire Protection
The Proposed Project would add 16,151 residents to the population compared to the population projections for the SANDAG Series 15 Regional Growth Forecast for the years 2022–2050. This would increase demand on fire protection services and could result in the need to construct additional or expand existing fire stations, which could result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment. The Proposed Project, combined with cumulative projects listed in Table 5-1 would contribute to an increase in demand on fire protection services. However, future projects that require one or more discretionary actions would be required to demonstrate compliance with CEQA prior to project approval and would be required to pay fair-share development impact fees, which are used to support the existing fire protection services within a project’s jurisdiction. With the payment of these impact fees, as well as compliance with federal, state, and local development requirements, the Proposed Project’s impacts regarding fire protection services would not be cumulatively considerable.
Police Protection
The Proposed Project would add 16,151 residents to the population compared to the population projections for the SANDAG Series 15 Regional Growth Forecast for the years 2022–2050. This would increase demand on police protection services and could result in the need to construct additional or expand police stations, which could result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment. Therefore, population growth facilitated by the Proposed Project, combined with population growth facilitated by cumulative projects listed in Table 5-1 would contribute to an increase in demand on police protection services.
However, future projects that require one or more discretionary actions would be required to demonstrate compliance with CEQA prior to project approval. Compliance with federal, state, and local development requirements, the Proposed Project’s impacts regarding police protection services would not be cumulatively considerable.
Schools
The Proposed Project would add 16,151 residents to the population compared to the population projections for the SANDAG Series 15 Regional Growth Forecast for the years 2022–2050, which would increase student enrollment in Santee and could require the need for additional school facilities. Therefore, population growth facilitated by the Proposed Project, combined with population growth facilitated by cumulative projects listed in Table 5-1 would contribute to an increase in demand on school facilities. However, future development projects that require one or more discretionary actions would be required to demonstrate compliance with CEQA prior to project approval. Development fees pursuant to SB 50 (Government Code Section 65995) would be required to be 5 – CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 5-21
paid by future development prior to issuance of building permits and would be used to offset the impact of an additional student population. According to SB 50, payment of these fees constitutes adequate mitigation related to impacts to school facilities. With the payment of these impact fees, as well as compliance with federal, state, and local development requirements, the Proposed Project’s impacts regarding schools would not be cumulatively considerable.
Parks
The Proposed Project would add 16,151 residents to the population compared to the population projections for the SANDAG Series 15 Regional Growth Forecast for the years 2022–2050, which would increase demand on parks. With the existing 616.24 acres of parkland in Santee and the projected 2045 City population buildout of 78,987 residents, there would be a ratio of 7.8 acres of park land for every 1,000 residents in the Plan Area.
The Proposed Project-related residential development would incrementally increase the demand for parks and could result in the need to construct additional or expand existing parks, which could result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment.
Therefore, population growth facilitated by the Proposed Project, combined with population growth facilitated by cumulative projects listed in Table 5-1 would contribute to an increase in demand on parks. However, future development projects that require one or more discretionary actions would be required to demonstrate compliance with CEQA prior to project approval and would be required to pay applicable park impact fees under the Quimby Act. Relevant cumulative land use planning documents would include the City of La Mesa 2021–2029 Housing Element Update, City of El Cajon 2021–2029 Housing Element Update, and the San Diego Association of Governments 2025 Regional Plan.
Population growth as a result of land use policies in these cumulative plans could increase demand for parkland and recreational facilities in or adjacent to the Plan Area, particularly regional parks that are intended for use by residents across many communities. However, future cumulative development is not anticipated to place a substantial increased demand on park and recreation facilities in Santee because the majority of park users would be residents of Santee. With the payment of park mitigation fees or the dedication of land for future parks, the Proposed Project would not substantially contribute to a potentially significant impact association with the construction or expansion of neighborhood or regional parks. Impacts would be less than significant and not cumulatively considerable.
Other Public Services
The Proposed Project would add 16,151 residents to the population compared to the population projections for the SANDAG Series 15 Regional Growth Forecast for the years 2022–2050, which would increase demand for more library space. This could result in the need to construct additional or expand existing libraries, which could result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment. Future development projects that require one or more discretionary actions would be required to demonstrate compliance with CEQA prior to project approval and would be required to pay fair-share development impact fees, which are used to support public facilities, such as libraries. With the payment of these impact fees, as well as compliance with federal, state, and local development requirements, the Proposed Project’s impacts regarding other public services would not be cumulatively considerable. 5 – CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 5-22
5.2.14 Recreation
The cumulative context for recreation in local. Therefore, the geographic scope used to assess potential cumulative recreation impacts considers future buildout of local plans. The full list of related plans applicable to the cumulative analyses is provided in Table 5-1.
Threshold 4.14-1 The Proposed Project would add 16,151 residents to the population compared to the population projections for the SANDAG Series 15 Regional Growth Forecast for the years 2022–2050. With the existing 616.24 acres of parkland in Santee and the projected 2045 Plan Area population buildout of 78,987 residents, there would be a ratio of 7.8 acres of park land for every 1,000 residents in the Plan Area. Proposed Project-related residential development would incrementally increase the demand for parks and could result in the need to construct additional or expand existing parks, which could result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment.
Future development projects that require one or more discretionary actions would be required to demonstrate compliance with CEQA prior to project approval and would be required to pay applicable park impact fees under the Quimby Act. With the payment of park mitigation fees or the dedication of land for future parks, the Proposed Project would not have a cumulatively considerable impact.
Relevant cumulative land use planning documents would include the City of Santee Town Center Specific Plan Update, the City of Santee Housing Element Update, City of El Cajon Housing Element Update, the City of La Mesa Housing Element Update, and the SANDAG 2025 Regional Plan. Population growth as a result of land use policies in these cumulative plans could increase demand for parkland and recreational facilities in or adjacent to the Plan Area, particularly regional parks that are intended for use by residents across many communities. The cumulative impact of population growth across the cumulative plans may further increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks and recreational facilities. However, future cumulative development is not anticipated to place a substantial increased demand on park and recreation facilities in Santee because the majority of park users would be residents of Santee. Furthermore, reasonably foreseeable future development facilitated by cumulative planning documents would be required to pay applicable park impact fees under the Quimby Act. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to substantial physical deterioration of the facilities would be less than significant and not cumulatively considerable.
Threshold 4.14-2 The Proposed Project does not directly propose new neighborhood or regional parks or other recreation facilities, nor does it include land use changes that would facilitate the future development of parkland. With the existing 616.24 acres of parkland in Santee and the projected 2045 Plan Area population buildout of 78,987 residents, there would be a ratio of 7.8 acres of park land for every 1,000 residents in the Plan Area. Future development projects that require one or more discretionary actions would be required to demonstrate compliance with CEQA prior to project approval and would be required to pay applicable park impact fees under the Quimby Act. With the payment of park mitigation fees or the dedication of land for future parks, the Proposed Project would not substantially 5 – CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 5-23
contribute to a potentially significant impact associated with the construction or expansion of neighborhood or regional parks. Impacts would be less than significant and not cumulatively considerable.
5.2.15 Transportation
The cumulative context for transportation is regional. Therefore, the geographic scope used to assess potential cumulative transportation impacts considers future buildout of local and regional plans.
Threshold 4.15-1 Pursuant to City requirements, any potential impacts from future development would be identified through the discretionary project review process, including environmental review, and mitigation measures specific to any identified impacts related to consistency with applicable regional and local plans, including the Mobility Element and Sustainable Santee Plan. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would have less-thansignificant impacts and would not combine with the projects listed in Table 5-1. Therefore, impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
Threshold 4.15-2 The study area is served by the Copper Line Trolley, which connects between the City of Santee and the City with El Cajon Transit Center, and ultimately downtown San Diego via the Green and Orange Line Trolleys. Buildout of the Project parcel cluster sites would occur in accordance with the land use and densities identified in the Proposed Project, some of which would occur within 0.5 miles of a major transit stop. Several of the Proposed Project’s parcel clusters, including parcel clusters 9 to 15, 22, and 23 are located near transit. Thus, no Project-level or cumulative VMT-related impacts will occur at those sites.
For the Proposed Project’s residential development that are located within efficient VMT areas, such as parcel clusters 16 to 20, 25, 26, and 29, no Project-level or cumulative VMT-related impacts will occur at those sites. Furthermore, the Proposed Project’s commercial uses that will develop locally serving retail in parcel clusters 8, 18, 21, 24, and 25 or reduce commercial development in parcel clusters 5 and 6 will also have no Projectlevel or cumulative VMT-related impacts.
However, future development projects on parcel clusters located outside of transit priority areas or VMT efficient areas, as well as the parcel clusters that are developing regional commercial uses (over 50,000 square feet), will result in significant VMT impacts, contributing to significant cumulative impacts associated with VMT. MM-TRA-1 and MM- TRA-2 would be applied to address significant VMT impacts associated with buildout of the Proposed Project. However, this measure cannot be guaranteed to reduce all VMT impacts to less than significant. Therefore, the Project’s contribution to a significant cumulative effect is determined to be substantial related to regional VMT, and cumulative VMT impacts would remain significant and unavoidable and cumulatively considerable.
Threshold 4.15-3 As described for the Project-specific conditions, individual cumulative projects would be subject to the City’s standard design guidelines to regulate the design of projects through the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance to ensure compatible use. These on-site and adjacent improvements would be designed in accordance with all applicable design standards set forth by the City, which were established to ensure safe and efficient 5 – CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 5-24
vehicular circulation. In addition, the City reviews all site plans to ensure that adequate line of sight is provided at all driveways, making sure that no structures or landscaping blocks the views of vehicles entering and exiting a site. As such, the Proposed Project, combined with other cumulative projects, would not result in sharp curves, dangerous intersections, or incompatible uses. Therefore, cumulative impacts associated with hazardous design features or incompatible land uses would be less than significant and not cumulatively considerable.
Threshold 4.15-4 Internal circulation would be designed and constructed to City standards and comply with City width, clearance, and turning-radius requirements. Because the Proposed Project would comply with all applicable local requirements related to emergency vehicle access and circulation, the Proposed Project would not result in inadequate emergency access or contribute to a cumulative impact when combined with the projects listed in Table 5-1.
Therefore, impacts associated with inadequate emergency access would be less than significant and not cumulatively considerable.
5.2.16 Tribal Cultural Resources
The cumulative context for tribal cultural resources is regional. Therefore, the cumulative geographic scope used to assess potential cumulative impacts to tribal cultural resources includes San Diego County and considers future buildout of applicable local and regional plans. The full list of related plans applicable to the cumulative analysis is provided in Table 5-1.
Threshold 4.16-1 Development of related projects can affect TCRs if such projects adversely alter or destroy TCRs, such as TCRs that could contribute to the understanding of an overall tribal cultural landscape. TCRs are unique and nonrenewable members of finite classes of resources that represent time periods and cultural landscapes. Projects that destroy or alter certain TCRs have the potential to limit or eliminate an opportunity for a comprehensive understanding of the time periods and cultural landscapes within which a tribal cultural resource belongs and could result in a cumulatively significant effect on TCRs.
As previously mentioned, discretionary projects are subject to a project-level CEQA review to evaluate the specific project’s impacts to TCRs and identify feasible mitigation measures to reduce impacts. However, ministerial projects are not subject to review under CEQA, and some projects in the cumulative area may be evaluated pursuant to a Categorical Exemption, which would not trigger the requirement for tribal consultation. Further, because tribal consultation is commenced through requirements set forth in SB 18 and/or AB 52, there is no feasible mitigation measure to mandate tribal consultation when a project is otherwise exempt from these regulations. Therefore, cumulative impacts to TCRs as a result of project-level and plan-level implementation, in combination with other development that would occur in the region, would have the potential to result in cumulatively considerable impacts to TCRs. Individual plans and projects required to undergo CEQA review would require mitigation for TCRs on a case-by-case basis; however, no mitigation is available to mitigate tribal cultural resource impacts at the cumulative level. Impacts would be cumulatively considerable.
5 – CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 5-25
5.2.17 Utilities and Service Systems
The cumulative context for cumulative impacts related to utilities and service systems includes the service area of City of Santee Community Services Department, the San Diego County Water Authority, the Padre Dam Municipal Water District, and San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E). Therefore, the geographic scope of cumulative projects considers full buildout of local and regional plans. The full list of related plans applicable to the cumulative analyses is provided in Table 5-1.
Threshold 4.17-1 Cumulative wastewater, stormwater, and utility facility impacts are discussed below.
Wastewater Treatment
Cumulative growth as a result of buildout of related plans would further increase the demand for wastewater treatment. Cumulative wastewater treatment impacts are considered on a system-wide basis and are associated with operations at the PDWMD. The PDMWD wastewater collection system consists of sewer mains, lift stations, and flow diversion structures, and the majority of collected wastewater flows to the PDMWD’s Influent Pump Station, where it flows to the City of San Diego’s Metropolitan Wastewater System (Metro) where it ultimately receives advanced primary treatment at the Point Loma WWTP In addition to the City of Santee, PDMWD receives wastewater from parts of El Cajon, and parts of the County of San Diego (Lakeside). PDWMD has projected an increase in wastewater flow demand of 0.8 mgd by 2045. The Proposed Project would contribute 0.13 mgd to the demand upon buildout in 2045. However, growth is also projected to occur in the City of El Cajon, which is served by PDWMD wastewater services. Because it is not possible to fully evaluate future treatment capacity without also fully understanding the potential increase in sewage loads across all of the PDMWD’s collection areas, impacts related to wastewater treatment capacity would be cumulatively considerable, and cumulative impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
Wastewater Conveyance
Cumulative wastewater infrastructure impacts are considered on a system-wide basis and are associated with the capacity of existing and planned sewer infrastructure. Future development facilitated by the Proposed Project would primarily be infill development in areas of established wastewater conveyance mains. Cumulative regional/community plans and general plan updates would include sewer capacity evaluations during the CEQA process, and sewer upgrades would be completed on a project-by-project basis, as necessary. Trenching and excavations completed for new connections and sewer upgrades could result in potential short-term soil erosion, as excavated and temporarily stockpiled soils would be susceptible to rainfall. Standard BMPs and pollutant control measures would be employed during construction to minimize pollutants, including erosion-induced siltation of downstream drainages and incidental spills of petroleum products from construction equipment. Individual projects would be required to provide for wastewater connection and conveyance systems. As a result, construction of cumulative wastewater conveyance facilities would not be cumulatively considerable, and cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
5 – CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 5-26
Water Conveyance
Similar to wastewater conveyance, cumulative water infrastructure impacts are considered on a system-wide basis and are associated with the capacity of existing and planned water infrastructure. Cumulative development that would be facilitated by regional/community plan and general plan updates would primarily include infill and redevelopment projects in areas of established water conveyance mains. Cumulative project development would occur incrementally on a project-by-project basis. Standard BMPs and pollutant control measures would be employed during construction to minimize pollutants, including erosion-induced siltation of downstream drainages and incidental spills of petroleum products from construction equipment. Individual projects would be required to provide for water supply and conveyance systems. As a result, construction of new cumulative water conveyance would not be cumulatively considerable, and cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
Stormwater
The Project parcels are generally covered with impervious surfaces. Development of future projects pursuant to the Proposed Project would not substantially increase the amount of impervious surfaces and runoff to the extent that the capacity of existing storm drains would be exceeded. All development projects would be required to comply with City of Santee BMP Design Manual. This manual would require the use of control BMPs, site design LID, pollutant controls, and hydromodification management, to reduce the potential for increased runoff and associated downstream flooding. Cumulative project development would similarly be required to comply with County and other local regulations regarding stormwater retention, such that post-construction runoff rates would be less than or equal to existing conditions. As a result, Proposed Project-related development/redevelopment would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to stormwater drainage, and cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
Electricity, Natural Gas, and Telecommunication
Development facilitated by the Proposed Project would require installation of new electric power, natural gas, and telecommunication infrastructure in roadways, ROWs, and on individual lots. Similarly, cumulative project development would occur incrementally on a project-by-project basis. Standard BMPs and pollutant control measures would be employed during construction to minimize pollutants, including erosion-induced siltation of downstream drainages and incidental spills of petroleum products from construction equipment. Individual projects would be required to provide for specific project utility needs. As a result, Proposed Project-related development/redevelopment would not result in cumulatively considerable impact related to electricity, natural gas, and telecommunication, and cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
Threshold 4.17-2 Cumulative growth as a result of buildout of related plans would further increase the demand for water supply. The cumulative area of influence related to water supply would be the PDMWD Western Service Area (WSA), which includes Santee, a small portion of El Cajon, and a small portion of the unincorporated County community of Lakeside. PDMWD 5 – CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 5-27
receives imported water from the San Diego County Water Authority, which in turn receives water from the California State Water Project (SWP) and the Colorado River by Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan). The PDMWD 2020 UWMP projects water supply reliability for the next 25 years for its service area. PDMWD plans to continue using water received from the San Diego County Water Authority, to meet demands in its services area. If the San Diego County Water Authority’s supplies are developed as planned, no shortages are anticipated within its service area in a normal year or multiple dry years. However, although future development facilitated by the Proposed Project would undergo assessment to ensure it can be served by the existing water supply by the City and PDMWD, the 2020 UWMP does not indicate that PDMWD could accommodate additional demand beyond the projection demand for horizon year 2045. Due to the current ongoing planning process for the 2025 UWMP, it cannot be guaranteed the 2025 UWMP would indicate the current and planned water supplies would accommodate the projected growth from the Proposed Project, as well as reasonably foreseeable development from cumulative planning documents. As a result, anticipated future development associated with the Proposed Project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to water supplies, and cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
Threshold 4.17-3 The cumulative impact of the population increase facilitated by the Proposed Project in Santee, as well as regional growth anticipated in the PDMWD service area, would further increase the demand for wastewater treatment. Cumulative wastewater treatment impacts are considered on a system-wide basis and are associated with operations at the City of San Diego’s Metro Mission Gorge Interceptor System and the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant. The Proposed Project, in combination with cumulative planning projects in the geographic scope would result in population growth and an increase in demand that could surpass the project demand identified by PDMWD. PDWMD has projected an increase in wastewater flow demand of 0.8 mgd by 2045. The Proposed Project would contribute 0.13 mgd to the demand upon buildout in 2045. However, growth is also projected to occur in the City of El Cajon, which is served by PDWMD wastewater services. Because it is not possible to fully evaluate future treatment capacity without also fully understanding the potential increase in sewage loads across all of the PDMWD’s collection areas, impacts related to wastewater treatment capacity would be cumulatively considerable.
Threshold 4.17-4 Construction and operation of development associated with the Proposed Project and cumulative projects would generally represent an increase in intensity of uses, which would result in an increased generation of solid waste. However, solid waste generation from the Proposed Project and cumulative projects would typically result in increases that are generally in line with landfill capacity projections, which assume continued regional growth.
Compliance with modern solid waste regulations requires diversion of up to 50% of solid waste from landfills. Only a fraction of the solid waste produced by the cumulative projects would ultimately be disposed in landfills. The Proposed Project and cumulative projects would be required to comply with all applicable local and state regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, the Proposed Project and cumulative projects are expected to be accommodated in the region’s plans for adequate landfill capacity. For these reasons, the Proposed Project would not create or contribute to a cumulatively significant impact involving solid waste. Cumulative impacts related to solid waste would be less than significant and not cumulatively considerable.
5 – CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 5-28
Threshold 4.17-5 As stated in Section 4.17, Utilities and Service Systems, the Proposed Project and cumulative projects would comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. As a result, the cumulative impact would be considered less than significant and not cumulatively considerable.
5.2.18 Wildfire
The cumulative context for wildfire is regional. Therefore, the geographic scope used to assess potential wildfire impacts considered the full buildout of local and regional planning documents. The full list of related plans applicable to the cumulative analyses is provided in Table 5-1.
Threshold 4.18-1 All cumulative projects are within the jurisdiction of the County’s Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP) and Emergency Operations Plan (EOP). The EOP identifies the major interstates and highways within San Diego County that will serve as primary transportation routes in the case of an evacuation. The cumulative study area is within a primarily urbanized environment, which has access to all necessary public serving infrastructure, including road and highway infrastructure. The cumulative study area is serviced by a local fire agencies and CAL FIRE for fire protection services, and local police departments and the San Diego County Sherriff. Participation in the EOP and mutual aid agreements allows coordination among emergency responders across various jurisdictions to provide emergency services to service the cumulative impact area.
Cumulative projects, like those associated with implementation of the Proposed Project, would allow for future development/redevelopment to occur that may result in temporary lane closures and detours during construction. Traffic control plans are required for any construction activity that will disrupt traffic flow on city streets and must be prepared in accordance with the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and the San Diego Regional Standard Drawings Further, emergency access to all nearby properties shall be maintained at all times, unless the traffic control plan allows a temporary restriction. The traffic control plans must be prepared by a licensed traffic control company or a licensed Traffic Engineer. Therefore, with implementation of traffic control plans during construction of development projects or roadway improvements, in addition to ongoing coordination between the jurisdictions in the EOP and mutual aid agreements, the Proposed Project’s impact would not be cumulatively considerable.
Threshold 4.18-2 The Proposed Project combined with other planned growth in the region would increase the population and therefore increase the potential to exposed people to wildfires due to existing slopes, prevailing winds, and other factors that are conducive to the spread of a wildfire. Future development would be required to comply with the City’s Municipal Code, which includes building standards and fire regulations for construction and the Santee Fire Code (Chapter 11.18 of the City’s Municipal Code), which is an adoption of the California Wildland-Urban Interface Code. Compliance with these codes ensures incorporation of fire protection plans, specific construction methods and requirements, construction materials, and other development requirements for new development within fire hazard severity zones or the WUI. Further, any development associated with cumulative projects located in a High and Very High FHSZ would be required to comply 5 – CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 5-29
with the more stringent Part 7 requirements. Therefore, because wildfire risk is mitigated on a project-by-project basis through mandatory compliance with state and local fire safety regulations, the Proposed Project’s incremental contribution to wildfire hazards would not be cumulatively considerable.
Threshold 4.18-3 Given the wildfire risk in the region is generally high, cumulative growth and development encroaching into areas within a Very High FHSZ would result in the increased potential for activities/infrastructure to cause an ignition. As such, there is an existing cumulative impact. However, the Proposed Project’s land use changes would occur in urbanized areas that are already serviced by existing utilities. Any related infrastructure facilitated by the Project (1) would be limited to on-site or site adjacent improvement (such as connections to existing utility infrastructure), (2) would be subject to site plan and development plan review, and (3) would be required to comply with the CWUIC, California Building Code, and other relevant County Code requirements related to fire safety, construction, and fuel modification, as applicable. Therefore, the Project’s incremental contribution to impacts related to installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment would not be cumulatively considerable.
Threshold 4.18-4 As described in Section 4.18.1, Existing Conditions, the Plan Area has experienced several fires since 1950. As such, there is an existing cumulative impact. However, the Proposed Project’s land use changes would promote infill and improve land use efficiency in established neighborhoods and districts. Infill development/redevelopment would be primarily paved, impervious surfaces, which would not lead to substantial changes to the existing drainage patterns. Future projects would be subject to site plan and development review and would be required to comply with the CWUIC and the CBC. Therefore, the Proposed Project’s incremental contribution to impacts related to exposure of people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes, would not be cumulatively considerable.
5 – CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 5-30
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 6-1
6 Other CEQA Considerations
This chapter of the draft program environmental impact report (PEIR) for the proposed City of Santee (City) Land Use Element Update (Project or Proposed Project) has been prepared in furtherance of the content requirements set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15126.2. This chapter discusses the following:
▪ Effects Not Found to Be Significant (Section 6.1)
▪ Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts (Section 6.2) ▪ Significant and Irreversible Environmental Effects (Section 6.3) ▪ Growth-Inducing Impacts (Section 6.4)
6.1 Effects Not Found to Be Significant
CEQA Guidelines Section 15128 requires that an environmental impact report (EIR) briefly describe potential environmental effects that were determined not to be significant and therefore were not discussed in detail in the EIR. The environmental issues discussed in the following sections are not considered significant for the Project, and the reasons for these less-than-significant or no impact determinations are discussed herein.
Agricultural and Forestry Resources
Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, a significant impact to agricultural and forestry resources would occur if the Project would:
Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use
Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g)) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use The California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, identifies important farmland throughout the state through its Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP). The FMMP classifies the majority of the Plan Area as “Urban and Build Up Land,” “Other Land,” and “Grazing Land.” The areas classified as “Grazing Lands” are not considered a significant farmland resource under CEQA. A few areas in the Plan Area are classified as “Farmland of Local Importance” (DOC 2025). Therefore, the City does not contain areas designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (DOC 2025). Additionally, the City does not contain lands protected by a Williamson Act contract, forest land, timberland, or timberland production zones.
