Santee council holds workshop on MSCP subarea plan; staff and consultants say plan would streamline river, trail and maintenance projects

SANTEE, Calif. — The Santee City Council on Aug. 13 heard a workshop on the city’s draft Subarea Plan for the San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP), a regional habitat-conservation framework staff and a consultant said would give the city regulatory certainty and speed some public works and private development reviews.

City principal environmental planner Marnie Borg and consultant Sean Skaggs summarized the plan, saying it would assemble and manage a 35-year preserve system, allow the city to convey “take” authorization to project proponents, and cover about 2,263 acres of managed preserve at full build-out. “The main purpose of this process is to put the local jurisdiction in the driver's seat,” Skaggs told the council during the presentation.

The plan, staff said, would combine conservation biology, land-use planning and administrative agreements with state and federal wildlife agencies to reduce the need for separate project-by-project consultation with those agencies and to provide a predictable set of minimization and mitigation requirements. Staff described near-term benefits for city maintenance projects in the San Diego River subunit — such as trail work, bridge repairs and defensible-space fuel-hazard reduction — that can now require expensive, individual environmental reviews.

Why it matters: Council members asked for concrete examples of how the plan would save time and money for city operations and developers. Councilmember comments and public testimony repeatedly sought figures showing past costs for project-by-project federal and state review and clearer explanation of what the city would be required to do in exchange for local “take” authority.

Council discussion and public comment: Several council members urged staff to return with itemized or project-level cost comparisons. One council member said staff should show how ongoing maintenance projects (drainage, bridge patching and pipeline repairs that tie into waterways) would be simplified; staff replied that similar maintenance projects now require separate environmental documents and that a program-level plan would reduce duplicated effort. Consultant Skaggs and staff highlighted that the plan would include minimization measures (nesting-bird protections, vernal-pool standards and no-net-loss wetland rules), and that some project proponents have already agreed to add species reintroductions for vernal pools on development-controlled parcels.

Public commenters pressed different points. A frequent public speaker who uses the name Truth said the proposal was a waste and asked why the city would reintroduce species such as Riverside fairy shrimp; Truth also called the plan a “scam.” Staff and the consultant answered that certain rare plants and invertebrates are present elsewhere in the county and that proponents of specific “hard-line” development projects are funding vernal-pool restoration within the preserve footprint.

Staff noted estimated resource needs in the draft: three potential staff positions (a subarea plan coordinator, a preserve steward and a city preserve manager estimated at roughly 1.5 full-time equivalents) plus baseline surveys, resource management plans and a fund to respond to changed circumstances such as invasive-species outbreaks or mega‑fires. A specific estimate for the San Diego River subunit’s changed‑circumstances contingency was cited at $75,000 in the presentation; other staffing cost ranges discussed during public remarks ranged higher, with a public commenter referencing $400,000–$600,000 per year as a possible range for new ongoing staff costs.

Next steps: Staff said the draft subarea plan and program Environmental Impact Report are out for public review and that the city will return with responses to comments, a formal council hearing and an implementation package (including an implementing agreement with wildlife agencies and a local incidental take ordinance) that would be scheduled if the council chooses to proceed. Staff also said the city will continue to pursue grant funding to offset baseline-survey and resource-management-plan costs.

Ending: Council members asked staff to bring back more concrete, project-level examples of past costs and estimated savings, and staff agreed to provide additional detail. The workshop did not include a council vote; it was presented for information and public comment only.