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDA Forest Service 2025), the only forest land in San Diego County is the Clevland National Forest, located approximately 26 miles east of Santee. 6 – OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 6-2
Although the FMMP designates areas in Santee as “Farmland of Local Importance,” the City does not include existing or proposed zoning for agricultural uses within the Plan Area. The existing zoning for the City’s Park/Open Space (P/OS) zoning allows for agricultural uses and extraction operations, under special conditions, be allowed under this designation (City of Santee 2017). The Project parcels are not located on P/OS zoning or land use designations. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or result in the conversion of agricultural land for non-agricultural use, and no impact would occur.
Mineral Resources
Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, a significant impact to mineral resources would occur if the Project would:
Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state
Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan
The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) of 1975 established policies for the conservation, development, and reclamation of mineral lands. It also contained specific provisions for the California Geological Survey to classify the regional significance of mineral resources through use of Mineral Resource Zones (MRZs). The following provides a description of the four different MRZs:
▪ MRZ-1 designates areas where adequate geologic information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence. ▪ MRZ-2 designates areas underlain by mineral deposits where geologic data indicates that significant measured or indicated mineral resources are present.
▪ MRZ-3 designates areas that contain known mineral deposits, the significance of which cannot be evaluated from available data.
▪ MRZ-4 designates areas where available information is inadequate for MRZ zone.
The City’s General Plan Conservation Element states that the City has land designated in two categories: MRZ-2 and MRZ-3. In Santee, the areas designated in the MRZ-2 zone are primarily along the floodplain of the San Diego River and on hills underlain by granitic rocks. These hills are located north of the existing development in Carlton Hills, south of Prospect Avenue between Mesa Road and Fanita Drive, and the north end of Magnolia Avenue. The remainder of Santee is designated MRZ-3 (City of Santee 2003). As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, the Proposed Project would establish three updates to the existing land use designations; the Proposed 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 areas impacted by the land use element updates are not located within MRZ-2 designated areas, or in areas zoned for mining operations. While the City lands may support mineral resources, mining operations at the proposed land use designation updates sites would not be feasible considering the proximity to sensitive receptors and existing established neighborhoods. Therefore, the Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource or locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan, and impacts would be less than significant. 6 – OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 6-3
6.2 Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(c) requires that a PEIR describe any significant impacts that cannot be avoided.
Specifically, Section 15126.2(c) states the following:
Describe any significant impacts, including those which can be mitigated but not reduced to a level of insignificance. Where there are impacts that cannot be alleviated without imposing an alternative design, their implications and the reasons why the project is being proposed, notwithstanding their effect, should be described.
Implementation of the Project-specific mitigation measures identified in Chapter 4, Environmental Analysis, of this Draft PEIR would reduce the environmental impacts associated with implementation of the Proposed Project.
Mitigation set forth in this Draft PEIR would apply to those discretionary projects that would be developed under the Proposed Project. Future non-discretionary projects that would be implemented under the Proposed Project would be subject to the federal, state, and local regulations; however, these non-discretionary projects would not necessarily be subject to CEQA review, additional environmental assessments, or mitigation measures. As such, even with implementation of existing regulations, applicable Proposed Project goals and policies, and mitigation measures, not all development projects would be subject to these requirements. Further, some potential impacts would likely be reduced to less than significant with mitigation measures, but because the size, scale, design, site conditions, and other details of future development projects are unknown, it cannot always be guaranteed the potential impacts would be entirely reduced to a less-than-significant impact, and to do so would be speculative.
Therefore, potential impacts for some topics would be significant and unavoidable.
The environmental impacts that would result from anticipated future development under the Project would be significant and unavoidable for the following topics: air quality, cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, transportation, and utilities and service systems. The specific significant and unavoidable impacts are detailed below.
▪ Air Quality: Under Threshold 4.2-1 even with implementation of MM-AQ-1, there remains a potential for inconsistency with applicable air quality plans (RAQS). Until the RAQS is revised, the Proposed Project would result in a significant impact with respect to consistency with the RAQS and SIP. Under Threshold 4.2-2, even with implementation of MM-AQ-2, MM-AQ-3, MM-TRA-1, and MM-TRA-2, there is a potential for multiple development projects to be constructed at one time, potentially resulting in significant construction-related emissions. Under Threshold 4.2-3, even with implementation of MM-AQ-4 and MM-AQ5, there is uncertainty of future sensitive receptor locations. Impacts would be significant and unavoidable. ▪ Cultural Resources: Under Threshold 4.4-1, even with implementation of MM-CUL-1, there is no feasible mitigation available to guarantee that demolition, damage or destruction of historically significant resources would not occur from future developments that may be implemented as a result of the approval of the Proposed Project. Therefore, impacts associated with the destruction of historically significant resources and impacts would be significant and unavoidable. ▪ Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Under Threshold 4.7-1, even with implementation of MM-GHG-1, MM-TRA-1, and MM-TRA-2, at a program level of review, it is not guaranteed that each individual project would fully mitigate the potential impacts. Therefore, impacts associated with GHG emissions would be significant and unavoidable.
6 – OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 6-4
▪ Noise: Under Threshold 4.11-2, Even with implementation of MM-NOI-2, the minimum distances presented in Table 4.11-9 may not be feasible for one or more site-specific construction projects implemented under the Project. Therefore, Project impacts related to proximity of construction vibration to sensitive uses would be significant and unavoidable.
▪ Transportation: Under Threshold 4.17-2, even with implementation of MM-TRA-1 and MM-TRA-2, it is not guaranteed that each individual project facilitated by the Proposed Project would be able to fully mitigate VMT impacts. Therefore, impacts associated with VMT would remain significant and unavoidable. ▪ Utilities and Service Systems: Under Threshold 4.17-2, it is not guaranteed that adequate water supplies will be available to serve the Proposed Project, because the 2025 PDMWD UWMP has not been released at the time of this PEIR. Therefore, capacity information cannot be determined at this time, and impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
6.3 Significant and Irreversible Environmental Impacts
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d) requires a discussion of any significant irreversible environmental changes that would be caused by the Proposed Project. Specifically, Section 15126.2(d) states the following:
Uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project may be irreversible since a large commitment of such resources makes removal or nonuse thereafter unlikely. Primary impacts and, particularly, secondary impacts (such as highway improvement which provides access to a previously inaccessible area) generally commit future generations to similar uses. Also irreversible damage can result from environmental accidents associated with the project. Irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified.
Generally, a project would result in significant irreversible environmental changes if any of the following would occur:
▪ Uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project may be irreversible since a large commitment of such resources makes removal or nonuse thereafter unlikely ▪ The primary and secondary impacts of the project would generally commit future generations of people to similar uses
▪ Irreversible damage from environmental accidents associated with the project ▪ The proposed consumption of resources is not justified (e.g., the project results in wasteful use of energy) Determining whether the Proposed Project could result in significant and irreversible effects requires a determination of whether key resources would be degraded or destroyed in such a way that there would be little possibility of restoring them.
6.3.1 Large Commitment of Non-Renewable Resources
Resources that would be consumed because of development indirectly facilitated as a result of implementation of the Proposed Project include water, electricity, natural gas, and fossil fuels; however, the amount and rate of consumption of these resources would not result in unnecessary, inefficient, or wasteful use of resources (see Sections 4.5, Energy, and 4.17, Utilities and Service Systems, of this Draft PEIR). With regard to building materials, potential future development would be constructed with durable materials with a significant lifespan, such as cast 6 – OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 6-5
in place concrete and precast concrete, which would improve building longevity. As such, even though construction would result in the commitment of building materials, the materials are not expected to require replacement through the Proposed Project planning horizon of 2045. Furthermore, per California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen), 65% of all demolition and construction materials must be recycled. This regulation would ensure that portions of the existing materials on site are reused or recycled. In the event that potential future development is demolished at a future time, this regulation would ensure that a majority of the materials are recycled. In addition, construction activities related to potential future development would result in the irretrievable commitment of nonrenewable energy resources, primarily in the form of fossil fuels (including fuel oil), natural gas, and gasoline for automobile and construction equipment. However, use of such resources would not be unusual as compared to other construction projects and would not substantially affect the availability of such resources.
With respect to operational activities, compliance with applicable building codes would ensure that natural resources are conserved or recycled to the maximum extent feasible. It is also likely that in response to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction plans, new technologies or systems will emerge, or will become more cost-effective or user-friendly, that will further reduce the reliance of potential future development upon nonrenewable natural resources (refer to Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, for further discussion of applicable plans and specific GHG reduction mandates). However, even with implementation of conservation measures, consumption of natural resources would generally increase with implementation of the Proposed Project due to population and activity increases. Although the Proposed Project would see an increase in petroleum use during construction and operation due to increased density and intensity of uses compared to existing conditions, vehicles, including passenger vehicles as well as construction-related equipment would use less petroleum over time due to advances in fuel economy and technical advancements.
In addition to the above considerations, state and local laws and regulations would further reduce the potential future development’s use of nonrenewable resources over time. Specifically, electricity consumed at development sites would be increasingly sourced from renewable energy, pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 100. SB 100, which was passed in 2018, states that 44% of the total electricity sold to retail customers in California per year must be secured from qualifying renewable energy sources by December 31, 2024; 52% by December 31, 2027; and 60% by December 31, 2030. SB 100 also sets forth a state policy that eligible renewable energy resources and zerocarbon resources supply 100% of the retail sales of electricity to California and requires that achieving 100% zerocarbon electricity does not increase carbon emissions elsewhere in the western grid or is not fulfilled through resource shuffling. Therefore, potential future development’s consumption of nonrenewable energy is anticipated to significantly decrease over time, as SB 100 is implemented statewide and overall nonrenewable energy consumption decreases.
The Proposed Project would encourage transit-oriented development, promote active transportation, improve access to transit, and reduce vehicles miles traveled by cars. Therefore, with implementation of MM-TRA-1 and MM- TRA-2, the Proposed Project would aim to shorten trips and reduce VMT, which would reduce the amount of fossil fuel consumed per vehicle.
In summary, implementation of potential future development under the Proposed Project would involve irreversible environmental changes to existing natural resources, such as the commitment of energy and water resources as a result of the operation and maintenance of future development. However, the implementation of the Proposed Project would not involve wasteful or unjustifiable use of energy or other resources, and energy conservation efforts would occur with new construction. New development indirectly facilitated as a result of Proposed Project implementation would be constructed and operated in accordance with specifications contained in Title 24 of the 6 – OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 6-6
California Code of Regulations and local green building requirements, as discussed in Section 4.5. Therefore, the use of non-renewable resources related to the Proposed Project would occur in an efficient manner.
6.3.2 Commitment to Future Uses
While no direct development is proposed as part of the Proposed Project, the implementation of the Proposed Project land use changes would accommodate future development and redevelopment of previously developed areas. The Proposed Project would implement land use changes, and the realistic buildout would result in a total of 5,687 dwelling units by 2045. This would result in a population of approximately 16,151 people. In combination with anticipated growth by 2050, this would result in an estimated Citywide buildout of 30,748 dwelling units, and 78,987 residents.
The land use designation changes would be focused on two primary transit corridors in Santee. The proposed 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 Corridor Overlay would apply to specific parcels 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. In addition, the land use designation change of APN 378-160-25-00 is proposed to increase density in the area. Proposed Project would not appreciably change the uses of the site such that it would commit future generations to future use. For example, the residential and mixed-use land use changes would accommodate additional dwelling units in areas that already contain developed uses. The proposed land use changes are intended to facilitate redevelopment of underutilized parcels and foster a wide variety of commercial retail, office, and residential uses. The development or redevelopment of the Proposed Project parcels would result in changes to the current land uses in a manner that is consistent with the applicable land use plans, policies, and regulations, including San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) 2025 Regional Plan, San Diego County General Plan (see Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, of this Draft PEIR). Such development is encouraged in areas along the primary transit corridors and would not result in primary and secondary impacts that would generally commit future generations of people to similar uses.
6.3.3 Irreversible Damage from Environmental Accidents
As previously mentioned, the land uses that would be developed under the Proposed Project would be intended to facilitate redevelopment of underutilized parcels and foster a wide variety of commercial retail, office, and residential uses. As discussed in Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, short-term construction activities associated with implementation of these land uses would temporarily increase the transport, storage, and use of commonly used hazardous substances, such as gasoline, diesel fuel, lubricating oils, paint, grease, adhesives, welding gases, solvents, and vehicle and equipment-maintenance related materials. During construction activities, the commonly used hazardous substances must be transported from construction sites and disposed of at a contracted solid waste disposal provider in accordance with all federal, state, and local regulations, including the HSC, Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, Cal/OSHA, and Vista Fire Department requirements. Demolition of existing structures without proper assessment, abatement, and disposal of hazardous materials and building materials, such as lead-based paint and asbestos, could cause a release to the environment. Hazardous material assessment of asbestos and lead-based paint and, if necessary, abatement is required under local regulations, specifically OSHA, Cal/OSHA, California Department of Public Health, and SDAQMD Rule 1206. Additionally, implementation of MM-HAZ-1 would require a preliminary hazardous materials evaluation to be completed prior to 6 – OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 6-7
issuance of permits, which would include review of hazardous material databases and past site uses to determine if hazardous material impacts, such as contaminated soil, soil vapor, or groundwater, have occurred. MM-HAZ-2 would include characterization and management criteria for soil and soil vapor contamination. With implementation of these mitigation measures and adherence to rules and regulations, future development would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.
Businesses are required to strictly adhere to the federal, state, and local rules and regulations regarding the transport, use and disposal of hazardous materials, which would minimize the risk of potential damage from environmental accidents.
There are sites identified within 0.25 miles of the proposed Community Hub Overlay, Community Corridor Overlay, and APN 378-160-25-00 Project sites that have been listed on databases compiled pursuant to the Cortese list as well as other databases of contaminated sites. Additionally, unknown contamination may be present within soils and/or groundwater beneath currently developed properties. Given the age of some developed properties within the Project parcels, information about the details of historic property uses, potential leaks from historic underground storage tanks, soil contamination from spills or leaking pipelines, improper disposal of hazardous materials, and/or accidental spills, may not be able to be known for certain. The potential to encounter unknown soil contamination from petroleum hydrocarbons (e.g., oil and gas), agricultural chemicals (e.g., pesticides, herbicides, insecticides), solvents, heavy metals (e.g., lead, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, mercury) and/or soil vapor from volatile organic compounds (VOCs) or other unknown contaminants, could pose a hazard to construction workers or other nearby sensitive uses if construction activities were to expose contaminated conditions. Individual site-specific hazards would be required to be addressed during future development ministerial or discretionary processing in compliance with local, state, and federal regulations. Additionally, implementation of MM-HAZ-1 and MM-HAZ-2 would require the identification of hazardous materials, both in building materials and soils, that could result in a release if not properly identified and managed.
The San Diego County Department of Environmental Health and Quality (DEHQ) is the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) for the Plan Area, and oversees and enforces state laws and regulations governing hazardous materials storage under the Hazardous Materials Business Plan program, extremely and acutely hazardous materials under the California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) program, hazardous waste under the hazardous waste generation and treatment program, and hazardous substance storage in underground storage tanks (USTs). The DEHQ also inspects aboveground petroleum storage tanks (ASTs) for compliance with California’s Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act (APSA) and US EPA Spill Prevention Countermeasures and Control (SPCC) regulations. Finally, on a regional level, air quality issues are managed by the San Diego Air Pollution Control District.
Any site investigations and remediation that may be required would be conducted to the satisfaction of the overseeing environmental agency(ies) in compliance with all applicable state and local regulations. As such, the Proposed Project would not result in irreversible damage from environmental accidents.
6.3.4 Consumption of Resources Justified
While the Proposed Project seeks to accommodate anticipated growth, substantial growth is anticipated to occur in the San Diego region, regardless of the Proposed Project’s adoption. While potential future development would increase resource consumption during construction and operation, the Proposed Project would also result in benefits related to long-term resource consumption in the region. The Proposed Project’s land use changes would be focused on the primary transit corridors into Santee, thereby reducing distances required for commutes and reducing VMT. 6 – OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 6-8
The Proposed Project would help accommodate growth within existing developed areas, as opposed to accommodating growth through development in previously undeveloped areas. The latter development pattern generally results in permanent loss of naturalized lands and open space, as well as increased fossil fuel consumption attributable to longer commuting distances and lack of transit options. While potential future development would result in some irretrievable commitment of nonrenewable resources, it would also help accommodate growth in a manner that would reduce irreversible environmental changes in the Plan Area. For these reasons, the irretrievable commitment of resources attributable to the Proposed Project would not be significant.
6.4 Growth-Inducing Impacts
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(e), the growth-inducing nature of a proposed project is required to be discussed in an EIR. Furthermore, the CEQA Guidelines disclose that the growth-inducement analysis is intended to address the potential for the project to “foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment.” In addition, the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Checklist (Population and Housing) mandates that a CEQA document discuss the project’s likelihood to induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes or businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure) (14 CCR 15000 et seq.).
Because it is assumed that the impacts are captured in the analysis of environmental impacts (see Chapter 4 of this Draft PEIR), CEQA does not require separate mitigation for growth inducement. Furthermore, the CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR detail how a project could be growth inducing and to describe project characteristics that may encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment.
A project may be distinguished as either facilitating planned growth or inducing unplanned growth. Facilitating growth is related to the establishment of direct employment, population, or housing growth that would occur within a project site. Inducing growth is related to lowering or removing barriers to growth or by creating an amenity or facility that attracts new population and economic activity. However, the CEQA Guidelines do not require a prediction or speculation of where, when, and in what form such growth would occur (14 CCR 15145).
According to the CEQA Guidelines, a project would potentially induce growth if it would:
▪ Remove obstacles to population growth (e.g., through the expansion of public services into an area that does not currently receive these services), or through the provision of new access to an area, or a change in a restrictive zoning or General Plan land use designation ▪ Result in economic expansion and population growth through employment opportunities and/or construction of new housing
For the purposes of this Draft PEIR analysis, a significant growth-inducement impact would occur if the Proposed Project, directly or indirectly, removes physical or regulatory obstacles to growth such that the induced growth would significantly burden existing community services or impact the environment through economic expansion and population growth. A physical obstacle to population growth typically involves the lack of public service infrastructure. Potential future development associated with the proposed land use designation changes of the Proposed Project would be within fully built-out, downtown areas already served by utilities and services. It may be possible that some new development may require the upgrade or extension of public service infrastructure, including roadways, water mains, and sewer lines, such that the existing service is expanded in certain areas. 6 – OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 6-9
The potential growth‐inducing impacts of the Proposed Project are discussed below.
Growth in an area may result from the removal of physical impediments or restrictions to growth, as well as the removal of planning impediments resulting from land use plans and policies. In this context, physical growth impediments may include nonexistent or inadequate access to an area or the lack of essential public services (e.g., water service), while planning impediments may include restrictive zoning and/or general plan designations. The Proposed Project includes updated land use designations, land use maps, and goals and policies related to land use to accommodate regional population growth projections, provide more housing options, and create more access to the housing market, while encouraging redevelopment of underutilized infill sites. The land use changes would be focused on the primary transit corridors in Santee through implementation of the Community Hub Overlay and Community Corridor Overlay. In addition, the land use designation of APN 378-160-25-00 would be changed from Neighborhood Commercial to R-14. The Proposed Project also includes goals and policies to encourage sustainable infill development (Goal LU-9), neighborhoods and corridors that prioritize infill development to create livable communities with public spaces, greenspace, and recreation amenities.
Potential future development or redevelopment would be implemented within the Project parcels that generally include established land uses and supporting infrastructure (roads, water distribution, wastewater and drainage collection/treatment, and energy distribution). The Proposed Project would facilitate development or redevelopment within the Project parcels, which could increase the density and intensity of the uses over what currently exists in some areas. The Proposed Project includes policies that ensure private development provides its fair share of the cost of public services, improvements, and operations through the application of development impact fees, assessment districts, and/or other appropriate means. Specifically, Goal LU-3 would ensure community services and facilities that are safe, accessible, and responsive to community needs, Policy LU-3.2 would align the City’s fee schedule with projected development patterns, infrastructure needs, and service demands, and Policy LU-3.6 would require the City to review development projects to ensure that all necessary utilities are available to serve the project and that any land use incompatibility or impacts resulting from public utilities are mitigated to the maximum extent practicable. While this type of development could result in the expansion of existing utilities and public facilities in certain areas (for example, upsizing water or sewer pipelines to accommodate high demand from larger buildings, or undergrounding electric transmission and distribution lines for new development), this would not result in the extension of utilities or infrastructure into new areas that were not previously served by these services.
New employees from commercial development and new population from residential development represent direct forms of growth. These direct forms of growth have a secondary effect of expanding the size of local markets and inducing additional economic activity in the area. The Proposed Project would result in approximately 16,151 additional residents through 2045, which would in turn result in an increase of residents employed in Santee or surrounding jurisdictions. Additionally, the increase in allowable commercial uses could result in new job opportunities in Santee. These jobs could be filled by residents of Santee (including new residents facilitated by the Proposed Project) or residents of nearby jurisdictions. It should be noted, although the economic effect can be predicted, the actual environmental implications of this type of economic growth are too speculative to predict or evaluate, since they can be spread throughout the San Diego region and beyond.
The Proposed Project plans for future growth and for potential impacts due to this growth. The population increase would be directly related to the proposed implementation of an mixed-use overlay zone identified specifically for underutilized commercial and residential land uses, which would facilitate a greater balance of residential units and commercial uses, including multifamily residential units, which would allow for increased density in the desired areas. This increased density concentrates future growth in the areas of Santee best suited to accommodate that density to encourage sustainable growth patterns. The Proposed Project would establish mixed-use overlay zones 6 – OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 6-10
and goals and policies to support development within Santee to accommodate regional growth and to discourage other types of unsustainable growth such as suburban sprawl. While the Proposed Project would contribute to direct and indirect forms of population growth (through the future development of dwelling units, and through the development of commercial land uses that may provide job opportunities), the Proposed Project would not induce significant population growth by removing barriers to development, and would direct growth in areas suited for increased density, including along established urban corridors with existing amenities, and in areas currently served by existing civic infrastructure. The Proposed Project would also provide residential and employment opportunities for existing and future residents of Santee. In addition, it would provide more housing options and create more access to the housing market. Lastly, it would result in increased density in proximity to primary transit corridors, improve transit and active transportation, foster vibrant walkable and transit-supportive neighborhoods, and enhance access to job centers throughout the city.
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 7-1
7 Alternatives
7.1 Introduction
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that environmental impact reports (EIRs) “describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives” (14 CCR 15126.6[a]). As required by CEQA, this chapter of the draft program environmental impact report (PEIR) evaluates alternatives to the Proposed Project and compares the potential impacts of each alternative with the Proposed Project’s potential impacts.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(b), project alternatives should be selected based primarily on the ability of the alternatives to avoid or substantially lessen any significant impacts of a project, “even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly.” Additionally, this Draft PEIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to the Proposed Project, but rather the range of alternatives should be governed by a “rule of reason,” such that only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice are analyzed (14 CCR 15126.6[f]).
In selecting alternatives for analysis, the potential alternatives should be feasible. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(1) states the following:
Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries…, and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site.
CEQA Guidelines require the analysis of a “No Project” Alternative and an evaluation of alternative location(s) for a project, if feasible. Of the alternatives analyzed in an EIR, an environmentally superior alternative is to be designated. If the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative, then the EIR shall identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives (14 CCR 15126.6[e][2]).
As such, this Draft PEIR includes analysis of the following alternatives to the Proposed Project:
▪ Alternative 1 – No Project Alternative
▪ Alternative 2 – Reduced Overall Density Alternative
▪ Alternative 3 – Community Corridor Only Alternative
▪ Alternative 4 – No Increased Density Alternative
7.2 Considerations for Selection of Alternatives
7.2.1 Project Objectives
CEQA Guidelines Section 15124(b) requires an EIR to include a statement of objectives sought by a project, including its underlying purpose. As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Draft PEIR, the following 7 – ALTERNATIVES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 7-2
Proposed Project objectives have been established and will aid decision-makers in their review of the Proposed Project, the Proposed Project alternatives, and associated environmental impacts:
▪ Objective 1 – Promote Vertical Mixed-Use Development: Offer infill development opportunities particularly for vertical mixed-use development along the multimodal corridors of the City of Santee (City), near public transit, and proximate to existing services and amenities. ▪ Objective 2 – Enhance Mobility Access/Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled: Foster development with micromobility concept that allows for resident access to proximate services, amenities, and recreational opportunities without the need for a vehicle trip, thus reducing local vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
▪ Objective 3 – Promote Fair Housing: Support infill residential development that increases the supply of affordable and workforce housing, especially for families. ▪ Objective 4 – Expand Access to Services and Public Spaces: Enhance and protect access to parks, open spaces, the library, and other community and social services. Enhance and preserve educational and cultural resources, public art, and historic landmarks.
7.2.2 Summary of Environmental Impacts
As presented in prior chapters of this Draft PEIR, the Proposed Project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts after implementation of all mitigation measures, as summarized in Table 7-1, Summary of Environmental Impacts.
Table 7-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts
Environmental Topic Threshold Mitigation Measures Significance Determination
4.1. Aesthetics 4.1-1 N/A Less Than Significant
4.1-2 N/A Less Than Significant
4.1-3 N/A Less Than Significant
4.1-4 N/A Less Than Significant
Cumulatively
Considerable?
N/A Not cumulatively considerable.
4.2. Air Quality 4.2-1 MM-AQ-1 Significant and Unavoidable
4.2-2 MM-AQ-2 and MM-AQ-3,
MM-TRA-1 and MM-TRA-2
Significant and Unavoidable
4.2-3 MM-AQ-2, MM-AQ-4 and
MM-AQ-5, MM-TRA-1
Significant and Unavoidable
4.2-4 N/A Less Than Significant
Cumulatively
Considerable?
MM-AQ-1 through MM-AQ-5 Cumulatively Considerable
4.3. Biological Resources 4.3-1 MM-BIO-1 through MM-BIO-15, and MM-BIO-17
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
4.3-2 MM-BIO-1, MM-BIO-3,
MM-BIO-4, MM-BIO-15
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
4.3-3 MM-BIO-1, MM-BIO-3,
MM-BIO-4, MM-BIO-16
Less Than Significant with
mitigation incorporated
7 – ALTERNATIVES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 7-3
Table 7-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts
Environmental Topic Threshold Mitigation Measures Significance Determination
4.3-4 MM-BIO-3 and MM-BIO-4 Less Than Significant with
mitigation incorporated
4.3-5 MM-BIO-17 Less Than Significant
4.3-6 MM-BIO-1 through MM-BIO-16 Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
Cumulatively
Considerable?
MM-BIO-1 through MM-BIO-16 Not Cumulatively Considerable
4.4. Cultural Resources 4.4-1 MM-CUL-1 Significant and Unavoidable
4.4-2 MM-CUL-2 Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
4.4-3 N/A Less Than Significant
Cumulatively
Considerable?
MM-CUL-1 and MM-CUL-2 Not Cumulatively Considerable
4.5. Energy 4.5-1 N/A Less Than Significant
4.5-2 N/A Less Than Significant
Cumulatively
Considerable?
N/A Not Cumulatively Considerable
4.6. Geology and Soils 4.6-1 N/A Less Than Significant
4.6-2 N/A Less Than Significant
4.6-3 N/A Less Than Significant
4.6-4 N/A Less Than Significant
4.6-5 N/A No Impact
4.6-6 MM-GEO-1 Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
Cumulatively
Considerable?
MM-GEO-1 Not Cumulatively Considerable
4.7. Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
4.7-1 MM-GHG-1, MM-TRA-1,
MM-TRA-2
Significant and Unavoidable
4.7-2 MM-GHG-1, MM-TRA-1,
MM-TRA-2
Significant and Unavoidable
Cumulatively
Considerable?
MM-GHG-1, MM-TRA-1,
MM-TRA-2
Cumulatively Considerable
4.8. Hazards and
Hazardous Materials
4.8-1 N/A Less Than Significant
4.8-2 MM-HAZ-1 and MM-HAZ-2 Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
4.8-3 N/A Less Than Significant
4.8-4 MM-HAZ-1 and MM-HAZ-2 Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
4.8-5 N/A Less Than Significant
4.8-6 N/A Less Than Significant
4.8-7 N/A Less Than Significant
Cumulatively
Considerable?
MM-HAZ-1 and MM-HAZ-2 Not Cumulatively Considerable
7 – ALTERNATIVES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 7-4
Table 7-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts
Environmental Topic Threshold Mitigation Measures Significance Determination
4.9. Hydrology and Water
Quality
4.9-1 N/A Less Than Significant
4.9-2 N/A Less Than Significant
4.9-3 N/A Less Than Significant
4.9-4 N/A Less Than Significant
4.9-5 N/A Less Than Significant
Cumulatively
Considerable?
N/A Not Cumulatively Considerable
4.10. Land Use and
Planning
4.10-1 N/A Less Than Significant
4.10-2 N/A Less Than Significant
Cumulatively
Considerable?
N/A Not Cumulatively Considerable
4.11. Noise 4.11-1 MM-NOI-1 Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
4.11-2 MM-NOI-2 Significant and Unavoidable
4.11-3 N/A Less Than Significant
Cumulatively
Considerable?
MM-NOI-1 and MM-NOI-2 Not Cumulatively Considerable
4.12. Population and
Housing
4.12-1 N/A Less Than Significant
4.12-2 N/A Less Than Significant
Cumulatively
Considerable?
N/A Not Cumulatively Considerable
4.13. Public Services 4.13-1 N/A Less Than Significant
Cumulatively
Considerable?
N/A Not Cumulatively Considerable
4.14. Recreation 4.14-1 N/A Less Than Significant
4.14-2 N/A Less Than Significant
Cumulatively
Considerable?
N/A Not Cumulatively Considerable
4.15. Transportation 4.15-1 N/A Significant and Unavoidable
4.15-2 MM-TRA-1 and MM-TRA-2 Less Than Significant
4.15-3 N/A Less Than Significant
4.15-4 N/A Less Than Significant
Cumulatively
Considerable?
MM-TRA-1 and MM-TRA-2 Cumulatively Considerable
Impact
4.16. Tribal Cultural
Resources
4.16-1 MM-CUL-2 Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
Cumulatively
Considerable?
MM-CUL-2 Not Cumulatively Considerable
4.17. Utilities and Service
Systems
4.17-1 MM-AQ-1 through MM-AQ-5,
MM-BIO-1 through MM-BIO-17,
MM-CUL-1, MM-CUL-2,
MM-GHG-1, MM-TRA-1,
MM-TRA-2
Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
4.17-2 No mitigations are feasible Significant and Unavoidable. 7 – ALTERNATIVES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 7-5
Table 7-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts
Environmental Topic Threshold Mitigation Measures Significance Determination
4.17-3 N/A Less Than Significant
4.17-4 N/A Less Than Significant
4.17-5 N/A Less Than Significant
Cumulatively
Considerable?
No mitigations are feasible Cumulatively Considerable
Impact
4.18. Wildfire 4.18-1 N/A Less Than Significant
4.18-2 N/A Less Than Significant
4.18-3 N/A Less Than Significant
4.18-4 N/A Less Than Significant
4.18-5 N/A Less Than Significant
Cumulatively
Considerable?
N/A Not Cumulatively Considerable
7.3 Project Alternatives Considered and Rejected
A number of alternatives to the Proposed Project were initially considered, but as explained below, were rejected from further consideration due to infeasibility and their inability to meet the majority of the Project objectives.
Community Hubs Overlay Only Alternative
This alternative would remove all parcels that are part of the Community Corridor Overlay from the proposed land use designation changes and keep only the Community Hubs Overlay to focus mixed-use development in community “hubs.” This alternative was estimated to result in about a 75% reduction in dwelling units and about a 30% reduction in commercial square footage. In theory, this would significantly reduce Project impacts due to the reduction in density and intensity of allowed development due to fewer overall parcels proposed for land use changes. However, this alternative may not reduce VMT impacts, and may even increase average VMT, due to the wider geographic distance between Community Hub parcels. In addition, this alternative would not fully support the objectives of the Project—consistent with the Housing Acceleration Program (HAP) grant objectives—to create opportunities for mixed-use residential development along multimodal corridors and to reduce VMT. This is due to the fact that the “hubs” do not provide access to the city’s primary transit connections, especially the Santee Trolley Station, and do not include the city’s main commercial corridor, Mission Gorge Road. Therefore, this alternative was not considered further in this EIR.
Housing Only
The Housing Only alternative would focus on residential development rather than mixed-use, increasing access to services by locating new residential units in close proximity to parks, grocery stores, clinics, transit stations, and other services. The total number of allowed units would align with historic Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocations, projected over the planning horizon of the Land Use Element. This alternative was rejected because housing-only development would potentially lead to a reduction in commercial land uses, given service-rich areas are predominantly General Commercial and Neighborhood Commercial zones. Alternatively, future housing sites could be located on parcels currently zoned as residential, but this would continue to segregate land uses, thereby reducing access to services. Further, this alternative would not fully support the objectives of the 7 – ALTERNATIVES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 7-6
Project—consistent with the HAP grant objectives—to create opportunities for mixed-use residential development along multimodal corridors and to reduce VMT. Therefore, this alternative was not considered further in this EIR.
Alternate Location
The Alternate Location alternative would focus on applying the same overlays (Community Corridor Overlay and Community Hub Overlays) as the Proposed Project, but at different locations in Santee. During the preparation of the Proposed Project, the City conducted a series of outreach activities to engage the community and gather input on the Land Use Element Update. The feedback received from online survey responses, pop-up events, and listening sessions provided location-specific preferences on topics such as housing, parks, and businesses. From this public input, the City determined the best location of the overlays lie along the main transit corridors of the City, in proximity to public transit opportunities and other commercial and civic services.
Evaluating additional alternate locations has been rejected because alternate location development of mixed-use land uses would not necessarily reduce potential environmental impacts. Applying the overlays, which would result in higher density mixed-use development, in other areas of the City that are not located along the main transit corridors, could result in similar or greater impacts associated with VMT, air quality, and GHG emissions, due to longer or more vehicle trips.. Additionally, due to the nature of the City as predominantly developed with residential, institutional, and park land uses, and limited commercial and industrial land uses, alternative locations for the overlays may result in incompatible adjacent land uses. For instance, higher density mixed-use land uses would not be compatible in single-family residential neighborhoods, or industrial/business park areas. In addition, alternate locations would not support any of the Project objectives, which include placing mixed-use development along the main transit corridors of the City. Therefore, this alternative was not considered further in this EIR.
7.4 Project Alternatives Under Further Consideration
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(d), each alternative (Alternative 1 – No Project Alternative, Alternative 2 – Reduced Overall Density Alternative, Alternative 3 – Community Corridor Overlay Only Alternative, and Alternative 4 – No Increased Density Alternative) is evaluated in sufficient detail to determine whether the overall environmental impacts would be less than, similar to, or greater than the corresponding impacts of a project.
Each alternative is also evaluated to determine whether the Project objectives would be substantially attained.
7.4.1 Alternative 1 - No Project Alternative
7.4.1.1 Description of the Alternative
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e) requires that an EIR evaluate the specific alternative of “no project,” along with its impacts. As stated in the CEQA Guidelines, the purpose of describing and analyzing a No Project Alternative is to allow decision-makers to compare the impacts of approving a project against the impacts of not approving a project. As specified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3)(A), when a project is the revision of an existing land use or regulatory plan or policy, or an ongoing operation, the “no project” alternative will be evaluated based on the continuation of the current plan, policy, or operation into the future. Therefore, the No Project Alternative, as required by the CEQA Guidelines, analyzes the effects of development consistent with implementation of the current General Plan and existing land use/zoning.
7 – ALTERNATIVES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 7-7
Under the No Project Alternative, the Plan Area would continue to develop in accordance with the current General Plan’s existing land use designations and zoning, with amendments from the Housing Element Rezone Implementation Program and the Town Center Specific Plan. Buildout under the current 2003–2020 General Plan, Housing Element Rezone Implementation Program, and Town Center Specific Plan, would be less than the buildout facilitated by the Proposed Project.
7.4.1.2 Ability to Meet Project Objectives
Under the No Project Alternative, the City would not adopt a new development framework, and existing land use patterns and policies would remain in place. As a result, the No Project Alternative would substantially impact the City’s ability to meet Proposed Project objectives, and Objectives 1, 2, and 4 would not be met. Objective 3 could still be met, as the promotion of infill development could still occur absent the Proposed Project, particularly by the residential land use designations in the Town Center Specific Plan, which would allow different housing types for a range of household incomes in a central location in Santee.
7.4.1.3 Comparison of the Effects of the No Project Alternative to the Proposed Project
Analysis for the No Project Alternative is based on the 2003–2020 General Plan EIR (City of Santee 2003), Housing Element Rezone Program Implementation EIR (City of Santee 2022), and Town Center Specific Plan EIR (City of Santee 2024). Mitigation as proposed for implementation of the Proposed Project would not apply; however, mitigation identified in the EIR’s stated above would be applicable to the No Project Alternative.
Aesthetics
As discussed in Section 4.1, Aesthetics, of this Draft PEIR, the Proposed Project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to aesthetics. Similar to the Proposed Project, under the No Project Alternative, impacts relative to scenic resource would be less than significant because development would be required to comply with the City’s Design Guidelines, applicable objective design guidelines and performance standards, and policies protecting scenic resources. The No Project Alternative would result in sources of shade/shadow, glare, and light to the Plan Area in a manner similar to the Proposed Project because development would still occur.
Overall, impacts to aesthetics would be less than significant under both the No Project Alternative and Proposed Project conditions. However, under the No Project Alternative, aesthetic impacts would be reduced compared to the Proposed Project due to the reduced buildout capacity and reduction of physical development. For this reason, aesthetic impacts under the No Project Alternative would be less than the Proposed Project.
Air Quality
As discussed in Section 4.2, Air Quality, of this Draft PEIR, the Proposed Project would result in significant unavoidable impacts associated with cumulatively considerable increases of criteria air pollutants from construction-related activities, potential for inconsistencies with applicable air quality plans, and cumulatively considerable increases of criteria air pollutants from operation-related activities or toxic air contaminants that could contribute to significant impacts to nearby sensitive receptors. Under the No Project Alternative, the Plan Area would experience reduced development/redevelopment when compared to the Proposed Project. The respective EIR’s of the 2003–2020 General Plan EIR, and the Housing Element Rezone Implementation Program EIR identified lessthan-significant impacts with mitigation incorporated related to the air quality thresholds (City of Santee 2003, 7 – ALTERNATIVES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 7-8
2022). However, the Town Center Specific Plan identified significant and unavoidable impacts related to cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria air pollutants (City of Santee 2024).
Implementation of the No Project Alternative would result in less development potential than those anticipated under the Proposed Project, resulting in less air pollutants associated with construction activity. In addition, the Proposed Project would result in an overall net increase of operational emissions that would exceed SDAPCD’s significant thresholds. Therefore, the Proposed Project would result in greater operational emissions due to increased VMT compared to the No Project Alternative. As such, short-term construction impacts under the No Project Alternative would be similar or less than the Proposed Project, and long-term operational impacts would be similar or less than the Proposed Project.
Biological Resources
As described in Section 4.3, Biological Resources, of this Draft PEIR, the Proposed Project would result in less-thansignificant impacts regarding biological resources and would require mitigation to reduce impacts regarding specialstatus plant and wildlife species, and riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities to less than significant.
Future development under the No Project Alternative, consistent with the 2003–2020 General Plan, the Housing Element Rezone Implementation Program, and the Town Center Specific Plan, would have the potential to impact special-status species, nesting birds/raptors, sensitive habitat, wetlands, and movement of wildlife. However, through mitigation found in the respective EIR’s of the 2003–2020 General Plan, Housing Element Rezone Implementation, and Town Center Specific Plan, these impacts would be reduced to less than significant (City of Santee 2003, 2022, 2024). Development under both the No Project Alternative and the Proposed Project would consist of infill development on previously disturbed parcels. The No Project Alternative would result in less-dense development; however, the potential to impact biological resources would be similar to the Proposed Project.
Therefore, the No Project Alternative would result in impacts similar to the Proposed Project.
Cultural Resources
As described in Section 4.4, Cultural Resources, the Proposed Project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to historic resources. Similar to the Proposed Project, the No Project Alternative would result in development that involves ground-disturbing activities that could have the potential to result in significant impacts to cultural resources. However, as described in the respective EIR’s of the 2003–2020 General Plan, Housing Element Rezone Implementation Program, and the Town Center Specific Plan, impacts to cultural resources would be reduced to less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation measures (City of Santee 2003, 2022, 2024). The Proposed Project would result in the potential to damage or destroy built environment resources that could be eligible for listing due to the potential for redevelopment of previously developed sites. However, redevelopment of these sites could also occur under the No Project Alternative. Therefore, impacts to cultural resources under the No Project Alternative would be similar to the Proposed Project.
Energy
As described in Section 4.5, Energy, of this Draft PEIR, the Proposed Project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to (1) wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption energy resources, and (2) potential conflicts with a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Similar to the Proposed Project, implementation of the No Project Alternative would increase the demand for electricity, natural gas, gasoline, and diesel consumption in the Plan Area during construction and operation of future development in accordance with approved plans. Under the No Project Alternative, the scope of allowable development would be less than the 7 – ALTERNATIVES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 7-9
Proposed Project, resulting in reduced consumption of energy resources under the No Project Alternative. Thus, impacts under the No Project Alternative related to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during construction or operation would be less than those anticipated under the Proposed Project.
California Code of Regulations (CCR) Part 6 of Title 24 establishes energy efficiency standards for residential and nonresidential buildings constructed in California to reduce energy demand and consumption. Future development under both the Proposed Project and the No Project Alternative would be subject to CCR Part 6 of Title 24, as well as all applicable rules and regulations presented in Section 4.5 of this Draft PEIR, including CALGreen, all of which of the would reduce energy demand and increase energy efficiency of future residential and nonresidential development. Approval of the Proposed Project itself, as a policy document update, would not change or otherwise reduce the efficacy of existing regulations, and would not implement any policies or programs that would conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Therefore, impacts under the No Project Alternative would be similar to the Proposed Project relative to the potential conflict or obstruction of a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
Geology and Soils
The No Project Alternative would result in future development associated with buildout of the 2003–2020 General Plan, Housing Element Rezone Implementation Program, and the Town Center Specific Plan. Any new development under the No Project Alternative would be site-specific and would be exposed to existing geologic and soil conditions and hazards that would be unique to that property. As discussed in Section 4.6, Geology and Soils, of this Draft PEIR, Proposed Project-related impacts would be less than significant due to compliance with existing regulatory requirements and policies related to geotechnical hazards, such as seismic activity, ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, ground failure, soil expansion, and soil stability. Similar to the Proposed Project, the respective PEIR’s for the 2003–2020 General Plan, Housing Element Rezone Implementation Program, and the Town Center Specific Plan found impacts related to geology and soils to be less than significant (City of Santee 2003, 2022, 2024). Under the Proposed Project, impacts related to a paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature would be less than significant with incorporation of mitigation. The respective EIR’s for the 2003–2020 General Plan, Housing Element Rezone Implementation Program, and the Town Center Specific Plan also require paleontological monitoring to mitigate impacts to paleontological resources (City of Santee 2003, 2022, 2024). Both the Proposed Project and the No Project Alternative would require standard geotechnical practices. However, development under both the No Project Alternative and the Proposed Project would allow for development or redevelopment of the same ground area at the Project parcels. The No Project Alternative would result in less-dense development; however, the potential to impact would be similar to the Proposed Project.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
As described in Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of this Draft PEIR, the Proposed Project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to the generation of greenhouse gases (GHGs). The No Project Alternative would generate cumulative GHG emissions with buildout of future development and would result in physical effects from climate change. As described in the EIR for the Housing Element Rezone Implementation Program, future development associated with the Housing Element Rezone would result in emissions inconsistent with the City’s Climate Action Plan, and these impacts would be significant and unavoidable (City of Santee 2022).
The Town Center Specific Plan EIR determined that impacts from implementation of the Town Center Specific Plan would result in less-than-significant impacts, and the General Plan 2003–2020 EIR did not analyze impacts related to GHGs. Future development associated with the No Project Alternative would result in the generation of less construction-related GHG emissions than the Proposed Project due to reduced development and redevelopment 7 – ALTERNATIVES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 7-10
potential. Therefore, construction impacts under the No Project Alternative related to the generation of GHGs from construction activities would be less than the Proposed Project. Mobile source GHG emissions from operations would be reduced due to an overall reduction in regional VMT following implementation of the Proposed Project, because regional vehicle trips would be reduced from mixed-use development located near main transit corridors compared to a development pattern with more sprawl. The No Project Alternative would result in less development and less stationary source operational emissions; however, new development of both the No Project Alternative and the Proposed Project would be more efficient and have reduced emissions due to technological advancement and updated regulatory requirements. Therefore, impacts under the No Project Alternative would be greater than the Proposed Project related to operational GHG emissions due to higher mobile source emissions.
The Proposed Project would not be consistent with all applicable plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, and impacts would be significant and unavoidable. Because the Housing Element Rezone Implementation Program determined a significant and unavoidable impact with respect to result in emissions that are inconsistent with existing plans, policies, and regulations, the No Project Alternative would result in emissions that are inconsistent. Therefore, impacts associated with the No Project Alternative related to consistency with adopted plans would be similar to the Proposed Project.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
As described in Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this Draft PEIR, the Proposed Project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials. Mitigation measures have been identified for the Proposed Project to reduce potentially significant impacts related to hazards to the public and the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, and sites included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.
Similar to the Proposed Project, implementation of the 2003–2020 General Plan, Housing Element Rezone Implementation Program, and the Town Center Specific Plan under the No Project Alternative would result in lessthan-significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials with mitigation measures (City of Santee 2003, 2022, 2024). The No Project Alternative would still involve construction and potential hazardous and hazardous materials impacts; however, the scope of development potential under the No Project Alternative would be less than the Proposed Project. Thus, the extent of potential impacts under the No Project Alternative would be less than the Proposed Project.
Hydrology and Water Quality
As discussed in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Draft PEIR, the Proposed Project would result in lessthan-significant impacts related to hydrology and water quality. Similarly, impacts to hydrology and water quality with implementation of the 2003–2020 General Plan, Housing Element Rezone Implementation Program, and the Town Center Specific Plan under the No Project Alternative would be less than significant (City of Santee 2003, 2022, 2024).
Under the No Project Alternative, less buildout potential would occur when compared to the Proposed Project. As such, impacts under the No Project Alternative would be less than those anticipated under the Proposed Project.
Land Use and Planning
As discussed in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, of this Draft PEIR, the Proposed Project would result in lessthan-significant impacts associated with land use and planning. The No Project Alternative would implement the existing 2003–2020 General Plan, Housing Element Rezone Implementation Program, and the Town Center 7 – ALTERNATIVES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 7-11
Specific Plan and would not result in impacts associated with conflicts with any land use plans, policies, or regulations, or the physical division of established communities, similar to the Proposed Project (City of Santee 2003, 2022, 2024).
However, the 2003–2020 General Plan was intended to guide development through the year 2020. Although the Housing Element Rezone Implementation Program aligns with the Regional Housing Needs Allocation, and the Town Center Specific Plan allows for updated planning in the City’s town center, the current 2003–2020 General Plan land use element is outdated. Absent an update, the No Project Alternative could result in development that is inconsistent with more current land use policies or growth projections. In contrast, the Proposed Project would extend the planning horizon through 2045 and integrate updated land use policies. Therefore, although both scenarios would adhere to adopted plans at present, the Proposed Project would better ensure long-term consistency with evolving regional and state policies. Therefore, impacts associated with conflicts with adopted plan under the No Project Alternative would be greater than the Proposed Project.
Noise
As discussed in Section 4.11, Noise, of this Draft PEIR, the Proposed Project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to proximity of construction vibration to sensitive uses. Impacts related to temporary construction noise, operational noise, rail noise, and groundborne vibrations would be less than significant with mitigation. Impacts related to excessive noise within an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan area would be less than significant.
Under the No Project Alternative, noise impacts would be less than significant pursuant to the Housing Element Rezone Implementation Program, significant and unavoidable pursuant to the Town Center Specific Plan EIR and the 2003–2020 General Plan EIR (City of Santee 2003, 2022, 2024). The No Project Alternative would involve construction and operational noise impacts; however, the scope of development potential under the No Project Alternative would be less than the Proposed Project. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would result in a reduced amount of noise impacts. As such, impacts related to noise and vibration under the No Project Alternative would be less than the Proposed Project.
Population and Housing
As discussed in Section 4.12, Population and Housing, of this Draft PEIR, the Proposed Project and the existing 2003–2020 General Plan, Housing Element Rezone Implementation Program, and Town Center Specific Plan are documents that plan for future population growth, and therefore, would not result in substantial unplanned population growth. As such, impacts associated with exceedance in population growth from future development facilitated by the Proposed Project would be less than significant. Similarly, the respective EIR’s for the 2003–2020 General Plan, the Housing Element Rezone Implementation Program, and the Town Center Specific Plan concluded that impacts related to population and housing would be less than significant (City of Santee 2003, 2022, 2024).
Under the No Project Alternative, the Plan Area would continue to be built out under the existing land use designations and buildout projections, with the latest amendment in 2024 for the Town Center Specific Plan. In addition, regional and local plans (e.g., SANDAG’s regional forecasts and the City’s Housing Element) would undergo standard mandatory updates or revisions to reflect the anticipated growth within Santee. It is reasonable to assume, however, that the housing targets would not result in the population growth that the Proposed Project would facilitate by 2045, as the Proposed Project buildout assumptions exceed SANDAG’s Series 15 Regional Forecast (planned through the year 2050) population growth assumptions for the City. Therefore, because the No Project Alternative would result in less dwelling units through 2045, the No Project Alternative would result in impacts less than the Proposed Project related to substantial unplanned population growth. 7 – ALTERNATIVES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 7-12
The temporary displacement of some residents due to redevelopment of residential properties would occur throughout the Plan Area under the No Project Alternative and the Proposed Project. Santee is mostly built out, and future development could result in the replacement of existing development. However, the Proposed Project would result in more redevelopment activity, resulting in more temporary displacement. The Proposed Project would also facilitate more dwelling units, including affordable dwelling units, which would reduce potential impacts related to displacement of people, but also result in a higher potential for environmental impacts to occur related to the construction and operation of new development/redevelopment. Therefore, impacts related to the potential displacement of people necessitating the construction of replacement housing under the No Project Alternative would be less than the Proposed Project.
Public Services
As discussed in Section 4.13, Public Services, of this Draft PEIR, the Proposed Project would result in less-thansignificant impacts for fire protection services, sheriff protection services, school services, parks, and library services. According to the respective EIR’s of the 2003–2020 General Plan, the Housing Element Rezone Implementation Program, and the Town Center Specific Plan, the projects would result in less-than-significant impacts related to fire protection services, parks, and public libraries. Given the reduced scope of development potential and corresponding reduction in population when compared to the Proposed Project, impacts for fire protection services, sheriff protection services, school services, library services, and parks under the No Project Alternative would result in impacts less than the Proposed Project.
Recreation
As discussed in Section 4.14, Recreation, of this Draft PEIR, the Proposed Project would have less-than-significant impacts related to recreation. According to the respective EIR’s of the 2003–2020 General Plan, the Housing Element Rezone Implementation Program, and the Town Center Specific Plan, the projects would result in lessthan-significant impacts related to recreation. Given the reduced scope of development potential and corresponding reduction in population when compared to the Proposed Project, impacts for parks and recreational facilities under the No Project Alternative would result in impacts less than the Proposed Project.
Transportation
As discussed in Section 4.15, Transportation, of this Draft PEIR, potential impacts related to (1) conflicts with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy addressing circulation, transit, roadways, bicycles, and pedestrian activities; (2) hazards due to roadway design or incompatible uses; and (3) inadequate emergency access were determined to be less than significant. Potential impacts related to VMT (i.e., potential to conflict with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision [b]) would be significant and unavoidable. Similar to the Proposed Project, implementation of the No Project Alternative, which would include continued implementation of the Housing Element Rezone Implementation Program, and the Town Center Specific Plan, would generally be consistent with applicable plans, ordinances, and policies addressing transportation, and would not create hazards due to roadway design/incompatible uses, or result in inadequate emergency access conditions, and would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to VMT (City of Santee 2022, 2024). The 2003–2020 General Plan EIR identified lessthan-significant impacts; however, impacts related to VMT were not addressed.
Under the Proposed Project, it is reasonable to assume that the VMT per service population would be reduced due to the increased development potential along the City’s main transportation corridors. By concentrating growth near transportation corridors, the Proposed Project would encourage shorter trips and greater use of alternative 7 – ALTERNATIVES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 7-13
transportation modes. In contrast, the No Project Alternative would maintain existing land use patterns, likely resulting in more dispersed growth and longer trips, thereby generating higher VMT per-capita and per employee.
Therefore, impacts related to VMT under the No Project Alternative would be more than the Proposed Project.
Tribal Cultural Resources
As described in Section 4.16, Tribal Cultural Resources, of this Draft PEIR, potential impacts to tribal cultural resources were found to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Ground-disturbing activities associated with the buildout of existing planning documents would still occur under the No Project Alternative and could still result in impacts to tribal cultural resources. Therefore, because ground disturbance would occur under both Project scenarios, impacts resulting in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource under this alternative would be similar to the Proposed Project.
Utilities and Service Systems
As discussed in Section 4.17, Utilities and Service Systems, of this Draft PEIR, the Proposed Project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to utilities and service systems. The No Project Alternative would require less potable water, generate less wastewater, and generate less solid waste when compared to the Proposed Project due to the reduced buildout and development/redevelopment potential. Impacts related to wastewater treatment capacity would be less than significant under the continued implementation of the 2003–2020 General Plan, the Housing Element Rezone Implementation Program, and the Town Center Specific Plan, because as described in the respective EIR’s for these projects, the facility is anticipated to have available capacity for the 2030 General Plan buildout projections (City of Santee 2003, 2022, 2024). As such, impacts under the No Project Alternative would be less than the Proposed Project.
Wildfire
As discussed in Section 4.18, Wildfire, of this Draft PEIR, the Proposed Project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to wildfire risks. The Project parcels identified for land use changes in the Proposed Project overlap slightly with the area designated as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ). The Plan Area is urbanized, with very little remaining areas of natural open space or other known wildland fire fuel sources. The No Project Alternative would allow development in areas within the Plan Area that area designated as VHFHSZ. All future development within VHFHSZ must comply with the policies of the City’s General Plan Safety and Environmental Justice Element that guide development in VHFHSZ, as well as requirements of the 2025 California Wildland-Urban Interface Code for fire protection requirements in Wildland-Urban Interface areas and Fire Hazard Severity Zones.
However, the Proposed Project could result in more development and introduce more population to the certain parcels that overlay with the VHFHSZ. Additionally, the Proposed Project would result in population growth in Santee in general, adjacent to VHFHSZ. Therefore, the Proposed Project could expose more people and structures to risks involving wildland fire. As such, under the No Project Alternative, impacts would be less than the Proposed Project.
7.4.2 Alternative 2 – Reduced Overall Density Alternative
7.4.2.1 Description of the Alternative
Under the Reduced Overall Density Alternative, the Community Corridor Overlay and the Community Hub Overlay would be proposed with a reduced density compared to the Proposed Project. The land use designation change of parcel APN 378-160-25-00, from Neighborhood Commercial to Medium-High Residential (R-14) would still occur 7 – ALTERNATIVES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 7-14
under this alternative. The Reduced Overall Density Alternative reduces density and height limits on all applicable parcels, resulting in approximately 35% reduction in total dwelling units and no change in commercial square footage compared to the Proposed Project (see Note 1 of Table 7-2).
Table 7-2, Alternative 2 – Reduced Overall Density, details the buildout projections under the Reduced Overall Density Alternative.
Table 7-2. Alternative 2 – Reduced Overall Density
Residential1
Location
Proposed Project
Density (du/ac)
Total Dwelling
Units (du)
Alternative 2
Density (du/ac)
Total Dwelling
Units (du)
Mission Gorge Road 45 7,699 22 5,133
Mast Boulevard 30 1,475 14 689
Carlton Hills BoulevardRoad 30 137 14 64
Cuyamaca Street 30 623 14 291
R-14 Parcel 22 196 14 125
Total (maximum)
10,130
6,302
Difference (maximum) -3,828 (approx. 38%)
Total (realistic)2
5,687
3,695
Difference (realistic) -1,992 (approx. 35%)
Notes: du/ac = dwelling units per acre.
1 No change in commercial square feet because commercial is ground-floor only; therefore, changing density (corresponding to height) does not change ground-floor commercial.
2 Accounts for an estimated 65% buildout potential and Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan limitations.
7.4.2.2 Ability to Meet Project Objectives
The Reduced Overall Density Alternative would meet all Proposed Project objectives at a reduced level compared to the Proposed Project. The Reduced Overall Density Alternative would still focus on promoting vertical mixed-use development (Objective 1), enhance mobility access/reduce VMT (Objective 2), promote fair housing (Objective 3), and expand access to services and public spaces (Objective 4), but at a smaller scale than the Proposed Project.
7.4.2.3 Comparison of the Effects of the Reduced Overall Density Alternative to the Proposed Project
The Reduced Overall Density Alternative would result in a slightly reduced development scenario in the Plan Area compared to the Proposed Project. However, the mitigation measures set forth in this Draft PEIR would still be applicable to potential development under the Reduced Overall Density Alternative. Therefore, as noted below, although the Reduced Overall Density Alternative could reduce potential environmental impacts to select environmental topics, all of the mitigation measures set forth in this Draft PEIR would continue to be required and would be relevant for development under the Reduced Overall Density Alternative.
Aesthetics
Similar to the Proposed Project, under the Reduced Overall Density Alternative, impacts relative to scenic vistas would be less than significant because development would be required to comply with the City’s Design Guidelines 7 – ALTERNATIVES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 7-15
and policies protecting scenic resources. In addition, because the Proposed Project would not impact scenic resources within the viewshed of a state scenic highway, the Reduced Overall Density Alternative would not result in impacts to scenic resources along a state scenic highway. The Reduced Overall Density Alternative would result in sources of shade/shadow and glare and light to the Plan Area in a manner similar to the Proposed Project because development would still occur.
Overall, impacts to aesthetics would be less than significant under both the Reduced Overall Density Alternative and Proposed Project. However, under the Reduced Overall Density Alternative, aesthetic impacts would be at a reduced level due to the reduced buildout capacity and reduced additional development. For this reason, the Reduced Overall Density Alternative would result in aesthetic impacts less than the Proposed Project.
Air Quality
As shown in Table 7-2, under the Reduced Overall Density Alternative, housing and population would be reduced compared to the Proposed Project. However, development resulting in emissions affecting air quality would still occur from construction vehicles and equipment, and operationally from motor vehicle travel, area sources, including hearths, consumer products, architectural coatings, landscaping, and natural gas consumption associated with space and water heating. Reducing the density and population would result in reduced overall air quality impacts under the Reduced Overall Density Alternative. Therefore, air quality impacts under the Reduced Overall Density Alternative would be less than the Proposed Project. However, under the Reduced Overall Density Alternative, impacts associated with consistency with the applicable Air Quality Management Plan would remain significant and unavoidable due to anticipated buildout.
Because buildout under the Reduced Overall Density Alternative would be reduced by 35%, the Reduced Overall Density Alternative would result in similar significant and unavoidable impacts associated with cumulatively considerable net increases of any criteria pollutant for which the Proposed Project region is non-attainment. Similar to the Proposed Project, the Reduced Overall Density Alternative would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, and significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the uncertainty of potential health risk associated with construction activities.
However, because toxic air contaminant emissions would be slightly reduced under the Reduced Overall Density Alternative due to the reduced buildout potential, impacts would be less than the Proposed Project.
Biological Resources
As described in Section 4.3 of this Draft PEIR, the Proposed Project would result in less-than-significant impacts regarding biological resources and would require mitigation to reduce impacts regarding special-status plant and wildlife species, and riparian habitat and other sensitive natural communities to less than significant. Future development under the Reduced Overall Density Alternative would occur through infill and redevelopment along key commercial corridors in and around the downtown area, similar to the Proposed Project. Development and redevelopment under the Reduced Overall Density Alternative would result in the same impacts to wildlife species and habitat loss as the Proposed Project, because although density would be reduced the number of parcels would remain the same. Therefore, the Reduced Overall Density Alternative impacts would be similar to the Proposed Project.
7 – ALTERNATIVES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 7-16
Cultural Resources
As described in Section 4.4, the Proposed Project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to historic resources. Similar to the Proposed Project, the Reduced Overall Density Alternative would result in development that involves ground-disturbing activities that could have the potential to result in significant impacts to cultural resources. Similar to the Proposed Project, the Reduced Overall Density Alternative may increase development activity in the Plan Area, resulting in potential to damage or destroy historic resources or archaeological resources. Under the Reduced Overall Density Alternative, the potential for planned development to occur would be the same as Proposed Project, resulting in similar ground-disturbing activities and building demolition. As such, impacts to historic resources or archaeological resources under the Reduced Overall Density Alternative would be similar to the Proposed Project.
Energy
Similar to the Proposed Project, implementation of the Reduced Overall Density Alternative would increase demand for electricity, natural gas, gasoline, and diesel consumption in the Plan Area during construction and operation of future development. However, similar to the Proposed Project, the Reduced Overall Density Alternative would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, including electricity, natural gas, or petroleum. Neither the Proposed Project nor the Reduced Overall Density Alternative would conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Additionally, under the Reduced Overall Density Alternative, all applicable rules and regulations presented in Section 4.5 of this Draft PEIR would reduce energy demand and increase energy efficiency related to future residential development, similar to the Proposed Project.
However, under the Reduced Overall Density Alternative, the scope of the development to occur would be reduced, as illustrated in Table 7-2, resulting in reduced construction-related and operational energy consumption. Thus, impacts under the Reduced Overall Density Alternative would be less than those anticipated under the Proposed Project.
Geology and Soils
The underlying geologic conditions in the Plan Area would not change under the Reduced Overall Density Alternative.
Any new development under the Reduced Overall Density Alternative would be site-specific and would be exposed to existing geologic and soil conditions and hazards that would be unique to that property. The Reduced Overall Density Alternative would not increase the potential for such hazards or create new hazards, similar to the Proposed Project. Compliance with existing regulatory requirements and policies would reduce impacts from adverse effects related to geotechnical hazards, such as seismic activity, ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, ground failure, soil expansion, and soil stability. Under the Reduced Overall Density Alternative, geologic conditions would be similar to the Proposed Project due to the Plan Area’s existing conditions. Both the Proposed Project and the Reduced Overall Density Alternative would require standard geotechnical practices. In addition, the Reduced Overall Density Alternative would result in the same parcels proposed for re-designation, and the grading and development under the Reduced Overall Density Alternative would remain the same as the Proposed Project with regard for the potential for soil erosion and geologic disturbance. Therefore, impacts under the Reduced Overall Density Alternative related to the geology and soils would be similar to the Proposed Project.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Similar to the Proposed Project, the Reduced Overall Density Alternative would generate cumulative GHG emissions with the buildout of future development at less-than-significant levels. However, future development associated with the Reduced Overall Density Alternative would generate less GHG emissions than the Proposed Project due to 7 – ALTERNATIVES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 7-17
reduced development and redevelopment. Therefore, impacts under the Reduced Overall Density Alternative related to the generation of GHGs would be less than the Proposed Project.
The Reduced Overall Density Alternative would not necessarily be consistent with all applicable plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purposes of reducing GHG emissions due to the potential for higher VMT as a result of lower residential densities and less development near transit corridors compared to the Proposed Project. Thus, impacts associated with the Reduced Overall Density Alternative related to consistency with adopted plans would be similar to the Proposed Project.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The Reduced Overall Density Alternative would result in the same number of parcels proposed for re-designation; however, overall less density than what is proposed under the Proposed Project would occur. As described in Section 4.8 of this Draft PEIR, the Proposed Project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials. Mitigation measures are needed for the Proposed Project to reduce potentially significant impacts related to hazards to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, and sites included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. The Reduced Overall Density Alternative would still involve construction and potential hazardous and hazardous materials impacts; and the potential of ground-disturbing development at the Project Parcels under the Reduced Overall Density Alternative would be the same as the Proposed Project. Thus, the Reduced Overall Density Alternative would result in impacts similar to the Proposed Project Hydrology and Water Quality
As discussed in Section 4.9 of this Draft PEIR, the Proposed Project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to hydrology and water quality. Under the Reduced Overall Density Alternative, less buildout potential would occur when compared to the Proposed Project due to overall less density proposed for re-designation. As such, impacts under the Reduced Overall Density Alternative would be less than those anticipated under the Proposed Project.
Land Use and Planning
The Reduced Overall Density Alternative would not result in impacts associated with the physical division of established communities, similar to the Proposed Project. Additionally, similar to the Proposed Project, the Reduced Overall Density Alternative would update the General Plan’s planning horizon to 2045 and integrate updated land use policies. The Reduced Overall Density Alternative would similarly ensure long-term consistency with evolving regional and state policies at a reduced scale compared to the Proposed Project. Thus, impacts related to the consistency with applicable land use plans, policies, and regulations would be similar to the Project. Impacts under the Reduced Overall Density Alternative related to land use and planning would be similar to the Proposed Project.
Noise
The Reduced Overall Density Alternative would involve construction and operational noise impacts; however, the scope of development potential under the Reduced Overall Density Alternative would be less than the Proposed Project due to the reduced overall proposed density. Therefore, the Reduced Overall Density Alternative would result in a reduced amount of noise impacts. As such, impacts related to noise and vibration under the Reduced Overall Density Alternative would be less than the Proposed Project. 7 – ALTERNATIVES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 7-18
Population and Housing
As discussed in Section 4.12 of this Draft PEIR, implementation of regional and local plans (e.g., SANDAG’s regional forecasts and the Santee Housing Element) would undergo standard mandatory updates and revisions to reflect the anticipated growth within Santee. As such, impacts associated with exceedance in population growth from future development facilitated by the Proposed Project would be less than significant.
The Reduced Overall Density Alternative would still exceed SANDAG’s projections for the City in 2045, but at a lesser extent than the Proposed Project. The Reduced Overall Density Alternative’s buildout projections would exceed SANDAG’s planned growth projections for the City, resulting in approximately 3,6951 dwelling units, compared to the Proposed Projects projection of 5,6872 dwelling units.
Although the Reduced Overall Density Alternative’s buildout projections are still above SANDAG’s 2050 projections, under the Reduced Overall Density Alternative, there would be 1,992 fewer dwelling units, as shown in Table 7-2.
Thus, the Reduced Overall Density Alternative would result in impacts less than the Proposed Project related to substantial unplanned population growth.
The temporary displacement of some residents due to redevelopment of residential properties would occur throughout the Plan Area under the Reduced Overall Density Alternative and the Proposed Project. However, both the Proposed Project and Reduced Overall Density Alternative would accommodate development of additional dwelling units that are expected to increase the capacity for housing stock in the Plan Area. As such, any temporary impacts associated with displacement would be offset by the anticipated increases in housing production, and impacts under both the Proposed Project and the Reduced Overall Density Alternative would be less than significant.
Therefore, impacts related to displacement under the Reduced Overall Density Alternative would be similar to the Proposed Project.
Public Services
As discussed in Section 4.13 of this Draft PEIR, the Proposed Project would result in less-than-significant impacts for fire protection services, sheriff protection services, school services, parks, and library services. As provided in Table 7-2, the number of dwelling units under the Reduced Overall Density Alternative would be less than the Proposed Project. As such, impacts related to fire protection services, sheriff protection services, school services, and library services would be less than significant. The Reduced Overall Density Alternative would slightly reduce impacts to all public services. As such, impacts would be less than the Proposed Project.
Recreation
As discussed in Section 4.14 of this Draft PEIR, the Proposed Project would have less-than-significant impacts related to recreation. The existing park and recreation facilities in Santee would be able to accommodate both the Reduced Overall Density Alternative buildout or the Proposed Project buildout. In addition, development under the Reduced Overall Density Alternative and the Proposed Project would be required to pay in-lieu fees consistent with the Quimby Act and City Municipal Code Section 12.40 to fund additional park facilities within Santee. As such, given the reduced scope of development potential when compared to the Proposed Project and corresponding reduction in population, the Reduced Overall Density Alternative would result in impacts less than the Proposed Project. 1 3,695 reflects the alternative density’s (du/ac) at realistic buildout. 2 5,687 reflects the Proposed Projects density (du/ac) at realistic buildout. 7 – ALTERNATIVES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 7-19
Transportation
The Reduced Overall Density Alternative would not conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, similar to the Proposed Project. This alternative would not result in significant impacts related to the increase of design feature hazards, nor would a significant impact occur relative to inadequate emergency access, similar to the Proposed Project. Implementation of the Reduced Overall Density Alternative would result in a reduced buildout; however, development or redevelopment would still occur at main transit corridors. Focusing development along these transportation corridors would reduce VMT by promoting the use of the City’s transportation infrastructure. Therefore, the Reduced Overall Density Alternative would be less effective at lowering VMT within Santee, and impacts would be more than the Proposed Project.
Tribal Cultural Resources
As described in Section 4.16 of this Draft PEIR, potential impacts to tribal cultural resources were found to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The Plan Area is urbanized and primarily developed; however, the anticipated future development and redevelopment activity would likely result in an increase in potential grounddisturbing activities. Ground-disturbing activities associated with buildout would still occur under the Reduced Overall Density Alternative and could still result in impacts to tribal cultural resources. Buildout would result in a reduced overall density; however, redevelopment or development could occur at the same number of parcels.
Therefore, impacts resulting in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource under the Reduced Overall Density Alternative would be similar to the Proposed Project.
Utilities and Service Systems
As discussed in Section 4.17 of this Draft PEIR, the Proposed Project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to utilities and service systems. However, the Proposed Project would result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to wastewater treatment capacity. The Reduced Overall Density Alternative would require less potable water, generate less wastewater, and generate less solid waste when compared to the Proposed Project due to the reduced buildout and development and redevelopment potential. Impacts related to cumulative wastewater treatment would be similar because the Reduced Overall Density Alternative would still increase wastewater usage in the Plan Area. Overall, potential impacts under the Reduced Overall Density Alternative would be less than the Proposed Project.
Wildfire
Under the Proposed Project, impacts would be less than significant relative to wildfire risks. The Plan Area is urbanized, with very little remaining areas of natural open space or other known wildland fire fuel sources. However, the Reduced Overall Density Alternative would result in reduced development and redevelopment in the Plan Area due to the reduced overall proposed density. Therefore, the Reduced Overall Density Alternative would expose fewer people and structures to risks involving wildland fire. As such, under the Reduced Overall Density Alternative, impacts would be less than the Proposed Project.
7 – ALTERNATIVES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 7-20
7.4.3 Alternative 3 – Community Corridor Overlay Only Alternative
7.4.3.1 Description of the Alternative
This alternative would include a mixed-use overlay consistent with the Community Corridor Overlay and the land use designation change on the parcel on Magnolia Avenue. It would not include the Community Hub Overlay as it is proposed as part of the Proposed Project. Alternative 3 would focus mixed-use development along the transit corridors of Mission Gorge Road and Cuyamaca Street. This reduces overall dwelling units by about 18% and commercial square footage by about 19%, compared to the Proposed Project.
Table 7-3, Alternative 3 – Community Corridor Overlay Only Residential Buildout, and Table 7-4, Alternative 3 – Community Corridor Overlay Only Commercial Buildout, detail the buildout projections under the Community Corridor Overlay Only Alternative.
Table 7-3. Alternative 3 – Community Corridor Overlay Only Residential Buildout Residential
Location
Proposed Density
(du/ac)
Total Dwelling Units
(du)
Alternative 3
Density (du/ac)
Total Dwelling
Units (du)
Mission Gorge Road 45 7,699 45 7,699
Mast Boulevard 30 1,475 0 0
Carlton Hills
BoulevardRoad
30 137 0 0
Cuyamaca Street 30 623 30 623
R-14 Parcel 22 196 22 196
Total (maximum)
10,130
8,519
Difference (maximum -1,611 (approx. 16%)
Total (realistic)1
5,687
4,639
Difference (maximum) -1,048 (approx. 18%)
Notes: du/ac = dwelling units per acre.
1 Accounts for an estimated 65% buildout potential and Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan limitations.
Table 7-4. Alternative 3 – Community Corridor Overlay Only Commercial Buildout Commercial
Location Proposed Commercial SF Alternative 3 Commercial SF Mission Gorge Road 3,726,528 3,726,528
Mast Boulevard 1,071,119 0
Carlton Hills BoulevardRoad 99,121 0
Cuyamaca Street 452,087 452,087
R-14 Parcel 0 0
Total (maximum) 5,348,855 4,178,615
Difference (maximum) -1,170,240 (approx. 22%)
Total (realistic)1 4,984,056 4,048,086
Difference (realistic) -935,970 (approx. 19%)
Notes: SF = square feet.
7 – ALTERNATIVES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 7-21
1 Accounts for an estimated 65% buildout potential and Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan limitations.
7.4.3.2 Ability to Meet Project Objectives
The Community Corridor Overlay Only Alternative would meet all Proposed Project objectives at a reduced level compared to the Proposed Project. The Community Corridor Overlay Only Alternative would still promote vertical mixed-use development (Objective 1), enhance mobility access/reduce VMT (Objective 2), promote fair housing (Objective 3), and expand access to services and public spaces (Objective 4), but at a smaller scale than the Proposed Project. Therefore, Alternative 3 would not meet all objectives as fully as the Proposed Project.
7.4.3.3 Comparison of the Effects of the Community Corridor Overlay Only Alternative to the Proposed Project
Aesthetics
Similar to the Proposed Project, under the Community Corridor Only Alternative, impacts relative to scenic vistas would be less than significant because development would be required to comply with the City’s Design Guidelines and policies protecting scenic resources. In addition, similar to the Proposed Project, the Community Corridor Only Alternative would not result in impacts to scenic resources along a state scenic highway. The Community Corridor Only Alternative would result in sources of shade/shadow and glare and light to the Plan Area in a manner similar to the Proposed Project because development would still occur.
Overall, impacts to aesthetics would be less than significant under both the Community Corridor Only Alternative and Proposed Project. However, under the Community Corridor Only Alternative, aesthetic impacts would be at a reduced level due to the reduced buildout capacity and reduced additional development. For this reason, the Community Corridor Only Alternative would result in aesthetic impacts less than the Proposed Project.
Air Quality
As shown in Tables 7-3 and 7-4, under the Community Corridor Only Alternative, dwelling units and commercial uses would be reduced compared to the Proposed Project. However, development resulting in emissions affecting air quality would still occur from construction vehicles and equipment, and operationally from motor vehicle travel, area sources, including hearths, consumer products, architectural coatings, landscaping, and natural gas consumption associated with space and water heating The realistic projected growth under the Community Corridor Only Alternative, in combination with the citywide projected growth, would still exceed growth forecasts for Santee for the year 2050. Because the Community Corridor Only Alternative would result in a reduction of density and residential and commercial uses compared to the Proposed Project, air quality impacts related to emissions under the Community Corridor Only Alternative would be reduced overall, and therefore less than the Proposed Project.
However, under the Community Corridor Only Alternative, impacts associated with consistency with the applicable Air Quality Management Plan would remain significant and unavoidable due to anticipated buildout being out of sync with the appropriate plans, namely RAQS.
Although buildout under the Community Corridor Only Alternative would be reduced, the Community Corridor Only Alternative would result in similar significant and unavoidable impacts associated with cumulatively considerable net increases of any criteria pollutant for which the Proposed Project region is non-attainment, as development or redevelopment would not be eliminated. Similar to the Proposed Project, the Community Corridor Only Alternative would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial 7 – ALTERNATIVES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 7-22
pollutant concentrations, and significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the uncertainty of potential health risk associated with construction activities. However, because toxic air contaminant emissions would be reduced overall under the Community Corridor Only Alternative due to the reduced buildout potential, impacts would be less than the Proposed Project.
Biological Resources
As described in Section 4.3 of this Draft PEIR, the Proposed Project would result in less-than-significant impacts regarding biological resources and would require mitigation to reduce impacts regarding special-status plant and wildlife species, and riparian habitat and other sensitive natural communities to less than significant. Future development under the Community Corridor Only Alternative would occur through infill and redevelopment along Mission Gorge Road only. Development and redevelopment under the Community Corridor Only Alternative may still result in impacts to some wildlife species and habitat loss, but to a lesser extent than the Proposed Project due to the reduced number of parcels and geographic area proposed for future mixed-use development. Thus, the Community Corridor Only Alternative would result in less impacts than the Proposed Project.
Cultural Resources
As described in Section 4.4 the Proposed Project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to historic resources. Similar to the Proposed Project, the Community Corridor Only Alternative would result in development that involves ground-disturbing activities that could have the potential to result in significant impacts to cultural resources. Similar to the Proposed Project, the Community Corridor Only Alternative may increase development activity in the Plan Area, resulting in a higher potential to damage or destroy historic resources or archaeological resources. Under the Community Corridor Only Alternative, the area where future development could occur under this Alternative would be reduced compared to the Proposed Project, resulting in reduced grounddisturbing activities and building demolition that could result in impacts to historic resources or previously unknown cultural resources. As such, impacts to historic resources or archaeological resources under the Community Corridor Only Alternative would be less than the Proposed Project.
Energy
Similar to the Proposed Project, implementation of the Community Corridor Only Alternative would increase demand for electricity, natural gas, gasoline, and diesel consumption in the Plan Area during construction and operation of future development. However, similar to the Proposed Project, the Community Corridor Only Alternative would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, including electricity, natural gas, or petroleum.
Neither the Proposed Project nor the Community Corridor Only Alternative would conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Additionally, under the Community Corridor Only Alternative, all applicable rules and regulations presented in Section 4.5 of this Draft PEIR would reduce energy demand and increase energy efficiency related to future residential development, similar to the Proposed Project. However, under the Community Corridor Only Alternative, the scope of the development to occur would be reduced, as illustrated in Tables 7-3 and 7-4, resulting in reduced construction-related and operational energy consumption. Thus, impacts under the Community Corridor Only Alternative would be less than those anticipated under the Proposed Project.
Geology and Soils
The underlying geologic conditions in the Plan Area would not change under the Community Corridor Only Alternative. Any new development under the Community Corridor Only Alternative would be site-specific and would 7 – ALTERNATIVES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 7-23
be exposed to existing geologic and soil conditions and hazards that would be unique to that property. The Community Corridor Only Alternative would not increase the potential for such hazards or create new hazards, similar to the Proposed Project. Compliance with existing regulatory requirements and policies would reduce impacts from adverse effects related to geotechnical hazards, such as seismic activity, ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, ground failure, soil expansion, and soil stability. Under the Community Corridor Only Alternative, geologic conditions would be similar to the Proposed Project due to the Plan Area’s existing conditions.
Both the Proposed Project and the Community Corridor Only Alternative would require standard geotechnical practices. However, the Community Corridor Only Alternative would result in fewer parcels proposed for redesignation, and the reduction of grading activities associated with development and redevelopment under Alternative 3 would result in reduced potential for soil erosion and geologic disturbance. Therefore, impacts under the Community Corridor Only Alternative related to the geology and soils would be less than the Proposed Project.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Proposed Project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to GHG emissions. However, future development associated with the Community Corridor Only Alternative would result in the generation of less GHG emissions than the Proposed Project due to reduced development and redevelopment. Therefore, impacts under the Community Corridor Only Alternative related to the generation of GHGs would be less than the Proposed Project.
The Community Corridor Only Alternative would not necessarily be consistent with all applicable plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purposes of reducing GHG emissions due to the potential for higher VMT as a result of lower residential densities compared to the Proposed Project. Thus, impacts associated with the Community Corridor Only Alternative related to consistency with adopted plans would be similar to the Proposed Project.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The Community Corridor Only Alternative would result in fewer parcels proposed for re-designation, and overall less density than what is proposed under the Proposed Project would occur. As described in Section 4.8 of this Draft PEIR, the Proposed Project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials.
Mitigation measures are needed for the Proposed Project to reduce potentially significant impacts related to hazards to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, and sites included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.
The Community Corridor Only Alternative would still involve construction and potential hazardous and hazardous materials impacts; however, the scope of development potential under the Community Corridor Only Alternative would be reduced compared to the Proposed Project. Thus, the Community Corridor Only Alternative would result in impacts less than the Proposed Project
Hydrology and Water Quality
As discussed in Section 4.9 of this Draft PEIR, the Proposed Project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to hydrology and water quality. Under the Community Corridor Only Alternative, less buildout potential would occur when compared to the Proposed Project due to less parcels proposed for development or redevelopment and overall less density proposed for re-designation. As such, impacts under the Community Corridor Only Alternative would be less than those anticipated under the Proposed Project. 7 – ALTERNATIVES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 7-24
Land Use and Planning
The Community Corridor Only Alternative would not result in impacts associated with the physical division of established communities, similar to the Proposed Project. Additionally, similar to the Proposed Project, the Community Corridor Only Alternative would update the General Plan’s planning horizon to 2045 and integrate updated land use policies. The Community Corridor Only Alternative would similarly ensure long-term consistency with evolving regional and state policies at a reduced scale compared to the Proposed Project. Thus, impacts related to the consistency with applicable land use plans, policies, and regulations would be similar to the Project.
Impacts under the Community Corridor Only Alternative related to land use and planning would be similar to the Proposed Project.
Noise
The Community Corridor Only Alternative would involve construction and operational noise impacts; however, the scope of development potential under the Community Corridor Only Alternative would be less than the Proposed Project due to the reduced overall proposed density and fewer parcels proposed for development or redevelopment.
Therefore, the Community Corridor Only Alternative would result in a reduced amount of noise impacts. As such, impacts related to noise and vibration under the Community Corridor Only Alternative would be less than the Proposed Project.
Population and Housing
As discussed in Section 4.12 of this Draft PEIR, implementation of regional and local plans (e.g., SANDAG’s regional forecasts and the Santee Housing Element) would undergo standard mandatory updates and revisions to reflect the anticipated growth within Santee. As such, impacts associated with exceedance in population growth from future development facilitated by the Proposed Project would be less than significant.
The Community Corridor Only Alternative would still exceed SANDAG’s projections for the City in 2045, but at a lesser extent than the Proposed Project. The Community Corridor Only Alternative’s buildout projections would exceed SANDAG’s planned growth projections for the City, resulting in approximately 4,6393 dwelling units, compared to the Proposed Projects projection of 5,6874 dwelling units. In addition, the Community Corridor Only Alternative would result in 4,048,0865 commercial square feet, compared to the Proposed Project’s projection of 5,348,8556 commercial square feet.
Although the Community Corridor Only Alternative’s buildout projections are still above SANDAG’s 2050 projections, under the Community Corridor Only Alternative, there would be 1,048 fewer dwelling units, as shown in Table 7-3.
Thus, the Community Corridor Only Alternative would result in impacts less than the Proposed Project related to substantial unplanned population growth.
The temporary displacement of some residents due to redevelopment of residential properties would occur throughout the Plan Area under the Community Corridor Only Alternative and the Proposed Project. However, both the Proposed Project and Community Corridor Only Alternative would accommodate development of additional dwelling units that are expected to increase the capacity for housing stock in the Plan Area. As such, any temporary 3 3,695 reflects the alternative density’s (du/ac) at realistic buildout. 4 5,687 reflects the Proposed Projects density (du/ac) at realistic buildout. 5 4,048,056 reflects the Community Corridor Only Alternatives projected commercial square footage at realistic buildout. 6 4,984,056 reflects the Community Corridor Only Alternatives projected commercial square footage at realistic buildout. 7 – ALTERNATIVES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 7-25
impacts associated with displacement would be offset by the anticipated increases in housing production, and impacts under both the Proposed Project and the Community Corridor Only Alternative would be less than significant. Therefore, impacts related to displacement under the Community Corridor Only Alternative would be similar to the Proposed Project.
Public Services
As discussed in Section 4.13 of this Draft PEIR, the Proposed Project would result in less-than-significant impacts for fire protection services, sheriff protection services, school services, parks, and library services. As provided in Table 7-3, the number of dwelling units under the Community Corridor Only Alternative would be less than the Proposed Project. As such, impacts related to fire protection services, sheriff protection services, school services, and library services would be less than significant. The Community Corridor Only Alternative would slightly reduce impacts to all public services. As such, impacts would be less than the Proposed Project.
Recreation
As discussed in Section 4.14 of this Draft PEIR, the Proposed Project would have less-than-significant impacts related to recreation. The existing park and recreation facilities in Santee would be able to accommodate both the Community Corridor Only Alternative buildout and the Proposed Project buildout. In addition, all future development, whether discretionary or by-right, would be required to pay in-lieu fees consistent with the Quimby Act and City Municipal Code Section 12.40 to fund additional park facilities within Santee. As such, given the reduced scope of development potential when compared to the Proposed Project and corresponding reduction in population, the Community Corridor Only Alternative would result in impacts less than the Proposed Project.
Transportation
The Community Corridor Only Alternative would not conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, similar to the Proposed Project. This alternative would not result in significant impacts related to the increase of design feature hazards, nor would a significant impact occur relative to inadequate emergency access, similar to the Proposed Project. Implementation of the Community Corridor Only Alternative would result in a reduced buildout. However, development or redevelopment would still occur at the main transit corridor of Mission Gorge Boulevard, but not along Mast Boulevard. Focusing development along these transportation corridors would reduce VMT by promoting the use of the City’s transportation infrastructure.
Therefore, the Community Corridor Only Alternative would be less effective at lowering VMT within Santee, and impacts would be more than the Proposed Project.
Tribal Cultural Resources
As described in Section 4.16 of this Draft PEIR, potential impacts to tribal cultural resources were found to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The Plan Area is urbanized and primarily developed; however, the anticipated future development and redevelopment activity would likely result in an increase in potential grounddisturbing activities. Ground-disturbing activities associated with development would still occur under the Community Corridor Only Alternative and could still result in impacts to tribal cultural resources. Buildout of the Community Corridor Only Alternative would result in a reduced overall density and reduced number of parcels where development could occur. Therefore, impacts resulting in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource under the Community Corridor Only Alternative would be less than the Proposed Project. 7 – ALTERNATIVES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 7-26
Utilities and Service Systems
As discussed in Section 4.17 of this Draft PEIR, the Proposed Project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to utilities and service systems. However, the Proposed Project would result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to wastewater treatment capacity. The Community Corridor Only Alternative would require less potable water, generate less wastewater, and generate less solid waste when compared to the Proposed Project due to the reduced buildout and development and redevelopment potential. Impacts related to cumulative wastewater treatment would be similar because the Community Corridor Only Alternative would still increase wastewater usage in the Plan Area. Overall, potential impacts under the Community Corridor Only Alternative would be less than the Proposed Project.
Wildfire
Under the Proposed Project, impacts would be less than significant relative to wildfire risks. The Plan Area is urbanized, with very little remaining areas of natural open space or other known wildland fire fuel sources.
However, the Community Corridor Only Alternative would result in reduced development and redevelopment in the Plan Area due to the reduced overall proposed density and fewer parcels proposed for development or redevelopment. Therefore, the Community Corridor Only Alternative would expose fewer people and structures to risks involving wildland fire. As such, under the Community Corridor Only Alternative, impacts would be less than the Proposed Project.
7.4.4 Alternative 4 – No Increased Density Alternative
7.4.4.1 Description of the Alternative
Under the No Increased Density Alternative, the Plan Area would continue to develop in accordance with the current General Plan’s existing land use designations and zoning, with amendments from the Housing Element Rezone Implementation Program and the Town Center Specific Plan. Buildout under the current 2003–2020 General Plan, Housing Element Rezone Implementation Program, and Town Center Specific Plan, would be less than the buildout facilitated by the Proposed Project. Implementation of the Land Use Element Update would still occur under this alternative; however, no changes to the existing land use would be implemented, and only the goals and policies and airport consistency would apply.
7.4.4.2 Ability to Meet Project Objectives
Under the No Increased Density Alternative, the City would not adopt a new development framework; however, new goals and policies from the Proposed Project would apply. As a result, the No Increased Density Alternative would substantially impact the City’s ability to meet Proposed Project objectives, and Objectives 1, 2, and 4 would not be met. Objective 3 could still be met, as the promotion of infill development could still occur absent the Proposed Project, particularly by the residential land use designations in the Town Center Specific Plan, which would allow different housing types for a range of household incomes in a central location in Santee. 7 – ALTERNATIVES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 7-27
7.4.4.3 Comparison of the Effects of the No Increased Density Alternative to the Proposed Project
Analysis for the No Increased Density Alternative is based on the 2003–2020 General Plan EIR (City of Santee 2003), Housing Element Rezone Program Implementation EIR (City of Santee 2022), and Town Center Specific Plan EIR (City of Santee 2024). Mitigation as proposed for implementation of the Proposed Project would not apply; however, mitigation identified in the EIR’s stated above would be applicable to the No Increased Density Alternative.
Aesthetics
As discussed in Section 4.1 of this Draft PEIR, the Proposed Project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to aesthetics. Similar to the Proposed Project, under the No Increased Density Alternative, impacts relative to scenic resource would be less than significant because development would be required to comply with the applicable objective design guidelines and performance standards, and policies protecting scenic resources. The No Increased Density Alternative would result in sources of shade/shadow, glare, and light to the Plan Area in a manner similar to the Proposed Project because development would still occur.
Overall, impacts to aesthetics would be less than significant under both the No Increased Density Alternative and Proposed Project conditions. However, under the No Increased Density Alternative, aesthetic impacts would be reduced compared to the Proposed Project due to the reduced buildout capacity and reduction of physical development. For this reason, aesthetic impacts under the No Increased Density Alternative would be less than the Proposed Project.
Air Quality
As discussed in Section 4.2 of this Draft PEIR, the Proposed Project would result in significant unavoidable impacts associated with cumulatively considerable increases of criteria air pollutants from construction-related activities, potential for inconsistencies with applicable air quality plans, and cumulatively considerable increases of criteria air pollutants from operation-related activities or toxic air contaminants that could contribute to significant impacts to nearby sensitive receptors. Under the No Increased Density Alternative, the Plan Area would experience reduced development/redevelopment when compared to the Proposed Project. The respective EIR’s of the 2003–2020 General Plan EIR, and the Housing Element Rezone Implementation Program EIR identified less-than-significant impacts with mitigation incorporated related to the air quality thresholds (City of Santee 2003, 2022). However, the Town Center Specific Plan identified significant and unavoidable impacts related to cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria air pollutants (City of Santee 2024).
Implementation of the No Increased Density Alternative would result in less development potential than those anticipated under the Proposed Project, resulting in less air pollutants associated with construction activity. In addition, the Proposed Project would result in an overall net increase of operational emissions that would exceed SDAPCD’s significant thresholds. Therefore, the Proposed Project would result in greater operational emissions due to increased VMT compared to the No Increased Density Alternative. As such, short-term construction impacts under the No Increased Density Alternative would be similar or less than the Proposed Project, and long-term operational impacts would be similar or less than the Proposed Project. 7 – ALTERNATIVES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 7-28
Biological Resources
As described in Section 4.3 of this Draft PEIR, the Proposed Project would result in less-than-significant impacts regarding biological resources and would require mitigation to reduce impacts regarding special-status plant and wildlife species, and riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities to less than significant. Future development under the No Increased Density Alternative, consistent with the 2003–2020 General Plan, the Housing Element Rezone Implementation Program, and the Town Center Specific Plan, would have the potential to impact special-status species, nesting birds/raptors, sensitive habitat, wetlands, and movement of wildlife.
However, through mitigation found in the respective EIR’s of the 2003–2020 General Plan, Housing Element Rezone Implementation, and Town Center Specific Plan, these impacts would be reduced to less than significant (City of Santee 2003, 2022, 2024). Development under both the No Increased Density Alternative and the Proposed Project would consist of infill development on previously disturbed parcels. The No Increased Density Alternative would result in less-dense development; however, the potential to impact biological resources would be similar to the Proposed Project. Thus, the No Increased Density Alternative would result in impacts similar to the Proposed Project.
Cultural Resources
As described in Section 4.4, the Proposed Project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to historic resources. Similar to the Proposed Project, the No Increased Density Alternative would result in development that involves ground-disturbing activities that could have the potential to result in significant impacts to cultural resources. However, as described in the respective EIR’s of the 2003–2020 General Plan, Housing Element Rezone Implementation Program, and the Town Center Specific Plan, impacts to cultural resources would be reduced to less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation measures (City of Santee 2003, 2022, 2024). The potential to disturb unknown cultural resources would be present for either project scenario. As such, impacts to cultural resources under the No Increased Density Alternative would be similar to the Proposed Project.
Energy
As described in Section 4.5 of this Draft PEIR, the Proposed Project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to (1) wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption energy resources, and (2) potential conflicts with a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Similar to the Proposed Project, implementation of the No Increased Density Alternative would increase the demand for electricity, natural gas, gasoline, and diesel consumption in the Plan Area during construction and operation of future development in accordance with approved plans. Under the No Increased Density Alternative, the scope of allowable development would be less than the Proposed Project, resulting in reduced consumption of energy resources under the No Increased Density Alternative.
Thus, impacts under the No Increased Density Alternative related to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during construction or operation would be less than those anticipated under the Proposed Project.
CCR Part 6 of Title 24 establishes energy efficiency standards for residential and nonresidential buildings constructed in California to reduce energy demand and consumption. Future development under both the Proposed Project and the No Increased Density Alternative would be subject to CCR Part 6 of Title 24, as well as all applicable rules and regulations presented in Section 4.5 of this Draft PEIR, including CALGreen, all of which of the would reduce energy demand and increase energy efficiency of future residential and nonresidential development.
Approval of the Proposed Project itself, as a policy document update, would not change or otherwise reduce the efficacy of existing regulations, and would not implement any policies or programs that would conflict with or 7 – ALTERNATIVES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 7-29
obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Therefore, impacts under the No Increased Density Alternative would be similar to the Proposed Project relative to the potential conflict or obstruction of a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
Geology and Soils
The No Increased Density Alternative would result in future development associated with buildout of the 2003– 2020 General Plan, Housing Element Rezone Implementation Program, and the Town Center Specific Plan. Any new development under the No Increased Density Alternative would be site-specific and would be exposed to existing geologic and soil conditions and hazards that would be unique to that property. As discussed in Section 4.6 of this Draft PEIR, Proposed Project-related impacts would be less than significant due to compliance with existing regulatory requirements and policies related to geotechnical hazards, such as seismic activity, ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, ground failure, soil expansion, and soil stability. Similar to the Proposed Project, the respective PEIR’s for the 2003–2020 General Plan, Housing Element Rezone Implementation Program, and the Town Center Specific Plan found impacts related to geology and soils to be less than significant (City of Santee 2003, 2022, 2024). Under the Proposed Project, impacts related to a paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature would be less than significant with incorporation of mitigation. The respective EIR’s for the 2003– 2020 General Plan, Housing Element Rezone Implementation Program, and the Town Center Specific Plan also require paleontological monitoring to mitigate impacts to paleontological resources (City of Santee 2003, 2022, 2024). Both the Proposed Project and the No Increased Density Alternative would require standard geotechnical practices, and the potential for development would occur at the Project Parcels in either scenario. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not increase the potential for soil erosion and geologic disturbance and impacts under the No Increased Density Alternative related to the geology and soils would be similar to the Proposed Project.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
As described in Section 4.7 of this Draft PEIR, the Proposed Project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to the generation of greenhouse gases (GHGs). The No Increased Density Alternative would generate cumulative GHG emissions with buildout of future development and would result in physical effects from climate change. As described in the EIR for the Housing Element Rezone Implementation Program, future development associated with the Housing Element Rezone would result in emissions inconsistent with the City’s Climate Action Plan, and these impacts would be significant and unavoidable (City of Santee 2022). The Town Center Specific Plan EIR determined that impacts from implementation of the Town Center Specific Plan would result in less-than-significant impacts, and the General Plan 2003–2020 EIR did not analyze impacts related to GHGs. Future development associated with the No Increased Density Alternative would result in the generation of less construction GHG emissions than the Proposed Project due to reduced development and redevelopment potential. Therefore, construction impacts under the No Increased Density Alternative related to the generation of GHGs would be less than the Proposed Project. Mobile source GHG emissions from operations would be reduced due to an overall reduction in VMT following implementation of the Proposed Project, because regional vehicle trips would be reduced from mixed-use development located near main transit corridors. The No Increased Density Alternative would result in less development and resulting stationary source operational emissions; however, new development of both the No Increased Density Alternative and the Proposed Project would be more efficient and have reduced emissions due to technological advancement and updated regulatory requirements. Therefore, impacts under the No Increased Density Alternative would be greater than the Proposed Project related to operational GHG emissions due to higher mobile source emissions. 7 – ALTERNATIVES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 7-30
The Proposed Project would not be consistent with all applicable plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, and impacts would be significant and unavoidable. Because the Housing Element Rezone Implementation Program determined a significant and unavoidable impact with respect to result in emissions that are inconsistent with existing plans, policies, and regulations, the No Increased Density Alternative would result in emissions that are inconsistent. Therefore, impacts associated with the No Increased Density Alternative related to consistency with adopted plans would be similar to the Proposed Project.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
As described in Section 4.8 of this Draft PEIR, the Proposed Project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials. Mitigation measures have been identified for the Proposed Project to reduce potentially significant impacts related to hazards to the public and the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, and sites included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.
Similar to the Proposed Project, implementation of the 2003–2020 General Plan, Housing Element Rezone Implementation Program, and the Town Center Specific Plan under the No Increased Density Alternative would result in less-than-significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials with mitigation measures (City of Santee 2003, 2022, 2024). The No Increased Density Alternative would still involve construction and potential hazardous and hazardous materials impacts; however, the scope of development potential under the No Increased Density Alternative would be less than the Proposed Project. Thus, the extent of potential impacts under the No Increased Density Alternative would be less than the Proposed Project.
Hydrology and Water Quality
As discussed in Section 4.9 of this Draft PEIR, the Proposed Project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to hydrology and water quality. Similarly, impacts to hydrology and water quality with implementation of the 2003–2020 General Plan, Housing Element Rezone Implementation Program, and the Town Center Specific Plan under the No Increased Density Alternative would be less than significant (City of Santee 2003, 2022, 2024). Under the No Increased Density Alternative, less buildout potential would occur when compared to the Proposed Project.
As such, impacts under the No Increased Density Alternative would be less than those anticipated under the Proposed Project.
Land Use and Planning
As discussed in Section 4.10 of this Draft PEIR, the Proposed Project would result in less-than-significant impacts associated with land use and planning. The No Increased Density Alternative would implement the existing 2003– 2020 General Plan, Housing Element Rezone Implementation Program, and the Town Center Specific Plan and would not result in impacts associated with conflicts with any land use plans, policies, or regulations, or the physical division of established communities, similar to the Proposed Project (City of Santee 2003, 2022, 2024).
However, the 2003–2020 General Plan was intended to guide development through the year 2020. Although the Housing Element Rezone Implementation Program aligns with the Regional Housing Needs Allocation, and the Town Center Specific Plan allows for updated planning in Santee’s town center, the current 2003–2020 General Plan land use element is outdated. Absent an update, the No Increased Density Alternative could result in development that is inconsistent with more current land use policies or growth projections. In contrast, the Proposed Project would extend the planning horizon through 2045 and integrate updated land use policies. Therefore, although both 7 – ALTERNATIVES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 7-31
scenarios would adhere to adopted plans at present, the Proposed Project would better ensure long-term consistency with evolving regional and state policies. Therefore, impacts associated with conflicts with adopted plan under the No Increased Density Alternative would be greater than the Proposed Project.
Noise
As discussed in Section 4.11 of this Draft PEIR, the Proposed Project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to proximity of construction vibration to sensitive uses. Impacts related to temporary construction noise, operational noise, rail noise, and groundborne vibrations would be less than significant with mitigation.
Impacts related to excessive noise within an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan area would be less than significant.
Under the No Increased Density Alternative, noise impacts would be less than significant pursuant to the Housing Element Rezone Implementation Program, significant and unavoidable pursuant to the Town Center Specific Plan EIR and the 2003–2020 General Plan EIR (City of Santee 2003, 2022, 2024). The No Increased Density Alternative would involve construction and operational noise impacts; however, the scope of development potential under the No Increased Density Alternative would be less than the Proposed Project. Therefore, the No Increased Density Alternative would result in a reduced amount of noise impacts. As such, impacts related to noise and vibration under the No Increased Density Alternative would be less than the Proposed Project.
Population and Housing
As discussed in Section 4.12 of this Draft PEIR, the Proposed Project and the existing 2003–2020 General Plan, Housing Element Rezone Implementation Program, and Town Center Specific Plan are documents that plan for future population growth, and therefore, would not result in substantial unplanned population growth. As such, impacts associated with exceedance in population growth from future development facilitated by the Proposed Project would be less than significant. Similarly, the respective EIR’s for the 2003–2020 General Plan, the Housing Element Rezone Implementation Program, and the Town Center Specific Plan concluded that impacts related to population and housing would be less than significant (City of Santee 2003, 2022, 2024). Under the No Increased Density Alternative, the Plan Area would continue to be built out under the existing land use designations and buildout projections, with the latest amendment in 2024 for the Town Center Specific Plan. In addition, regional and local plans (e.g., SANDAG’s regional forecasts and the City’s Housing Element) would undergo standard mandatory updates or revisions to reflect the anticipated growth within Santee. It is reasonable to assume; however, that the housing targets would not result in the population growth that the Proposed Project would facilitate by 2045, as the Proposed Project buildout assumptions exceed SANDAG’s Series 15 Regional Forecast (planned through the year 2050) population growth assumptions for the City. Therefore, because the No Increased Density Alternative would result in less dwelling units through 2045, the No Increased Density Alternative would result in impacts less than the Proposed Project related to substantial unplanned population growth.
The temporary displacement of some residents due to redevelopment of residential properties would occur throughout the Plan Area under the No Increased Density Alternative and the Proposed Project. Santee is mostly built out, and future development could result in the replacement of existing development. However, the Proposed Project would result in more redevelopment activity, resulting in more temporary displacement. The Proposed Project would also facilitate more dwelling units, including affordable dwelling units, which would reduce potential impacts related to displacement of people, but also result in a higher potential for environmental impacts to occur related to the construction and operation of new development/redevelopment. Therefore, impacts related to the potential displacement of people necessitating the construction of replacement housing under the No Increased Density Alternative would be less than the Proposed Project. 7 – ALTERNATIVES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 7-32
Public Services
As discussed in Section 4.13 of this Draft PEIR, the Proposed Project would result in less-than-significant impacts for fire protection services, sheriff protection services, school services, parks, and library services. According to the respective EIR’s of the 2003–2020 General Plan, the Housing Element Rezone Implementation Program, and the Town Center Specific Plan, the projects would result in less-than-significant impacts related to fire protection services, parks, and public libraries. Given the reduced scope of development potential and corresponding reduction in population when compared to the Proposed Project, impacts for fire protection services, sheriff protection services, school services, library services, and parks under the No Increased Density Alternative would result in impacts less than the Proposed Project.
Recreation
As discussed in Section 4.14 of this Draft PEIR, the Proposed Project would have less-than-significant impacts related to recreation. According to the respective EIR’s of the 2003–2020 General Plan, the Housing Element Rezone Implementation Program, and the Town Center Specific Plan, the projects would result in less-thansignificant impacts related to recreation. Given the reduced scope of development potential and corresponding reduction in population when compared to the Proposed Project, impacts for parks and recreational facilities under the No Increased Density Alternative would result in impacts less than the Proposed Project.
Transportation
As discussed in Section 4.15 of this Draft PEIR, potential impacts related to (1) conflicts with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy addressing circulation, transit, roadways, bicycles, and pedestrian activities; (2) hazards due to roadway design or incompatible uses; and (3) inadequate emergency access were determined to be less than significant. Potential impacts related to VMT (i.e., potential to conflict with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision [b]), would be significant and unavoidable. Similar to the Proposed Project, implementation of the No Increased Density Alternative, which would include continued implementation of the Housing Element Rezone Implementation Program, and the Town Center Specific Plan, would generally be consistent with applicable plans, ordinances, and policies addressing transportation, and would not create hazards due to roadway design/ incompatible uses, or result in inadequate emergency access conditions, and would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to VMT (City of Santee 2022, 2024). The 2003–2020 General Plan EIR identified lessthan-significant impacts; however, impacts related to VMT were not addressed.
Under the Proposed Project, it is reasonable to assume that the VMT per service population would be reduced due to the increased development potential along the City’s main transportation corridors. By concentrating growth near transportation corridors, the Proposed Project would encourage shorter trips and greater use of alternative transportation modes. In contrast, the No Increased Density Alternative would maintain existing land use patterns, likely resulting in more dispersed growth and longer trips, thereby generating higher VMT per-capita and per employee. Therefore, impacts related to VMT under the No Increased Density Alternative would be more than the Proposed Project.
Tribal Cultural Resources
As described in Section 4.16 of this Draft PEIR, potential impacts to tribal cultural resources were found to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Ground-disturbing activities associated with the buildout of existing planning documents would still occur under the No Project Alternative and could still result in impacts to tribal 7 – ALTERNATIVES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 7-33
cultural resources. Therefore, because ground disturbance would occur under both project scenarios, impacts resulting in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource under this alternative would be similar to the Proposed Project
Utilities and Service Systems
As discussed in Section 4.17 of this Draft PEIR, the Proposed Project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to utilities and service systems. The No Increased Density Alternative would require less potable water, generate less wastewater, and generate less solid waste when compared to the Proposed Project due to the reduced buildout and development/redevelopment potential. Impacts related to wastewater treatment capacity would be less than significant under the continued implementation of the 2003–2020 General Plan, the Housing Element Rezone Implementation Program, and the Town Center Specific Plan, because as described in the respective EIR’s for these projects, the facility is anticipated to have available capacity for the 2030 General Plan buildout projections (City of Santee 2003, 2022, 2024). As such, impacts under the No Increased Density Alternative would be less than the Proposed Project.
Wildfire
As discussed in Section 4.18 of this Draft PEIR, the Proposed Project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to wildfire risks. The Plan Area is urbanized, with very little remaining areas of natural open space or other known wildland fire fuel sources. The No Increased Density Alternative would allow development in areas within the Plan Area that are designated as VHFHSZs. All future development within VHFHSZ must comply with the policies of the City’s General Plan Safety and Environmental Justice Element that guide development in VHFHSZ, as well as requirements of the 2025 California Wildland-Urban Interface Code for fire protection requirements in WildlandUrban Interface areas and Fire Hazard Severity Zones. However, the No Increased Density Alternative would have the potential for more development within the more Wildland-Urban Interface areas and Fire Hazard Severity Zones than the Proposed Project because the development under the No Increased Density Alternative would occur outside the Project Parcels. Therefore, the No Increased Density Alternative could expose more people and structures to risks involving wildland fire. As such, under the No Increased Density Alternative, impacts would be greater than the Proposed Project.
7.5 Summary of Alternatives to the Proposed Project
As suggested in CEQA Section 15126.6(d), a matrix was prepared to summarize and compare the impacts of each alternative. Table 7-5 compares the impacts of the Proposed Project to the Alternatives Impacts.
Table 7-5. Comparison of Proposed Project and Alternatives Impacts Environmental Issue Area
Proposed
Project
No Project
Alternative
Reduced
Overall
Density
Alternative
Community
Corridor
Overlay Only
Alternative
No
Increased
Density
Alternative
4.1. Aesthetics LTS ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼
4.2. Air Quality SU ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼
4.3. Biological Resources LTSM = = ▼ =
4.4. Cultural Resources SU = = ▼ =
4.5. Energy LTS ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼
7 – ALTERNATIVES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 7-34
Table 7-5. Comparison of Proposed Project and Alternatives Impacts Environmental Issue Area
Proposed
Project
No Project
Alternative
Reduced
Overall
Density
Alternative
Community
Corridor
Overlay Only
Alternative
No
Increased
Density
Alternative
4.6. Geology and Soils LTSM = = ▼ =
4.7. Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
SU ▼ (local
emissions)
▲ (regional
emissions)
▼ ▼ ▼
4.8. Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
LTSM ▼ = ▼ ▼
4.9. Hydrology and Water
Quality
LTS ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼
4.10. Land Use and Planning LTS ▲ = = ▲
4.11. Noise SU ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼
4.12. Population and
Housing
LTS ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼
4.13. Public Services LTS ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼
4.14. Recreation LTS ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼
4.15. Transportation LTS ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼
4.16. Tribal Cultural
Resources
LTSM ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼
4.17. Utilities and Service
Systems
SU ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼
4.18. Wildfire LTS ▼ ▼ ▼ ▲
Notes: NI = no impact; LTS = less-than-significant impact; LTSM = less than significant with mitigation; SU = significant and unavoidable impact; Eliminate = Alternative would eliminate a SU impact. = Alternative is likely to result in similar impacts when compared to the Proposed Project. ▼ Alternative is likely to result in reduced impacts when compared to the Proposed Project. ▲ Alternative is likely to result in greater impacts when compared to the Proposed Project.
7.6 Environmentally Superior Alternative
An EIR must identify an “environmentally superior” alternative, and, where the No Project Alternative is environmentally superior, the EIR is then required to identify an alternative from among the others evaluated as environmentally superior (14 CCR 15126.6[e][2]).
As shown in Table 7-5, the No Project Alternative, Reduced Overall Density Alternative, and Community Corridor Only Alternative would all result in reduced impacts compared to the Proposed Project, including reduced impacts to aesthetics, air quality, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, tribal cultural resources, utilities and service systems, and wildfire. The reduced development and redevelopment under the Community Corridor Only Alternative would result in a more environmentally superior alternative when compared to the Proposed Project and when compared to the No Project Alternative due to reduced environmental impacts and the ability for more Proposed Project objectives to be met.
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 8-1
8 References
Executive Summary
No references
Chapter 1: Introduction
No references
Chapter 2: Environmental Setting
CARB (California Air Resources Board). 2022. “2022 Scoping Plan Documents.” December 2022. Accessed December 23, 2025. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/2022-scoping-plan-documents.
CARB. 2025. “About.” Accessed December 23, 2025. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/about.
City of Santee. 2003. “Introduction.” In the Santee General Plan. Accessed January 2026. https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/documents/planning-building/general-plan/gp-introduction.pdf.
City of Santee. 2019. Sustainable Santee Plan: The City’s Roadmap to Greenhouse Gas Reductions. December 2019. Accessed January 2026. https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/documents/planning-building/ sustainable-santee-plan.pdf.
City of Santee. 2021. Active Santee Plan. January 2021. Accessed January 2026. https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/ documents/engineering/traffic-street-light-signals/active-santee-plan.pdf.
City of Santee. 2022. City of Santee Housing Element Sixth Cycle 2021-2029. Adopted May 11, 2022. Accessed January 2026. https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/documents/planning-building/general-plan/ gp-housing-element.pdf.
City of Santee. 2025a. City of Santee Municipal Code. Accessed June 2025. https://ecode360.com/43755273#43755273.
City of Santee. 2025b. Town Center Specific Plan. March 12, 2025. Accessed January 2026. https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/documents/planning-building/town-center-specific-plan/ town-center-specific-plan-march-2025-adopted.pdf.
City of Santee. 2025c. Public Review Draft, Santee MSCP Subarea Plan. August 2025. Accessed October 2025. https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/documents/planning-building/active-projects/mscp-subarea-plan/ santee-subarea-plan-prd.pdf.
County of San Diego. 2011. San Diego County General Plan: A Plan For Growth, Conservation, and Sustainability.
August 2011. Accessed December 2025. https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/pds/docs/ GP/GENERAL%20PLAN_April2022_PRINT.pdf.
8 – REFERENCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 8-2
County of San Diego – Registrar of Voters. 2020. “City of Santee Measure N.” November 2020. Accessed December 2025. https://www.sdvote.com/content/dam/rov/en/election/4182-Nov-2020/ Measures/Measure_N.pdf.
SANDAG (San Diego Association of Governments). 2021. 2021 Regional Plan. December 2021. Accessed December 2025. https://www.sandag.org/-/media/SANDAG/Documents/PDF/regional-plan/ 2021-regional-plan/final-2021-regional-plan/final-2021-regional-plan-flipbook.pdf.
SANDAG. 2024. SANGIS Accessor Parcel Data. https://geo.sandag.org/server/rest/services/Hosted/ Parcels/FeatureServer.
SANDAG. 2025a. “About.” Accessed December 2025. https://www.sandag.org/about.
SANDAG. 2025b. 2025 Regional Plan. December 2025. Accessed December 2025. https://www.sandag.org/regional-plan/2025-regional-plan.
SDAPCD (San Diego Air Pollution Control District). 2020. 2020 Plan for Attaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone in San Diego County. October 2020. Accessed December 025. https://www.sdapcd.org/ content/dam/sdapcd/documents/grants/planning/Att%20A%20(Attainment%20Plan)_ws.pdf.
SDCRAA (San Diego County Regional Airport Authority). 2010. Gillespie Field Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
Adopted January 25, 2010; amended December 20, 2010. Accessed January 2026. https://www.san.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Gillespie-Field-Airport.pdf.
Chapter 3: Project Description
City of Santee. 2022. City of Santee Housing Element Sixth Cycle 2021-2029. Adopted May 11, 2022. Accessed January 2026. https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/documents/planning-building/general-plan/ gp-housing-element.pdf.
Dugal, D. 2026. “Santee GIS parcel data.” Email from D. Dugal (City of Santee) to E. Seklecki (Dudek) and M. Mattson (City of Santee). January 15, 2026.
OPR (Governor’s Office of Planning and Research). 2017. State of California General Plan Guidelines. Accessed January 2026. https://lci.ca.gov/docs/OPR_COMPLETE_7.31.17.pdf.
SANDAG (San Diego Association of Governments). 2024. “Series 15 Regional Growth Forecast.” August 23, 2024.
Accessed January 2026. https://adlsdasadsprodpublicwest.z22.web.core.windows.net/datasurfer/ series_15_regional_growth_forecast_one_pagers.pdf.
SANDAG. 2025. 2025 Regional Plan. December 2025. Accessed January 2026. https://www.sandag.org/regional-plan/2025-regional-plan.
SANGIS (San Diego Geographic Information Source). 2025. “SANGIS Interactive Map.” Accessed December 2025. https://www.sangis.org/pages/interactive-map.
8 – REFERENCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 8-3
Chapter 4: Environmental Analysis
No references
Section 4.1: Aesthetics
California Department of Finance. 2025. “E-1 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State — January 1, 2024 and 2025. Accessed October 15, 2025. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/ demographics/estimates-e1/.
Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2008. Scenic Highways Guidelines. Landscape Architecture Project, Division of Design.
Caltrans. 2026. “California State Scenic Highway Map.” Accessed January 27, 2026. https://dot.ca.gov/ programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways.
City of Santee. 2003. Santee General Plan. Adopted August 27, 2003. City of Santee Planning and Building Department. https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/departments/planning-building/planning.
City of Santee. 2022. City of Santee VMT Analysis Guidelines. Prepared by Fehr & Peers. April 13, 2022. Accessed January 2026. https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/documents/engineering/traffic-street-light-signals/ santee-vmt-analysis-guidelines.pdf.
Section 4.2: Air Quality
CAPCOA (California Air Pollution Control Officers Association). 2022. CalEEMod User Guide Version 2022.1. April 2022. Accessed January 2026. https://www.caleemod.com/documents/user-guide/ CalEEMod_User_Guide_v2022.1.pdf.
CARB (California Air Resources Board). 2000. Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles. October 2000. Accessed January 2026. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ sites/default/files/classic/diesel/documents/rrpfinal.pdf.
CARB. 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. April 2005. Accessed January 2026. https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/california-air-resources-board-airquality-and-land-use-handbook-a-community-health-perspective.pdf.
CARB. 2024a. “Table of Ambient Air Quality Standards.” July 2024. Accessed January 2026. ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2024-08/AAQS%20Table_ADA_FINAL_07222024.pdf.
CARB. 2024b. 2023 Revision to the California State Implementation Plan for Carbon Monoxide, Updated Maintenance Plan for Three Federal Planning Areas. February 9, 2024. Accessed January 2026. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2024-02/2023%20Revision%20to%20the%20California% 20State%20Implementation%20Plan%20for%20Carbon%20Monoxide%20Final.pdf.
CARB. 2025a. “Overview: Diesel Exhaust and Health.” Accessed December 2025. https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/diesel/diesel-health.htm. 8 – REFERENCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 8-4
CARB. 2025b. “Ambient Air Quality Data – Top 4 Summary” [digital CARB data]. iADAM: Air Quality Data Statistics.
Accessed December 2025. https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfour1.php.
CDIR (California Department of Industrial Relations). 2025. “Protection from Valley Fever.” Updated July 2025.
Accessed December 2025. https://www.dir.ca.gov/dosh/valley-fever-home.html.
CDPH (California Department of Public Health). 2013. “Preventing Work-Related Coccidioidomycosis (Valley Fever).” June 2013. Accessed December 2025. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/DEODC/ OHB/HESIS/CDPH%20Document%20Library/CocciFact.pdf.
CDPH. 2024. “Valley Fever in California Year-end Data Dashboard.” Accessed December 2025. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/ValleyFeverDashboard.aspx.
City of Inglewood. 2020. Inglewood Basketball and Entertainment Center Project Final EIR. June 2020. Accessed December 2025. https://files.ceqanet.lci.ca.gov/60191-3/attachment/6NosPWFkp4ai7IX9nOzV4AZ6XQv_ GtPKWhuHLDX82ZNODAYJUgeUyJdEvi71BcExgblPYifNHs4GYuNF0.
City of Moreno Valley. 2019. Draft Recirculated Sections of the Final Environmental Impact Report. Appendix A-2:
Highland Fairview World Logistics Center Additional Information Regarding Potential Health Effects of Air Quality Impacts. https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2012021045/6.
City of San Jose. 2019. Mineta San Jose Airport Supplemental Air Quality Impacts Analysis. October 2019.
Accessed December 2025. https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/ 61650/637304476589170000.
City of Santee. 2003. Santee General Plan. Adopted August 27, 2003. City of Santee Planning Department. https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/departments/planning-building/planning.
County of Fresno. 2010. Final Environmental Impact Report for the Friant Community Plan Update & Friant Ranch Specific Plan. August 2010. Accessed December 2025. https://www.fresnocountyca.gov/files/ sharedassets/county/v/1/vision-files/files/14248-friant-ranch-final-eir.pdf.
County of San Diego. 2007. Guidelines for Determining Significance and Report Format Content Requirements:
Air Quality. March 2007. Accessed December 2025. http://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/ pds/ProjectPlanning/docs/AQ-Guidelines.pdf.
CSU Dominguez Hills (California State University, Dominguez Hills). 2019. California State University Dominguez Hills Campus Master Plan EIR. September 2019. Accessed December 2025. https://www.csudh.edu/Assets/ csudh-sites/fpdc/docs/campus-master-plan/2019/final-environmental-impact-report-09-11-19.pdf.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2008. Final Ozone NAAQS Regulatory Impact Analysis.
EPA-452/R-08-003. March 2008. Accessed December 2025. https://www3.epa.gov/ ttnecas1/regdata/RIAs/452_R_08_003.pdf.
EPA. 2016. Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen – Health Criteria. EPA/600/R-15/068.
January 2016. Accessed December 2025. https://www.epa.gov/isa/integrated-scienceassessment-isa-oxides-nitrogen-health-criteria. 8 – REFERENCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 8-5
EPA. 2017. “Carbon Pollution Standards for Cars and Light Trucks to Remain Unchanged Through 2025.” January 13, 2017. Accessed December 2025. https://www.epa.gov/archive/epa/newsreleases/ carbon-pollution-standards-cars-and-light-trucks-remain-unchanged-through-2025.html.
EPA. 2019. Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter. EPA/600/R-19/188. December 2019. Accessed December 2025. https://www.epa.gov/isa/integrated-science-assessment-isa-particulate-matter.
EPA. 2020. Integrated Science Assessment of Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants. EPA/600R-20/012.
April 2020. Accessed December 2025. https://www.epa.gov/isa/integrated-science-assessment-isaozone-and-related-photochemical-oxidants.
EPA. 2023. Environmental Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program – Community Edition User’s Manual.
March 2023. Accessed December 2025. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-04/ documents/benmap-ce_user_manual_march_2015.pdf.
EPA. 2025. “Monitor Values Report.” Last updated March 28, 2025. Accessed December 2025. https://www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data/monitor-values-report.
March JPA (March Joint Powers Association). 2019. K4 Warehouse and Cactus Channel Improvements EIR.
NRC (National Research Council). 2005. Interim Report of the Committee on Changes in New Source Review Programs for Stationary Sources of Air Pollutants. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/11208.
SCAQMD (South Coast Air Quality Management District). 2015. “Brief of Amicus Curiae in Support of Neither Party, Sierra Club v. County of Fresno, Case No. S219783” (filed Apr. 13, 2015). https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/9-s219783-ac-south-coast-air-quality-mgt-dist-041315.pdf.
SDAPCD (San Diego Air Pollution Control District). 1976. “Rules and Regulations. Regulation IV. Prohibitions.
Rule 51. Nuisance.” Effective November 8, 1976. Accessed December 2025. https://www.sdapcd.org/content/dam/sdapcd/documents/rules/current-rules/Rule-51.pdf.
SDAPCD. 1997. “Rules and Regulations. Regulation IV. Prohibitions. Rule 50. Visible Emissions.” Effective August 13, 1997. Accessed December 2025. https://www.sdapcd.org/content/dam/sdapcd/documents/ rules/current-rules/Rule-50.pdf.
SDAPCD. 2005. Measures to Reduce Particulate Matter in San Diego County. December 2005. Accessed December 2025. https://www.sdapcd.org/content/dam/sdapcd/documents/grants/planning/ PM-Measures.pdf.
SDAPCD. 2009. ”Rules and Regulations. Regulation IV. Prohibitions. Rule 55. Fugitive Dust.” Adopted June 24, 2009; effective December 24, 2009. Accessed December 2025. https://www.sdapcd.org/content/ dam/sdapcd/documents/rules/current-rules/Rule-55.pdf.
SDAPCD. 2016a. 2008 Eight-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan for San Diego County. Updated December 2016.
Accessed December 2025. https://www.sdapcd.org/content/dam/sdapcd/documents/ grants/planning/8-Hour-O3-Attain-Plan.pdf.
8 – REFERENCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 8-6
SDAPCD. 2016b. “SDAPCD Regulation II: Permits; Rule 20.2: New Source Review—Non-Major Sources.” January 29, 2016. Accessed October 2017. Accessed December 2025. https://www.sdapcd.org/content/ dam/sdapcd/documents/rules/current-rules/Rule-20.2.pdf.
SDAPCD. 2020. 2020 Plan for Attaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone in San Diego County. October 2020. Accessed December 2025. https://www.sdapcd.org/content/dam/ sdapcd/documents/grants/planning/Att%20A%20(Attainment%20Plan)_ws.pdf.
SDAPCD. 2021. “Rule 67.0.1 Architectural Coatings.” Rev. Adopted February 10, 2021, Effective January 1, 2022. Accessed December 2025. https://www.sdapcd.org/content/dam/ sdapcd/documents/rules/current-rules/Rule-67.0.1-eff010122.pdf.
SDAPCD. 2022. Supplemental Guidelines for Submission of Air Toxics ‘Hot Spots’ Program Health Risk Assessments (HRAs). July 2022. Accessed December 2025. https://www.sdapcd.org/content/ dam/sdapcd/documents/permits/air-toxics/Hot-Spots-Guidelines.pdf.
SDAPCD. 2023. 2022 Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS). March 9, 2023. Accessed December 2025. https://www.sdapcd.org/content/dam/sdapcd/documents/grants/planning/ Att.%20A%20-%202022%20RAQS.pdf.
SDAPCD. 2025a. Annual Air Quality Monitoring Network Report 2024. May 30, 2025. Accessed December 2025. https://www.sdapcd.org/content/dam/sdapcd/documents/monitoring/2024-Network-Report.pdf.
SDAPCD. 2025b. “Attainment Status.” Accessed December 2025. https://www.sdapcd.org/content/ sdapcd/planning/attainment-status.html.
SDSU (San Diego State University). 2019. San Diego State University Mission Valley Campus Master Plan EIR Additional Information Regarding Potential Health Effects of Air Quality Impacts. December 2019.
Sierra Club v. County of Fresno. 2018. Case No. S219783. December 24, 2018. Accessed December 2025. https://supreme.courts.ca.gov/case/s219783-sierra-club-v-county-fresno-friant-ranch.
SJVAPCD (San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District). 2015. “Brief of Amicus Curiae in Support of Defendant And Respondent, County Of Fresno, And Real Party In Interest And Respondent, Friant Ranch, L.P., Sierra Club v. County of Fresno, Case No. S219783” (filed Apr. 13, 2015). Accessed December 2025. https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/7-s219783-ac-san-joaquin-valley-unified-air-pollution-control-dist041315.pdf.
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2000. “Operational Guidelines (version 1.0) for Geological Fieldwork in Areas 1 Endemic for Coccidioidomycosis (Valley Fever).” USGS Open-File Report 00-348, Version 1.0. Accessed December 2025. https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2000/0348/pdf/of00-348.pdf.
Winderfinder. 2025. “Annual Wind and Weather Statistics for Mission Trails.” Accessed December 2025. https://www.windfinder.com/windstatistics/mission_trails.
WRCC (Western Regional Climate Center). 2016. “El Cajon (042706) Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary.” Accessed December 2025. https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca2706. 8 – REFERENCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 8-7
Section 4.3: Biological Resources
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/documentcentral/planning-building/general-plan.
City of Santee. 2020. Santee Municipal Code. https://library.qcode.us/lib/santee_ca/pub/municipal_code/ item/title_8-chapter_8_06.
City of Santee. 2025. Draft 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.
CNPS (California Native Plant Society). 2025. “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/.
Nafis, G. 2025. “A Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of California.” Accessed September 2025. http://www.californiaherps.com/.
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.
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.
8 – REFERENCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 8-8
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://www.nrcs.usda.gov/publications/query-by-state.html.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2025. “GIS Species Occurrence Data.” Accessed September 2025. https://www.fws.gov/media/gis-species-occurrence-data-0.
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.
Section 4.4: Cultural Resources
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, Nevada.
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. Heizer, 550–563. Washington, DC: 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.
Brown, Christian N. 1958. “Hey-Day of the N.C.&O.” The Journal of San Diego History. San Diego Historical Society Quarterly. April 1958, Vol. 4, No. 2. https://sandiegohistory.org/journal/1958/april/heyday/#:~:text= The%20National%20City%20&%20Otay%20Railway%20(N.C.&O.),**Fourth%20Avenue**%20*%20** Eighteenth%20and%20Twenty%2Dfourth%20Streets**.
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. 8 – REFERENCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 8-9
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. 2025. “Santee: A Look at the Past.” Courtesy of the Santee Historical Society. Accessed October 17, 2025. https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/our-community/about-santee/history.
City of Santee. 2025. “Safety and Environmental Justice Element.” Santee General Plan. Adopted May 2025.
Accessed September 2025. https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/documents/planning-building/generalplan/gp-safety-element.pdf.
County of San Diego. 2007. Guidelines for Determining Significance, Cultural Resources: Archaeological and Historic Resources. Land Use and Environment Group, Department of Planning and Land Use, Department of Public Works, San Diego County, California.
County of San Diego. 2025. “Airport’s History.” Accessed October 17, 2025. https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/ content/sdc/dpw/airports/airportsmain/history.html#par_image_2.
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.
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.
8 – REFERENCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 8-10
Harpster, David. 1993. “Santee’s Past Recalled as it Marks 100 Years.” GenealogyBank.com: San Diego UnionTribune (San Diego, California). May 27, 1993. Pg. 14.
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, DC: Smithsonian Institution.
Laylander, D. 1985. Some Linguistic Approaches to Southern California’s Prehistory. San Diego State University Cultural Resource Management Casual Papers 2(1): 14–58.
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, DC: Smithsonian Institution.
NETR (Nationwide Environmental Title Research LLC). 2025a. Historic Topographic Maps of Santee, CA, dating from 1893, 1897, 1901, 1903, 1909, 1916, 1930, 1941, 1942, 1947, 1955, 1956, 1959, 1964, 1969, 1975, 1976, 1978, 1986, 2001, 2012, 2015, 2018, and 2021. Accessed October 17, 2025. https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer.
NETR. 2025b. Historic Aerial Photographs of Santee, CA, dating from 1953, 1964, 1966, 1968, 1971, 1978, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, 2019, 2020, and 2022.
Accessed October 17, 2025. https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer.
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.
8 – REFERENCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 8-11
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.
SSD (Santee School District). 2025. “Santee School District History.” Accessed October 17, 2025. https://www.santeesd.net/district/santee_school_district_history.
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.
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. 8 – REFERENCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 8-12
Weeks, K.D., and A.E. Grimmer. 1995. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatments of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitation, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resource Stewardship and Partnerships, Heritage Preservation Services.
Wilken, M. 2012. “An Ethnobotany of Baja California’s Kumeyaay Indians.” Master’s thesis; San Diego State University.
Section 4.5: Energy
CEC (California Energy Commission). 2025a. “Electricity Consumption.” Accessed December 2025. https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/california-energyconsumption-dashboards-0.
CEC. 2025b. “Natural Gas Consumption.” Accessed December 2025. https://www.energy.ca.gov/datareports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/california-energy-consumption-dashboards-1.
CEC. 2025c. “2025 California Energy Code Fact Sheet.” Accessed December 2025. https://www.energy.ca.gov/ sites/default/files/2024-09/2025_California_Energy_Code_Fact_Sheet_ada.pdf.
CPUC (California Public Utilities Commission). 2025. “Natural Gas and California.” Accessed December 2025. http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/natural_gas/.
EIA (U.S. Energy Information Administration). 2025a. “California State Energy Profile.” Last updated May 15, 2025.
Accessed December 2025. https://www.eia.gov/state/print.php?sid=CA.
EIA. 2025b. “Natural Gas Consumption by End Use.” Last updated April 30, 2025. Accessed December 2025. https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_cons_sum_a_EPG0_VC0_mmcf_a.htm.
EIA. 2025c. “Total Petroleum Consumption Estimates, 2023.” Accessed December 2025. https://www.eia.gov/ state/seds/data.php?incfile=/state/seds/sep_fuel/html/fuel_use_pa.html&sid=US&sid=CA.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2025. “Overview of the Renewable Fuel Standard Program.” Last updated May 7, 2025. Accessed December 2025. https://www.epa.gov/renewable-fuel-standard/ overview-renewable-fuel-standard-program.
SDG&E (San Diego Gas and Electric Company). 2022. “2022 Individual Integrated Resource Plan of San Diego Gas and Electric Company (U 902 E).” November 1, 2022. Accessed December 2025. https://www.sdge.com/ sites/default/files/regulatory/SDG%26E%202022%20Individual%20Integrated%20Resource%20Plan% 20%28PUBLIC%29_0.pdf.
SDG&E. 2025. “2024 Power Content Label.” October 2025. Accessed December 2025. https://www.sdge.com/ sites/default/files/documents/2025-10/2024_PCL_SAN_DIEGO_GAS%20_ELECTRIC_COMPANY.pdf.
The Climate Registry. 2025. “Default Emission Factors.” Accessed December 2025. https://theclimateregistry.org/ wp-content/uploads/2025/03/2025-Default-Emission-Factors-03-2025.pdf. 8 – REFERENCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 8-13
Section 4.6: Geology and Soils
CGS and USGS (California Geological Survey and U.S. Geological Survey). 2013. “Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act.” Accessed November 2025. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/CGS/rghm/ap/.
City of Santee. 2003. Santee General Plan. Adopted August 27, 2003. https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/ departments/planning-building/planning.
City of Santee. 2025. “Safety and Environmental Justice Element.” Santee General Plan. Adopted May 2025.
Accessed September 2025. https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/documents/planning-building/ general-plan/gp-safety-element.pdf.
Cohen, K.M., S.C. Finney, P.L. Gibbard, and J.-X. Fan. 2024. “The ICS International Chronostratigraphic Chart.” Episodes 36: 199-204. https://stratigraphy.org/ICSchart/ChronostratChart2024-12.pdf.
County of San Diego. 2009. Guidelines for Determining Significance: Paleontological Resources. San Diego, California: County of San Diego Land Use and Environment Group, Department of Planning and Land Use, Department of Public Works. Approved March 19, 2007; modified January 15, 2009.
Deméré, T.A., and S.L. Walsh. 2011. “Paleontological Resources County of San Diego California.” Department of Paleontology San Diego Natural History Museum. Published 1993; revised November 7, 2011.
DOC (Department of Conservation). 2025. California Geological Survey. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation.
Accessed September 2025. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/eqzapp/.
DOI (Department of Interior). 2000. Report of the Secretary of the Interior – Fossils on Federal & Indian Lands.
May 2000. Accessed November 2025. https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/Assessment%20of% 20Fossil%20Management%20on%20Federal%20%26%20Indian%20Lands.pdf.
ICC (International Code Council). 2025. “2025 California Building Code Volumes 1 and 2, Title 24, Part 2.” Accessed November 2025. https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/CABC2025P1.
Kennedy, M.P. and S.S. Tan. 2008. “Geologic map of the San Diego 30' x 60' quadrangle, California” [map]. 1:100,000. California Geological Survey, Regional Geologic Map No. 3.
Todd, V.R., R.M. Alvarez, and Techni Graphic Systems, Inc. 2004. “Preliminary Geologic Map of the El Cajon 30' X 60' Quadrangle, Southern California” [map]. 1:100,000. U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report OF-2004-1361.
Section 4.7: Greenhouse Gas Emissions
CAPCOA (California Air Pollution Control Officers Association). 2008. “CEQA & Climate Change: Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act.” CARB (California Air Resources Board). 2014. First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan Building on the Framework Pursuant to AB 32 – The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. May 2014. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/scopingplan/2013_update/first_update_ climate_change_scoping_plan.pdf.
8 – REFERENCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 8-14
CARB. 2017a. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. January 20, 2017. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf.
CARB. 2017b. Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy. March 2017. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/final_SLCP_strategy.pdf.
CARB. 2022. 2022 Scoping Plan Update. December 2022. Last Accessed June 2024. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ our-work/programs/ab-32-climate-change-scoping-plan/2022-scoping-plan-documents.
CARB. 2025a. California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2023—Trends of Emissions and Other Indicators. November 4, 2025. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2025-11/ nc-2000_2023_ghg_inventory_trends.pdf.
CEC (California Energy Commission). 2024. “2025 California Energy Code Fact Sheet.” September 2024. https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2024-09/2025_California_Energy_Code_Fact_Sheet_ada.pdf.
City of Santee. 2019a. Sustainable Santee Plan: The City’s Roadmap to Greenhouse Gas Reductions. December 2019. https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/documents/planning-building/sustainable-santee-plan.pdf.
City of Santee. 2019b. “Sustainable Santee Action Plan Consistency and Implementation Tracking Checklist.” December 2019. https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/departments/city-clerk/document-central/planningbuilding%5Cactive-projects%5Cukrainian-catholic-church%5Catt-g-sustainable-santee.pdf.
CNRA (California Natural Resources Agency). 2009. Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action:
Amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines Addressing Analysis and Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Pursuant to SB 97. December 2009. https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/ pds/ceqa/JVR/AdminRecord/IncorporatedByReference/Section-3-1-3---Greenhouse-Gas-EmissionsReferences/CNRA%202009%20Final_Statement_of_Reasons.pdf.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2025a. “Overview of Greenhouse Gases.” Last updated January 16, 2025. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases.
EPA. 2025b. “Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund.” Last updated September 30, 2025. Accessed October 2025. https://www.epa.gov/greenhouse-gas-reduction-fund/about-greenhouse-gas-reduction-fund.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 1995. Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change.
Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_sar_wg_I_ full_report.pdf.
IPCC. 2007. “Summary for Policymakers.” In Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, edited by S.
Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and H.L. Miller, 1–18. A report of Working Group I of the IPCC. New York, New York: Cambridge University Press. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf.
IPCC. 2014. Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report: A Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full_wcover.pdf. 8 – REFERENCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 8-15
OPR (Governor’s Office of Planning and Research). 2008. “CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review.” June 19, 2008. https://opr.ca.gov/ceqa/docs/20210720-june08-ceqa.pdf.
SANDAG (San Diego Association of Governments). 2025. 2025 Regional Plan. December 2025. https://www.sandag.org/~/-/media/C26FA38C209D483DAC75C9D1E57A2AD1.ashx.
SCAQMD (South Coast Air Quality Management District). 2010. “Greenhouse Gas CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group Meeting #15.” September 28, 2010. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/ default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa-significance-thresholds/ year-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-15/ghg-meeting-15-main-presentation.pdf?sfvrsn=2.
Section 4.8: Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Santee. 2003. Santee General Plan. Adopted August 27, 2003. https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/departments/planning-building/planning.
City of Santee. 2023. Hazard Mitigation Plan. Accessed October 2025. https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/ content/dam/sdc/oes/emergency_management/HazMit/2023/2023%20City%20of%20Santee% 20Haz%20Mit%20Annex_Final%20.pdf.
City of Santee. 2025. “Safety and Environmental Justice Element.” Santee General Plan. Adopted May 2025.
Accessed September 2025. https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/documents/planning-building/ general-plan/gp-safety-element.pdf.
DOC (Department of Conservation). 2025. California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) Well Finder.
Accessed November 2025. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/wellfinder/.
DTSC (Department of Toxic Substances Control). 2025. EnviroStor. Accessed October 2025. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=Santee.
NPMS (National Pipeline Mapping System). 2025. NPMS Public Viewer. Accessed November 2025. https://pvnpms.phmsa.dot.gov/PublicViewer/.
SDCRAA (San Diego County Regional Airport Authority). 2010. Gillespie Field Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
Adopted January 25, 2010. Amended December 20, 2010. Accessed November 2025. https://www.san.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Gillespie-Field-Airport.pdf.
SDCRAA. 2011. MCAS Miramar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Adopted October 2008. Amended December 2010 and November 2011. Accessed November 2025. https://www.san.org/wp-content/uploads/ 2025/08/MCAS-Miramar-Airport-Land-Use-Compatibility-Plan.pdf.
SWRCB (State Water Resources Control Board). 2025. GeoTracker. Accessed October 2025. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=Santee. 8 – REFERENCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 8-16
Section 4.9: Hydrology and Water Quality
City of Santee. 2003a. Santee General Plan. Adopted August 27, 2003. https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/departments/planning-building/planning.
City of Santee. 2003b. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Santee General Plan Update.
June 6, 2003. Accessed October 20, 2025. https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/departments/city-clerk/ document-central/planning-building/general-plan/santee-general-plan-feir.pdf.
City of Santee. 2015. City of Santee Guidelines for Surface Water Pollution Prevention. June 2015. Accessed January 29, 2026. https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/documents/engineering/storm-water/ general/guidelines-for-swpp.pdf.
City of Santee. 2016. BMP Design Manual for Permanent Site Design, Storm Water Treatment and Hydromodification Management. February 2016. Accessed October 2025. https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/documents/ engineering/storm-water/regulations-plans-reports/bmp-design-manual.pdf.
City of Santee. 2021. Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management Program. July 2, 2021. Accessed October 2025. https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/documents/engineering/storm-water/regulations-plans-reports/ santee-jurmp.pdf.
City of Santee. 2023. Adopted Capital Improvement Program, Fiscals Years 2024-28. Adopted June 28, 2023.
Accessed October 2025. https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/documents/finance/financial-reports-city-budget/ adopted-capital-improvment-program.pdf.
City of Santee. 2025. “Safety and Environmental Justice Element.” Santee General Plan. Adopted May 2025.
Accessed September 2025. https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/documents/planning-building/ general-plan/gp-safety-element.pdf.
DWR (California Department of Water Resources). 2025a. Dam Breach Inundation Map Web Publisher. Accessed October 2025. https://fmds.water.ca.gov/webgis/?appid=dam_prototype_v2.
DWR. 2025b. “Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA).” Accessed October 2025. https://water.ca.gov/sgma.
San Diego RWQCB (Regional Water Quality Control Board – San Diego Region). 2021. Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin. September 1, 2021. Accessed October 2025. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sandiego/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/.
SDCWA (San Diego County Water Authority). 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. May 2021. Accessed October 2025. https://www.sdcwa.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/2020-UWMP_Final-Print-VersionJuly-2021-1.pdf.
Section 4.10: Land Use and Planning
City of Santee. 2017. “General Plan Land Use Map.” Adopted August 2002. Updated July 2017. Accessed January 2026. https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/documents/planning-building/general-plan/gp-land-use-map.pdf. 8 – REFERENCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 8-17
City of Santee. 2025a. Town Center Specific Plan. March 2025. Accessed October 2025. https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/planning/town-center-specific-plan.
City of Santee. 2025b. Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Santee MSCP Subarea Plan. August 2025.
Accessed January 2025. https://files.ceqanet.lci.ca.gov/286302-2/attachment/ RLakJTLo4lNnzwRLQiBtcaHAErNRuorsaOOnbKBFXQn0ruEwm4JtZgAlDdFaJ0LE-YlGvu0-9Yort71P0.
County of San Diego. 2021. San Diego County General Plan. Adopted August 3, 2011. Accessed October 2025. https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/pds/gpupdate/docs/Cover-TOC-Vision-Update February2023.pdf.
County of San Diego. 2025. “County of San Diego General Plan” [homepage]. Accessed October 2025. https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/sdc/pds/generalplan.html.
SANDAG (San Diego Association of Governments). 2025. 2025 Regional Plan. December 2025. Accessed December 2025. https://www.sandag.org/regional-plan.
SDAPCD (San Diego Air Pollution Control District). 2022. 2022 Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS). Accessed May 8, 2025. https://www.sdapcd.org/content/dam/sdapcd/documents/grants/planning/Att.%20A% 20-%202022%20RAQS.pdf.
SDCRAA (San Diego County Regional Airport Authority). 2010. Gillespie Field Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
Adopted January 25, 2010; amended December 20, 2010. Accessed November 2025. https://www.san.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Gillespie-Field-Airport.pdf.
SDCRAA. 2011. MCAS Miramar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Adopted October 2008. Amended December 2010 and November 2011. Accessed November 2025. https://www.san.org/wp-content/uploads/ 2025/08/MCAS-Miramar-Airport-Land-Use-Compatibility-Plan.pdf.
Section 4.11: Noise
Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2020. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. Division of Environmental Analysis, Environmental Engineering, Hazardous Waste, Air, Noise, Paleontology Office. Sacramento, California. April 2020.
City of Santee. 2003. “Noise Element.” Santee General Plan. Adopted August 27, 2003. Accessed February 2026. https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/documents/planning-building/general-plan/gp-noise-element.pdf.
City of Santee. 2022. Draft City of Santee Housing Element Rezone Program Implementation PEIR.
SCH #2021100263. June 17, 2022. Accessed February 2026. https://files.ceqanet.lci.ca.gov/ 273555-2/attachment/kPH36a-BvtIip2P3KMGeAHkcfdsGgmkgqQJYD4ZUNn_k4z-gun6gsBes2_ lJtclkVL588OeyTA6H10Ct0.
FTA (Federal Transit Administration). 2006. CREATE Freight Noise and Vibration Model [MS Excel spreadsheet and user guide]. U.S. Department of Transportation. Accessed February 2026. https://railroads.dot.gov/ environment/noise-vibration/guidance-assessing-noise-and-vibration-impacts. 8 – REFERENCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 8-18
FTA. 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. FTA Report No. 0123. September 2018.
Harris & Associates. 2020. Fanita Ranch Development Environmental Impact Report (EIR). City of Santee. Accessed February 2026. https://www.weareharris.com/projects/ca/city-of-santee-fanita-ranch-development-eir/.
ISO (International Organization of Standardization). 2024. “Standard 9613-2 (Acoustics – Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors – Part 2: General method of calculation).” Geneva.
LLG (Linscott, Law & Greenspan). 2023. Local Traffic Analysis, Santee Auto Center. July 5, 2023. Accessed February 2026. https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/documents/planning-building/active-projects/ santee-auto-center/app-b-traffic-impact.pdf.
NASEM (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine). 2018. Development of a Highway Construction Noise Prediction Model. Prepared for National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Project 25-49 (NCHRP 25-49). Accessed February 2026. https://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/ nchrp/docs/NCHRP25-49/nchrp_25-49RCNM2.0finalreport.pdf.
SANDAG (San Diego Association of Governments). 2015. Transportation Forecast Information Center (TFIC). July 10, 2015. Accessed October 2025. https://sdforwarddata-sandag.hub.arcgis.com/apps/ SANDAG::transportation-forecast-information-center-tfic/explore.
Section 4.12: Population and Housing
City of Santee. 2022. City of Santee Housing Element Sixth Cycle 2021-2029. Adopted May 11, 2022. Accessed December 2025. https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/documents/planning-building/general-plan/ gp-housing-element.pdf.
City-Facts. 2025. “Santee.” Accessed December 2025. https://www.city-facts.com/santee/population.
Dugal, D. 2026. “Santee GIS parcel data.” Email from D. Dugal (City of Santee) to E. Seklecki (Dudek) and M. Mattson (City of Santee). January 15, 2026.
SANDAG (San Diego Association of Governments). 2024a. “Series 15 Regional Growth Forecast.” August 23, 2024. Accessed January 2026. https://adlsdasadsprodpublicwest.z22.web.core.windows.net/ datasurfer/series_15_regional_growth_forecast_one_pagers.pdf.
SANDAG. 2024b. “Series 15 Regional Forecast Santee Subregional Area.” July 24, 2024. Accessed January 2026. https://adlsdasadsprodpublicwest.z22.web.core.windows.net/datasurfer/ sandag_forecast_15_sra_santee.pdf.
SANDAG. 2025. 2025 Regional Plan. December 2025. Accessed December 2025. https://www.sandag.org/regional-plan.
SANGIS (San Diego Geographic Information Source). 2025. “SANGIS Interactive Map.” Accessed December 2025. https://www.sangis.org/pages/interactive-map.
United States Census Bureau. 2025. “Santee City, California.” Accessed December 2025. https://data.census.gov/profile/Santee_city,_California?g=160XX00US0670224. 8 – REFERENCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 8-19
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 2025. “Real Estate Acquisition and Relocation.” May 22, 2025.
Accessed January 2026. https://www.hud.gov/hud-partners/relocation.
Section 4.13: Public Services
Burke, R. 2026. “GUHUSD.” Email From R. Burke (GUHUSD employee) to M. Mattson and S. Sawa (Planning Department at City of Santee). January 5, 2026.
California School Dashboard. 2024. “Santee Summary.” Accessed September 2025. https://www.caschooldashboard.org/reports/37683610000000/2024.
California School Dashboard. 2025a. “School Performance Overview, Santana High.” Accessed January 29, 2026. https://www.caschooldashboard.org/reports/37681303737905/2024.
California School Dashboard. 2025b. “School Performance Overview, West Hills High.” Accessed January 29, 2026. https://www.caschooldashboard.org/reports/37681303730702/2025.
City of Santee. 2003. Final Master Plan Environmental Impact Report for the City of Santee General Plan Update.
Adopted June 6, 2003. Accessed September 2025. https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/documents/ planning-building/general-plan/santee-general-plan-feir.pdf.
City of Santee. 2017. City of Santee, California, Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update. June 2017. https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/documents/community-services/rules-and-regulations/ park-rec-master-plan-2017.pdf.
City of Santee. 2025. “Safety and Environmental Justice Element.” Santee General Plan. Adopted May 2025.
Accessed September 2025. https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/documents/planning-building/ general-plan/gp-safety-element.pdf.
City of Santee. 2025b. “Community Risk Assessment and Long-Range Master Plan: Staff Update on Achievements and Discussion Regarding Future Fire Department Needs.” October 22, 2025. Accessed January 29, 2026. https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/documents/fire/fire-10-22-presentation.pdf.
City of Santee. 2026. “Department Overview: Santee Fire Department.” Accessed January 29, 2026. https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/departments/fire-life-safety-services/department-overview.
County of San Diego. 2011. “Public Services.” In Final Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the General Plan Update. Adopted 2011. Accessed September 2025. https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/ content/dam/sdc/pds/gpupdate/docs/BOS_Aug2011/EIR/FEIR_2.13_-_Public_Services_2011.pdf.
County of San Diego. 2024. San Diego County Sheriff’s Office 2024 Annual Report. Accessed January 29, 2026. https://www.sdsheriff.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/9453/638900713866200000.
County of San Diego. 2025. “San Diego County Sheriff’s Office – About Us.” Accessed January 2026. https://www.sdsheriff.gov/bureaus/about-us.
Education Data Partnership. 2025a. “Santee.” Accessed December 2025. https://www.ed-data.org/district/ San-Diego/Santee.
8 – REFERENCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 8-20
Education Data Partnership. 2025b. “Grossmont Union High.” Accessed December 2025. https://www.ed-data.org/district/San-Diego/Grossmont-Union-High.
Friends of Santee. 2025. “About Us.” https://www.friendsofsanteelibrary.com/about-us.
GUHSD (Grossmont Union High School District). 2019. “About Us.” Accessed September 2025. https://www.guhsd.net/Schools/About-GUHSD/index.html.
Hamilton, M. 2026. Email from Dr. M Hamilton (SSD Assistant Superintendent Business Services) to M. Mattson and S. Sawa (Planning Department at City of Santee). January 22, 2026.
Office of Public School Construction. 2019. School Facility Program Handbook. January 2019. Accessed January 29, 2025.
Section 4.14: Recreation
City of San Diego. 2019. Mission Trails Regional Park Master Plan Update. February 2019. Accessed December 2025. https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/mtrp_mpu_aug2019_web.pdf.
City of Santee. 2003. Santee General Plan. Adopted August 27, 2003. Accessed October 2025. https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/departments/planning-building/planning.
City of Santee. 2017. Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update. Adopted June 2017. Accessed September 2025. https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/documents/community-services/parks-and-rec-master-plan.pdf.
City of Santee. 2025a. “Parks, Fields, and Trails in Santee, California.” Accessed September 2025. https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/our-community/parks-recreation/parks-fields-trails.
City of Santee. 2025b. City of Santee GIS Department. Date provided: December 19, 2025.
County of San Diego. 2016. “Goodan Ranch/Sycamore County Preserve: A San Diego County Open Space Preserve.” Parks and Recreation. November 2016. Accessed June 2025. https://www.sdparks.org/ content/dam/sdparks/en/pdf/BrochuresMiscellaneous/Goodan_Sycamore_Brochure_FINAL.pdf.
County of San Diego. 2023. Public Access Plan, Sycamore Canyon/Goodan Ranch Preserve, San Diego County, California. Adopted July 2023. Accessed December 2025. https://www.sdparks.org/content/ dam/sdparks/en/pdf/Resource-Management/sycamore-canyon/App%20N%20-%20Sycamore% 20Canyon%20Goodan%20Ranch%20County%20Preserve%20Public%20Access%20Plan.pdf.
Mission Trails Regional Park Foundation. 2025. “MTRP Foundation.” Accessed June 2025. https://mtrp.org/mtrp-foundation/.
Section 4.15: Transportation
CAPCOA (California Air Pollution Control Officers Association). 2024. “Measures to Reduce GHG Emissions, Transportation.” Chapter 3 in Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity. October 2024. Accessed November 2025. https://www.caleemod.com/documents/handbook/ch_3_transportation/chapter_3_transportation.pdf. 8 – REFERENCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 8-21
City of Santee. 2017. City of Santee Mobility Element. Adopted by City Council October 25, 2017. Accessed November 2025. https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/documents/planning-building/general-plan/ gp-mobility-element.pdf.
City of Santee. 2019. Sustainable Santee Plan: The City’s Roadmap to Greenhouse Gas Reduction. Adopted December 2019. Accessed January 2026. https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/documents/ planning-building/sustainable-santee-plan.pdf.
City of Santee. 2021. Active Santee Plan. Adopted January 2021. Accessed November 2025. https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/documents/engineering/active-santee-plan.pdf.
City of Santee. 2022. City of Santee VMT Analysis Guidelines. Prepared by Fehr & Peers. April 13, 2022. Accessed November 2025. https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/documents/engineering/traffic-street-light-signals/ santee-vmt-analysis-guidelines.pdf.
OPR (Office of Planning and Research). 2018. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts under CEQA. December 2018.
SANDAG (San Diego Association of Governments). 2002. “(Not So) Brief Guide to Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region.” April 2002. Accessed November 2025. https:/static1.squarespace.com/static/ 5f2c72bbae06804bc2c33086/t/5f565d00a081cc5ab34aa739/1599495425911/sandag+traffic+ estimates_publicationid_1140_5044.pdf?clickid=w3b0aqwCpzuJTfZ2A3XFA2tPUkH3QIzVuRoZxo0&irgwc= 1&im_rewards=1&utm_medium=pp&utm_source=Wildfire%20Systems&utm_campaign=Wildfire% 20Systems&channel=pp&subchannel=390418&source=Wildfire%20Systems.
SANDAG. 2025. 2025 Regional Plan. December 2025. Accessed January 2026. https://www.sandag.org/ regional-plan/2025-regional-plan.
Section 4.16: Tribal Cultural Resources
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, Nevada.
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. Heizer, 550–563. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.
Bibb, L.E. 1991. “Pablo Apis and Temecula.” Journal of San Diego History 37(4): 256–271. 8 – REFERENCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 8-22
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. “Conservation Element.” Santee General Plan. Adopted August 27, 2003. Accessed September 2025. https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/documents/planning-building/general-plan/ gp-conservation-element.pdf.
County of San Diego. 2007. Guidelines for Determining Significance, Cultural Resources: Archaeological and Historic Resources. Land Use and Environment Group, Department of Planning and Land Use, Department of Public Works, San Diego County, 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.
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.
8 – REFERENCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 8-23
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, DC: Smithsonian Institution.
Laylander, D. 1985. “Some Linguistic Approaches to Southern California’s Prehistory.” San Diego State University Cultural Resource Management Casual Papers 2(1): 14–58.
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, DC: Smithsonian Institution.
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.
8 – REFERENCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 8-24
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.
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.
Wilken, M. 2012. “An Ethnobotany of Baja California’s Kumeyaay Indians.” Master’s thesis; San Diego State University.
Section 4.17: Utilities and Service Systems
CalRecycle (California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery). 2025a. “Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates.” Accessed December 2025. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/ General/Rates.
CalRecycle. 2025b. “SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details – Sycamore Landfill (37-AA-0023).” Accessed December 2025. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1798?siteID=2871.
City of Santee. 2015. City of Santee Guidelines for Surface Water Pollution Prevention. June 2015. Accessed December 2025. https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/documents/engineering/storm-water/general/ guidelines-for-swpp.pdf.
8 – REFERENCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 8-25
City of Santee. 2016. City of Santee BMP Design Manual for Permanent Site Design, Storm Water Treatment and Hydromodification Management. February 2016. Accessed December 2025. https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/ departments/city-clerk/document-central/engineering%5Cstorm-water%5Cregulations-plans-reports% 5Cbmp-design-manual.pdf.
City of Santee. 2021. City of Santee Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management Program. July 2, 2021. Accessed December 2025. https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/documents/engineering/storm-water/ regulations-plans-reports/santee-jurmp.pdf.
City of Santee. 2025. “Consolidated Fee Schedule.” Effective July 1, 2025. Accessed December 2025. https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/documents/finance/consolidated-fee-schedule.pdf.
PDMWD (Padre Dam Municipal Water District). 2020. Water Shortage Contingency Plan. Accessed December 2025. https://www.padredam.org/DocumentCenter/View/5556/PadreDamWSCP2020.
PDMWD. 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2021. Accessed December 2025. https://www.padredam.org/DocumentCenter/View/5620/2020-Urban-Water-Management-Plan.
PDMWD. 2025. Sewer System Management Plan. Updated July 2, 2025. Accessed December 2025 https://padredam.org/DocumentCenter/View/3555/SSMP-July-2025?bidId=.
SDCWA (San Diego County Water Authority). 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. May 2021. Accessed December 2025. https://www.sdcwa.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/2020-UWMP_Final-Print-VersionJuly-2021-1.pdf.
Section 4.18: Wildfire
CAL FIRE (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection). 2024. CAL FIRE Strategic Plan 2024. Accessed September 2025. https://cal-fire-communications.paperturn-view.com/cal-fire-strategicplan24-web? pid=ODg8828162&v=2.
CAL FIRE. 2025. Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) Viewer. Accessed September 2025. https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/5065c998b4b0462f9ec3c6c226c610a9.
City of Santee. 2025a. “Safety and Environmental Justice Element.” Santee General Plan. Adopted May 2025.
Accessed September 2025. https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/documents/planning-building/ general-plan/gp-safety-element.pdf.
City of Santee. 2025b. “Community Risk Assessment and Long-Range Master Plan: Staff Update on Achievements and Discussion Regarding Future Fire Department Needs.” October 22, 2025. Accessed January 2026. https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/documents/fire/fire-10-22-presentation.pdf.
County of San Diego. 2023. Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. February 7, 2023. Accessed October 2025. https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/oes/emergency_management/ HazMit/2023/MJHMP_SD%20County%20Base%20Plan%202023.pdf. 8 – REFERENCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 8-26
DOI and USDA (U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2000. “Managing the Impact of Wildfire on Communities and the Environment: A Report to the President in Response to the Wildfires of 2000.” September 8, 2000. Accessed October 2025. https://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/ documents/resources/reports/2001/8-20-en.pdf.
Moench, R., and J. Fusaro. 2012. “Soil Erosion Control After Wildfire.” Fact Sheet No. 6.308. January 2012.
Accessed January 2026. https://methowconservancy.org/uploads/soil_erosion_control_after_fire.pdf.
Murphee, T., E. Szasz, and L.T. Kellen Jones. 2018. “Santa Ana Events in California: Global Scale Teleconnections and Potential Subseasonal to Seasonal Predictability.” 43rd National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Annual Climate Diagnostics and Prediction Workshop. October 2018. Accessed October 2025. https://www.weather.gov/media/sti/climate/STIP/43CDPW/43cdpw-TMurphree.pdf.
National Wildfire Coordinating Group. 2009. Guidance for Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy. February 19, 2009. Accessed October 2025. https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/ 2009-wfm-guidance-for-implementation.pdf.
USDCESO (Unified San Diego County Emergency Services Organization) and County of San Diego. 2022.
Operational Area Emergency Operations Plan. September 2022. Accessed October 2025. https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/oes/emergency_management/plans/ op-area-plan/2023-eop/EOP2023_Complete%20Plan.pdf.
Chapter 5: Cumulative Effects
SANDAG (San Diego Association of Governments). 2025. 2025 Regional Plan. December 2025. Accessed December 2025. https://www.sandag.org/regional-plan/2025-regional-plan.
SDCWA (San Diego County Water Authority). 2025. “Groundwater.” Accessed December 2025. https://www.sdcwa.org/your-water/local-water-supplies/groundwater/.
Chapter 6: Other CEQA Considerations
City of Santee. 2003. “Conservation Element.” Santee General Plan. Adopted August 27, 2003. Accessed September 2025. https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/documents/planning-building/general-plan/ gp-conservation-element.pdf.
City of Santee. 2017. “City of Santee Land Use Map.” Adopted July 2017. Accessed September 2025. https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/documents/planning-building/general-plan/gp-land-use-map.pdf.
DOC (Department of Conservation). 2025. Important Farmland Finder. Accessed September 2025. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/.
USDA Forest Service (U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service). 2025. Explore Recreation Activities.
Accessed September 2025. https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/ a695e1dbdeab4e8ba5c6ad4fd06a0ba0.
8 – REFERENCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 8-27
Chapter 7: Alternatives
City of Santee. 2003. “Conservation Element.” Santee General Plan. Adopted August 27, 2003. Accessed September 2025. https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/documents/planning-building/general-plan/ gp-conservation-element.pdf.
City of Santee. 2022. Draft City of Santee Housing Element Rezone Program Implementation PEIR.
SCH #2021100263. June 17, 2022. Accessed February 2026. https://files.ceqanet.lci.ca.gov/ 273555-2/attachment/kPH36a-BvtIip2P3KMGeAHkcfdsGgmkgqQJYD4ZUNn_k4zgun6gsBes2_lJtclkVL588OeyTA6H10Ct0.
City of Santee. 2024. Santee Town Center Specific Plan Update, Draft Environmental Impact Report.
SCH #2023090032. August 2024. Accessed February 2026. https://files.ceqanet.lci.ca.gov/ 290816-2/attachment/piZBJdtHdmeadxV9KbWDrY1wIRRqYu2fNxhnPSglNXEKVO4IEq8Q_01U76Ux53ovgENfI8KsEQ4ou7C0. 8 – REFERENCES
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 8-28
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 9-1
9 List of Preparers
9.1 City of Santee
Sandi Sawa, Director of Planning
Madeline Mattson, Principal Planner
Marni Borg, Environmental Planner
Amanda Daams, BBK Law, Partner
9.2 Dudek
Emily Rimmer, Project Manager
Kristen Stoner, Project Manager
Claire Alfano, Environmental Planner II
Tuesday Christopher, Environmental Planner III
Curtis Battle, Geospatial Analyst IV
Shawna Johnson, Paleontologist III
Keshia Montifolca, Archaeologist IV
Sabita Tewani, Transportation Specialist III
Nick Segovia, Environmental Acoustician II
Mark Storm, Environmental Acoustician V
Sarah Halterman, Air Resources Specialist IV
Ames Noll, Air Resources Specialist II
Colin Paludi, Air Resources Specialist I
Brock Ortega, Biology Senior Project Manager I
Danielle Mullen, Biologist III
Kathryn Landoe, Technical Editor
Lia Kershaw, Technical Editor
Rachel Dobrolenski, Formatting Specialist
9.3 Intersecting Metrics
Stephen Cook, Principal Traffic Engineer
Dale Aquino, Senior Transportation Engineer
9 – LIST OF PREPARERS
CITY OF SANTEE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM EIR 17100 MARCH 2026 9-2
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Appendix A
Notice of Preparation and Comment Letters
NOTICE OF PREPARATION
of a Draft Program Environmental Impact Report and
Notice of Public Scoping Meeting
Project: City of Santee Land Use Element Update
Project Case Files: General Plan Amendment GPA-2025-0002, Zoning Ordinance Amendment ZOA-2025-0001, and Program Environmental Impact Report ENV-2025-0009 Project Proponent: City of Santee
Project Location: Citywide (refer to Figure 1 and 2)
Program Environmental Impact Report: The City of Santee (City) is preparing a Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for a comprehensive update to its Land Use Element (project). The City will be the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the project. This Notice of Preparation (NOP) describes the proposed project that will be analyzed in the EIR and identifies areas of probable environmental effects of the project.
As specified in the CEQA Guidelines, the NOP will be circulated for a 30-day scoping period. Agencies, organizations, and interested members of the public are invited to provide input on the scope of the environmental analysis. If you are a responsible or trustee agency, the views of your agency are requested as to the scope and content of the environmental information which is germane to your agency’s statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. In the event that no response or well justified request for additional time is received by any responsible agency or trustee agency by the end of the review period, we presume that these agencies have no response. Comments may be submitted in writing during the review period and addressed to:
Madeline Mattson, Principal Planner
Planning & Building Department
10601 Magnolia Avenue
Santee, California 92071
[email protected]
(619) 258-4100 ext. 167
Written and electronic comments (file size should be a maximum of 10 MB unless a link is requested) The NOP comment period begins on May 21, 2025, and closes at 5:00 p.m. on June 20, 2025. All comments concerning the scope of the Program EIR must be submitted in writing to Madeline Mattson, Principal Planner, via email or written letter, prior to the close of the public comment period as noted above. Please indicate a contact City of Santee Land Use Element Update Program EIR NOP
person in your comment. The City will consider all written comments received during the noticed public scoping period in the preparation of the Program EIR.
Public Scoping Meeting:
The City will hold a scoping meeting to provide an opportunity for agency staff and interested members of the public to submit comments on the scope of the environmental issues to be addressed in the Program EIR. The public scoping meeting will be held on June 5, 2025 at City Hall, 10601 Magnolia Avenue, Santee, CA 92071 in the Council Chambers, from 5:00 PM to 6:30 PM. All parties are welcome to attend and are encouraged to recommend environmental issues, mitigation measures, and alternatives to the project that they believe should be addressed in the Program EIR.
Project Background:
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 reflects the community’s vision and aligns with the goals and policies of all the other elements.
The current Land Use Element was adopted by the City in 2003 with a horizon year of 2020. The primary objective of the adopted Land Use Element is to create a balanced mix of land uses that are compatible with one another. Land Use Element goals, policies and objectives aim to further the City’s commitment to accelerating housing production and supply, affirmatively furthering fair housing, and reducing vehicle miles traveled through access to multimodal transportation options.
Project Description:
The City is updating its Land Use Element, which is one of the seven components of the City’s General Plan.
The goal of updating this plan is to:
• Connect people to parks, open space, biking, walking, shopping, jobs, and transit. • Encourage economic development to create new businesses, jobs, retail and entertainment.
• Create more places to live.
This update will also look at ways to enhance some commercial and residential sites along the city’s main commercial corridors to create mixed-use communities. Mixed-use communities are places where people can live, work, shop, and play all in the same area.
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.
City of Santee Land Use Element Update Program EIR NOP
See Figure 1, Regional Location, for the location and regional context of the project. See Figure 2, Existing Land Use, for a map of the existing land use designations.
Discretionary Actions:
The City Council actions that would be considered for the proposed project include, but would not be limited to:
• Adopt the Land Use Element Update
• Certify the Program EIR for the Land Use Element Update • Adopt an ordinance updating the Zoning Map and Santee Municipal Code to update zoning requirements with land use designations.
Project Alternatives:
The Program EIR will evaluate a reasonable range of project alternatives, including the required No Project Alternative.
Potential Environmental Effect Areas:
The Program EIR will describe the reasonably foreseeable and potentially significant adverse effects of the proposed project (both direct and indirect) and identify which are found to be less than significant. The Program EIR will also evaluate the cumulative impacts of the project when considered in conjunction with other related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. The Program EIR will evaluate all of the topic areas, as follows:
• Aesthetics/Visual Resources
• Agricultural and Forestry
Resources
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources
• Energy
• Geology and Soils
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Land Use and Planning
• Mineral Resources
• Noise and Vibration
• Population and Housing
• Public Services
• Recreation
• Transportation
• Tribal Cultural Resources
• Utilities and Service Systems
• Wildfire
As environmental documentation for this project is completed, it will be available for review at the City’s Planning & Building Department located in Building 4 at Santee City Hall, 10601 Magnolia Avenue, Santee CA 92071, and online at:
https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/services/project-environmental-review
?282
?209
?54
?75
?274
?125
?56
?163
?52
?94
?78
?67
§¨¦15
§¨¦5
§¨¦8
§¨¦805
Project Site
0 1.75 3.5 n Miles
Date: 5/15/2025 User: cgardner Path: Z:\Projects\j1710001\MAPDOC\SanteeLandUseElement\SanteeLandUseElement.aprx Map: Figure 1 Regional Location Layout: Figure 1 Regional Location San Francisco
Project Site
Los Angeles
SOURCE: Esri Oceans Base
Notice of Preparation for the Santee Land Use Element Update Program EIR Regional Location
FIGURE 1
Mission Gorge Rd
N
Cuyamaca
St
N
M
a
g
n
ol ai Av
e
Woodside Ave
Riverside Dr
N
2 n
d
St
El Nopal
Ä67
Ä52
Ä125
0 4,000 2,000
n Feet Date: 4/18/2025 User: cgardner Path: Z:\Projects\j1710001\MAPDOC\SanteeLandUseElement\SanteeLandUseElement.aprx Map: Figure 2 Existing General Plan Land Use Designations Layout: Figure 2 Existing General Plan Land Use Designations Project Site
Existing General Plan Land Use
HL: Hillside/Limited
R1: Low Density Residential
R-1A: Low Density Residential
R2: Low-Medium Density Residential
R7: Medium Density Residential
R14: Medium-High Density Residential
R22: High Density Residential
OP: Office Professional
NC: Neighborhood Commercial
GC: General Commercial
TC: Town Center
IL: Light Industrial
IG: General Industrial
PUB: Public
P/OS: Park/Open Space
PD: Planned Development
R-B: Residential/ Business
SOURCE: Bing Maps 2025; City of Santee 2023; Open Street Map 2023 Notice of Preparation for the Santee Land Use Element Update Program EIR FIGURE 2
Existing Land Use
“Improving lives and communities through transportation” DISTRICT 11
4050 TAYLOR STREET, MS-240
SAN DIEGO, CA 92110
(619) 985-1587 | FAX (619) 688-4299 TTY 711
www.dot.ca.gov
June 17, 2025
11-SD-SR-52, SR-67, SR-125
PM VAR
City of Santee Land Use Element Update
NOP/SCH#2025051050
Ms. Madeline Mattson
Principal Planner
City of Santee
10601 Magnolia Avenue
Santee, CA 92071
Dear Ms. Mattson:
Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the City of Santee Land Use Element Update, located near State Routes 52, 67 and 125 (SR-52, SR-67, and SR-125) in Santee. The mission of Caltrans is to provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment. The Local Development Review (LDR) Program reviews land use projects and plans to ensure consistency with our mission and state planning priorities.
Safety is one of Caltrans’ strategic goals. Caltrans strives to make the year 2050 the first year without a single death or serious injury on California’s roads. We are striving for more equitable outcomes for the transportation network’s diverse users. To achieve these ambitious goals, we will pursue meaningful collaboration with our partners. We encourage the implementation of new technologies, innovations, and best practices that will enhance the safety on the transportation network. These pursuits are both ambitious and urgent, and their accomplishment involves a focused departure from the status quo as we continue to institutionalize safety in all our work.
Caltrans is committed to prioritizing projects that are equitable and provide meaningful benefits to historically underserved communities, to ultimately improve transportation accessibility and quality of life for people in the communities we serve.
We look forward to working with the City in areas where the City and Caltrans have joint jurisdiction to improve the transportation network and connections between Ms. Madeline Mattson, Principal Planner
6/17/2025